HomeMy WebLinkAbout7192_CCv0001-1.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 7192
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS APPROVING
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT STUDY FOR THE REDLANDS CROSSING
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, Walmart Stores, Inc. proposes to develop the Redlands Crossing Center
project which is a regional shopping center consisting of approximately 275,500 square feet of
commercial uses on approximately 32.9 acres, and for which an application for Conditional Use
Permit No. 945 and an application of a Tentative Parcel Map No. 19060 have been filed with the
City of Redlands; and
WHEREAS, the City of Redlands' Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing
on April 24, 2012 and subsequently adopted a motion recommending to the City Council
approval of the Socio-Economic/Cost Benefit Study prepared for the Redlands Crossing
Development Project(the"Project"); and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and related materials that
were reviewed by the City of Redlands' Planning Commission in making its recommendation of
approval have been forwarded to this City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 18, 2012 at
which City staff and members of the public had the opportunity to provide verbal and written
testimony on the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby approves the Socio-
Economic Cost/Benefit Study for the Project based upon the following findings:
A. THE PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE UNMITIGATED PHYSICAL BLIGHT
WITHIN THE CITY OR OVERBURDEN PUBLIC SERVICES INCLUDING, WITHOUT
LIMITATION,THE SUFFICIENCY OF POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES.
The Project will not create unmitigated physical blight within the City of Redlands
("City") or overburden public services, including without limitation police and fire protection
services. The Project consists of a commercial shopping center, utility and circulation
infrastructure improvements, physical amenities, site development amenities, and lighting. The
Project will be developed on a "keystone" site within the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan
("EVCSP") because of its location along San Bernardino Avenue and adjacent to the 210
Freeway. As such, the Project has the unique ability to create a highly accessible and visible
development within contiguous property boundaries without the limitations imposed by property
ownership patterns and existing street systems seen throughout much of the EVCSP area. The
Project would help develop an important gateway into the East Valley Corridor. Also, the
Project would provide a well designed commercial and retail center that will attract major
businesses to the area in order to provide a job base for the East Valley Corridor and strengthen
-I-
C:"Docutnents and Settings\sirwitiNLocal Settings\Temporaty Internet Files\OLK337\7192 Approving SECS Study Redlands Crossing(2).doc
the local economy, while ensuring a high-quality development through the Project's approved
plans and conditions of approval. To this end, the Project will locate new commercial, retail,
restaurant, office, auto fueling and neighborhood service uses along a major arterial and adjacent
to a freeway exit/entrance, and will facilitate the logical and orderly development of the City.
The Project will not create physical blight. The Project's design enhances community
connectivity, provides over seven (7) acres of site landscaping consisting of the planting of over
1,000 trees, and increases pedestrian and vehicular connections between the Project site and the
surrounding community, including a bus transit stop for Onmitrans along San Bernardino
Avenue. The Project does not conflict with the predominant uses present in the surrounding
areas, and provides a development with amenities that blend in with the surrounding community
through the use of architectural features (e.g., scale, massing), pedestrian amenities and
landscaping buffers.
Although the Project does not require significant regional public infrastructure upgrades
for any utility or service, the Project developer will make improvements to facilitate
implementation of the Project. These improvements include the widening of roads and
signalization of appropriate intersections. The Project developer will also pay transportation
impact fees to the City as its fair share of cost of improvements to the roadway system.
Additionally, the Project is located in an area that includes existing residential and commercial
uses that are served by existing utility and roadway infrastructure.
The Project would upgrade water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure and provide
connections to existing City infrastructure. Utilities will be placed underground. The Project
developer is required to fund its fair share allocation of any necessary public infrastructure
associated with development of the Project.
The Project when completed will generate a total of approximately 206 permanent new
jobs; this includes 85 new jobs at the Redlands Crossing Walmart in addition to the 230 jobs that
will be relocated from the existing Walmart on Redlands Boulevard, and 121 jobs from the
development of the nine (9) outparcels. The anticipated jobs include office workers, sales clerks,
maintenance personnel, restaurant personnel, management positions and business ownerships.
The Project also provides the City with a substantial net increase in property and sales taxes.
As determined in the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, annually, the Project will provide an
annual "new net" revenue of$459,936 to the City upon operation, and annual ongoing costs of
approximately $178,080. This equates to a revenue/cost ratio of a positive factor of 2.58. A
"worst case" scenario was utilized and only the annual "new net sales" that the project would
generate over the existing Walmart store was inputted. This was calculated by subtracting the
sales revenue for 2011 from the existing Walmart on Redlands Boulevard from the projected
annual sales for the Redlands Crossing Project. For every dollar the City spends, it will receive
$2.58 in revenue.
Commercial and retail centers generally provide the largest source of revenue for the City
and greatly assist in funding the high quality of services and infrastructure in the City. Because
the Project will expand the City's economic base by increasing property and sales tax revenues;
provide jobs; provide the infrastructure necessary to meet Project needs in an efficient and cost
-2-
C:\Documents and Settings\sirwin\I-ocal Settings\Tetnporaty Internet Files\OLK337\7192 Approving SECB Study Redlands Crossing(2).doc
effective manner; and place an emphasis on design, landscaping and pedestrian amenities in
order to bolster a sense of community, the City finds that the Project will not create physical
blight within the City or overburden public services, including without limitation police and fire
protection services.
B. THE BENEFITS TO THE CITY RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT OF
THE PROJECT OUTWEIGH ANY DIRECT COST TO THE CITY THAT MAY RESULT.
The Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study demonstrates that, annually, the Project will
generate a "new net" revenue of approximately $459,936 and approximately $178,080 in cost
and have a positive balance of$281,856. For every dollar the City spends in providing services
to the Project, the City will receive$2.58 in"new net"revenue.
The Project would provide a commercial and retail center with a mix of uses, a large
plaza within a food court, pedestrian amenities and connections throughout the center, including
over seven(7) acres of landscaping along street frontages and within the center, architectural and
cultural enhancements that include an early Redlands heritage theme applied to the nine (9) out-
parcels which collectively will be a positive benefit to the City. The Project as a whole enhances
the open space within the City by providing an abundance of landscaping and pedestrian
amenities, in the form of plazas, and landscaped buffers, and usable open space. Schools will be
enhanced with the payment of school fees. Further, with the additional revenue provided to the
City through increased property tax assessment, business license tax, sales tax and other revenue
services, indirect funding will be provided for cultural enhancements, downtown district
enhancements, park enhancements, public safety (Police and Fire) enhancements, and traffic
enhancements.
The EVCSP calls for conversion of agricultural land to commercial and industrial
development. Throughout the City and the County of San Bernardino, agricultural land is
continuing to be converted into other land uses as the economic feasibility of farming in the area
decreases. The conversion of agricultural land to alternative uses is representative of the lack of
its viability in the region due to the globalization of the industry. Although the site exists as
fallow land, the site has not been used for agricultural purposes for many years and the Project
site is no longer viable. Agricultural use of the site is not capable of success or continuing
effectiveness, nor are they practicable. The closure of the Sunkist Packing Plant which was
located to the east of the Project, proposed for commercial development, is indicative of the
transition of the area to more intensive uses.
Implementation of the Project will bring economic benefits to the City, including an
expanded economic base and additional sources of employment. As stated in the EIR and the
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, implementation of the Project will generate over 200
permanent new jobs.
In addition, construction employees would also be needed to construct the Project. It is
anticipated that the construction of the Project will generate a number of short-term employment
opportunities. The number of anticipated jobs associated with construction of the Redlands
Crossing Project will be in the hundreds.
-3-
C:\Docurnents and Settings\sirwirf\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files'\OLK337\7192 Approving SECS Study Redlands Crossing(2),doc
Commercial and retail centers generally provide the largest source of revenue for the City
and greatly assist in funding the high quality of services and infrastructure in the City, and the
vitality of the City's commercial centers are directly related to the fiscal health of the City. The
project has the potential to capture a greater share of the retail leakage that is taking place within
the City. Therefore, the Project may capture larger sales tax revenue from taxable sales when
compared with the existing Walmart on Redlands Boulevard. A Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared
by Tierra West Advisors estimates that the City experiences a leakage of approximately $907
annually per capita. The total consumption within a five minute drive from the Project is
approximately $239 million; this includes general merchandise, apparel, electronic, household
goods, and vehicle maintenance, prepared food and groceries. The consumption for such items
and services sharply increases to $1.5 billion within a 10 minute drive, and to $2.96 billion in a
15-minute drive from the proposed site. Thus, it is anticipated that the Project may realize a high
sales volume due to its proximity to a large consumer spending base, and higher inventory levels
than a non-supercenter WalmarL This will provide a substantial amount of long term revenue
that will help fund essential City services. This will increase the area's retail sales potential by
bringing more activity and buyers to the area. As a result, the City finds benefit of the
development proposal to the City outweighs any direct cost to the City that may result.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 16th day of October, 2012.
Peter Aguilar, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sam Irwin, City Clerk
1, Sam Irwin, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
adopted by the City Council at a special meeting thereof held on the 16th day of October, 2012
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Foster, Harrison,Bean and Gardner
NOES: Mayor Aguilar
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk
-4-
Feclerk'Resolutions\Res 7100-7200\7192 Approving SECS Study Redlands Crossing.doc
SOCIO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION CHECKLIST FORM
BACKGROUND
1 Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. 945; Minor Subdivision No. 330 (Tentative Parcel
Map No. 330).
2. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert D. Dalquest, AICP
Assistant Development Services Director
(909) 798-7555
3. Project Location:
The project site is located on the southeast corner of San Bernardino Avenue
and Tennessee Street.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Walmart Stores, Inc.
2001 SE 10th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
5. General Plan Designation:
The General Plan designation of the project site is Commercial.
& Zoning:
The project site is within Concept Plan No. 4 of the East Valley Corridor Specific
Plan (EVCSP). The land use designation is General Commercial District.
7. Description of Project:
The proposed Redlands Crossing Project is located within Concept Plan No. 4 of
the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Concept Plan No. 4 is the development
suitability analysis and land use plan for the development envelope that the
Redlands Crossing Project is within. Concept Plan No. 4 establishes limits,
parameters, and development standards that guide development based on
development constraints and opportunities. The Redlands Crossing Project is
designed to comply with the land use plan and development regulations of
Concept Plan No. 4 and the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. There are no
legislative actions associated with the project's entitlements.
The Redlands Crossing Project consists of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a
development plan to construct a 256,614 square foot retail and commercial
center on approximately 32,97 acres. The center will be anchored by a 196,114
square foot Walmart store and contain nine (9) out-parcel located around the
perimeter of the project site with a potential of 60,500 square feet of retail,
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 2
restaurant, fast food, service station and commercial uses. The site design
provides approximately 1,349 parking spaces, and a 0.56 acre detention basin to
capture site runoff.
The project will construct two new roadways. Pennsylvania Avenue is proposed
to be extended west from Tennessee Street and link with a new segment of New
York Street that will connect to San Bernardino Avenue. Access to the site is
provided at six locations. A full access point on San Bernardino Avenue is
located at the existing intersection of the northern leg of Tennessee Street. Two
full access points are located on the southern leg of Tennessee Street. Two full
access points are located on the future extension of Pennsylvania Avenue, and
one full access point on the future segment of New York Street.
The project also includes a Tentative Parcel Map to create eleven (11) parcels
on the entire 45 acres under the ownership of Walmart Stores, Inc. Parcel 11 is
approximately 7.78 acres and is located between the extension of New York
Street and existing Karon Street. Parcel 11 is not part of this project and is
outside the scope of the EIR as there are no plans to develop this parcel in the
foreseeable future. Activities near Parcel 11 will consist of mass-grading and off-
site infrastructure improvements that are to support development of the
Redlands Crossing Project. Off-site improvements within this area include storm
drain facilities related to the construction of New York Street, a block wall
immediately to the west of Karon Street and mass-grading to match grade
elevations between Karon Street and the new segment of New York Street. In
addition, a landscape buffer will be located on the west side of Karon Street,
which is part of the off-site improvements as proposed by the project. The
landscape buffer is a requirement of Concept Plan No. 4 and the East Valley
Corridor Specific Plan; and in combination with the block wall serves to buffer the
project from the residences on the east side of Karon Street. A copy of the
project's plans is included in the Agenda packet for the Planning Commission's
advanced review.
Walmart More (Parcel 10)
The proposed Redlands Crossing Walmart Store is approximately 196,114
square feet. The Draft EIR analyzed, as a worst case scenario, the total square
footage of the Walmart Store to be 215,000 square feet, which is approximately
nine (9) percent larger than the actual size of the store. The Walmart Store will
offer groceries and general retail merchandise including but limited to alcohol for
off-site consumption, pool chemicals, petroleum products, pesticides, and paint
products. The store will operate 24-hours per day seven (7) days per week. The
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 3
store will contain a garden center with an exterior customer pick-up facility for
pre-paid garden supplies. The store will also include a tire & lube express that
will provide routine servicing and preventative maintenance of vehicles. The tire
& lube facility will have limited hours of operation which would be Monday
through Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The store will also include a
pharmacy and possibly a vision, hearing and medical care center, food service, a
photo studio and photo finishing center, a banking center and other similar
services inside the store.
Parcels I to 9
As indicated previously, the Redlands Crossing Project will include nine (9)
outparcels with a potential for approximately 60,500 square feet. The outparcels
will consist of three (3) parcels for fast food restaurants with drive-through
facilities, three (3) parcels for retail uses which includes a service station, one
parcel that will be a food court area for retail and fast food restaurants without
drive-through facilities, one parcel for retail with a drive-through facility and one
parcel that will contain a sit-down restaurant. Development of the outparcels will
be done subsequent to construction of the Walmart Store and completion of all
on-site improvements. The building pads will require subsequent approvals by
the Planning Commission of either a Commission Review and Approval or a
Conditional Use Permit depending on the use and/or drive-through facilities.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located on the east side of the 210 Freeway at the San
Bernardino Avenue Interchange. The project site is surrounded by the following
land uses: to the north and south is vacant land; to the east are existing
residential neighborhoods and vacant land within Concept Plan No. 4; and to the
west are the 210 Freeway and Citrus Plaza Shopping Center beyond. All utilities
and public infrastructure are existing and within the project vicinity.
COST BENEFIT FACTORS:
The cost benefit factors are evaluated independently using the cost benefit model. A
positive or negative cost/benefit ratio will be derived by evaluating projects. A complete
model used to evaluate the project is available in the Community Development
Department. A summary of that analysis is provided here:
Fiscal Impact Analysis of the project is projected to result in annual "new net" non-
residential revenues of $459,936 to the Cit v ur)on operation, and annual ongoincl costs
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 4
of approximately $178,080. This equates to a revenue/cost ratio of a positive factor of
2.58. Staff used a "worst case" scenario and only inputted the annual "new net sales"
that the oroiect would,generate over the existing Walmart store. This was calculated by
subtracting the sales revenue for 2011 from the existing Walmart on Redlands
Boulevard from the proiected annual sales for the Redlands Crossing Project. The
complete Cost/Benefit Model results are attached herein as Exhibit"K.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND EFFECT ON THE CITY OF REDLANDS:
Identify the public infrastructure required for development of this project and identify the
source(s) of funding for these improvements. Identify the effects of such development
upon the City of Redlands.
List of public infrastructure required for the project:
The project is projected to construct an extensive network of public infrastructure
located along the proiect site's four frontages and within the vicinity of the project site
which is estimated at approximately $4,856,191. The project will also Rgly the City's
Development Impact Fees (DIF) that have been estimated to be approximately
$5,613,082; or will, get appropriate credit for the installation of public infrastructure
within a DIF program. Cumulatively, this project will significantly enhance the public
infrastructure within this area and contribute toward upgrading the existing public
improvements within the vicinity of the project site. Attached to this report is an
estimate by the Project's Engineer of the public infrastructure that will be constructed by
the project (See Exhibit "B" .
Sources of funding for these improvements to include developer installed payment of
impact fees, assessment districts, etc.:
The required public improvements will be installed with the development of the proiect
and prior to occupangy, as re aired by the Redlands Municipal Code. In addition, to
ensure construction of the required public improvements, the project will be required to
post a ,bond as a guarantee of performance. The project's, impact on off-site sewer
water and solid waste due to any increased demand will be offset by the payment of
development impact fees which is estimated to be approximate!Y $5,613,082; as well as
any appropriate credit.
The effect of the project upon the City of Redlands relative to public infrastructure is as
follows:
The proiect will have a oositive imDact as the street fronts aloe a San Bernardino
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 5
Avenue,Tennessee, Street, Pennsylvania Avenue and New York Street will either be
improved to its ultimate half width locations, or constructed in the case of Pennsylvania
Avenue and New York Street. .The project will enhance the traffic circulation in this area
with the construction of public infrastructure including the installation offive
signals. Two signals will be installed along Tennessee Street at the project entrance
and at Pennsylvania Avenue, two signals along San Bernardino Avenue at the project
entrance and at New York Street and the fifth at San Bernardino Avenue and Church
Street. The developer will offset any "direct" project impacts to the City's local public
infrastructure by constructing an extensive amount of new public infrastructure and the
payment of development impact fees.
BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT TO THE CITY OF REDLANDS
The following is a list of benefits that can be attributed to the proposed project. The
benefits may fall into the categories identified or a miscellaneous category. Each
benefit identified will be described in detail with supporting reasons as to how the item
benefits the community.
A. Citrus Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project preserve citrus? The
following are accepted ways to enhance or preserve citrus which may be determined to
be a benefit to the City of Redlands.
1 Provide conservation easement(s) on citrus groves the City
hopes to preserve,
2. Acquire citrus grove(s) and donate all or a portion of the
grove to the City.
3. Enhance viability and productivity of existing groves by
enhancing irrigation or adding frost water.
4. Maintain a viable buffer of citrus around the project (at least
3 rows).
5. Other ways to preserve citrus.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to citrus enhancement or preservation,
describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits
the community.
The project site is undeveloped for over 10
years, The site is within an urban environment near the 210 Freeway & San Bernardino
Avenue Interchange. an entry feature at each
of the four corners of the in center consistin of a stone wall and landsca in
that includes the olanting of citrus trees. The corner feature at San Bernardino Avenue
and New York Street will contain a small grqve.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 6
B. Cultural Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve
cultural aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance and/or
preserve cultural aspects of the community which may be determined to be a benefit to
the City of Redlands.
1 Contributes to "art in public places" concept to a minimum of
1% of total project value.
2. Contributes to the alleviation of problems at cultural sites.
3. Provides an electronic library available to the public.
4. Enhances or contributes to current services or cultural
resources.
5. Contribute to performing arts venues.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to cultural enhancements or preservation,
describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits
the community.
The proiect does not propose contributions or enhancements to cultural aspects of the
community as listed above. The project will pay City established Development Impact
Fees and provide additional revenue from increased property tax assessment, net new
sales tax,. business license tax, and other revenue sources that will indirectly provide
funding which will contribute to cultural
facilities within the City.
C. Heritage Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve
heritage aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance
and/or preserve heritage aspects of the community which may be determined to be a
benefit to the City of Redlands.
1. Renovates existing historic homes,
2. The project has design features which include garage doors
do not face street; 50% wrap around porch on 1-1/2 sides;
broad overhangs on roof; driveway located on the side of
house or a circular drive; decorative wood, masonry or
wrought iron fence.
3. Adaptive reuse of historic structures in appropriate zones.
4. Forming a new or annexing to an existing historic district.
5. Designation of a structure as an individual historic resource.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to heritage enhancements or preservation,
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 7
describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits
the community.
The project site is 32.97 acres of vacant, fallow land that does not contain any heritage
resources that would afford the project an opportunity to preserve or enhance.
D. Architectural Enhancements. Does the project enhance architectural aspects of
the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance architectural aspects of
the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.
1 Provide architectural or decorative enhancements to the
project which exceed normal architectural standards.
2. Trees or other landscaping amenities that exceed minimum requirements.
3. Contribution of off-site enhancements in the public right-of-
way, such as sidewalk installation and street tree
replacement.
4. Assisting in undergrounding of utility lines.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to architectural enhancements, describe in
detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the
community.
The proposed development will greatly enhance the aesthetics of the project area by
developing an attractive commercial/retail center at the northern gateway into the City
from the 210 Freeway. The project depicts a contemporary design that utilizes a variety
of architectural elements and building materials; as well as a substantial amount of
landscaping that will cover 7.25 acres (22%) of the 32.97 acre site; including the
planting of 1,065 trees that will add greatly to the City's urban forest. The color scheme
of the project is an earth tone palette and when considering the architectural elements,
building materials, and significant landscaping, the proiect will create an attractive portal
into the City.
E. Historic Downtown Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance
or preserve the historic downtown of the community? The following are accepted ways
to enhance and/or preserve the historic downtown of the community which may be
determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.
1. Contributes financially to viability of core downtown within
expanded downtown.
2. Renovate old buildings.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 8
3. Within an expanded downtown extends DRBA streetscape
enhancements.
4. Contributing to the restoration of original building facades of
existing structures
5. Re-establishing historical "pedestrian oriented" street
frontages where original buildings have been removed.
6. Provides unique adaptive use of historic building.
7. Contributes to alternative means of transportation.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to historic downtown enhancements or
preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the
item(s) benefits the community.
The project is not located within the historic downtown district. The project will pay City
established Development Impact Fees and provide significant additional revenue from
increased property tax assessment, new net sales tax, business license tax, and other
revenue sources that will indirectly provide funding that could be utilized to enhance
and/or maintain the downtown infrastructure and public amenities. In addition, the
project represents a regional development that will attract patrons from surrounding
communities within a 15 to 20 minutes drive that may encourage the opportunity to
generate business within the downtown area as these shoppers explore other areas of
Redlands for dining, fuel, entertainment, shopping, etc.
F. Job Enhancements. Does the project enhance jobs for the community? The
following are accepted ways to enhance jobs for the community which may be
determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.
1. Provides jobs for the community.
2. Brings in revenue from outside the city.
3. Internship opportunities for students at universities, high
school and colleges.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to job enhancements, describe in detail the
benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.
The project consists of a 256,614 square foot commercial/retail center that will contain
a Walmart Supercenter and approximately 60,500 square feet of outpa,rcel
development that will contain restaurants, retail, and commercial uses. The project
when completed and occupied is anticipated to create a total of 206 permanent new
iobs; this includes 85 new jobs at the Redlands Crossing Walmart to go with the 230
iobs that will be relocated from the existina Walmart on Redlands Boulevard and 121
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 9
'obs from the development of the nine outparcels. In addition construction of the
project will create a substantial number of "obs which will bring additional revenue to the
Ci!y. The location of the proiect site off the 210 Freeway and the regional nature of the
Walrnart Sujoercenter will sicinificantiv ca Lure' revenue from the surroundincl
communities of Highland, Sats Bernardino Loma Linda and Yucaipa. The development
will also enable the Citv of Redlands to capture revenue that is being lost within the Cit
from its residents which are traveling outside of the Cit ' to purchase Qoods and
services such as electronics that are not available with in-town businesses.
O. Open Space Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or
preserve open space aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to
enhance acid/or preserve open space within the community which may be determined
to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.
1. Hardcape feature that enhances wildlife- water/food/
shelter.
2. Enhanced landscape on commercial project which conceals
infrastructure.
3. Waterscaping which increases illusion of open space.
4. Provides open space in addition to zoning requirement.
5. Provides a Planned Residential Development
6. Provides a usable conservation easement across open
space in perpetuity.
7. Preserves access for wildlife migration corridor.
8. Provides undisturbed refuge area for wildlife.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to open space enhancements or
preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the
item(s) benefits the community.
The proiect complies with the re uired open setbacks and lot coverage in accordance
with the EVCSP Approximately 22% or 7.25 acres of the 32.97 acres will be full
landscaped that will include the )anti of 1,065 trees that will substaptially add to the
City's urban forest.
H. Park Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve
parrs of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance and/or preserve
parrs within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of
Redlands.
1. Adds improved parkland.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 10
2. Adds parkland beyond requirements.
3. Provides pedestrian and/or bike trails to parks or provides
extension of existing pedestrian and/or bike trails from the
project site.
4. Adds meeting rooms accessible to local groups on a
frequent basis.
5. Improves or adds to existing landscape and/or streetscape
at or near the project site.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to park enhancements or preservation,
describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits
the community.
The project entails the development of an attractive 256,614 square foot regional
commercial/retail center that is adjacent to the 210 Freeway and San Bernardino
Avenue Interchange. This type of development and location do not afford the project
any opportunities to provide park enhancement or preservation. The project will r)av
City established Development Impact Fees and provide additional revenue from
increased property tax assessment, net new sales tax, business license tax, and other
revenue sources that will indirectly provide funding that may be used to benefit Cit
parks.
1. Public Safety Enhancements. Does the project enhance public safety aspects of
the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance public safety within the
community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands,
1 Security infrastructure is provided in an architecturally
acceptable manner.
2. Exterior television monitoring on commercial project.
3. Provide a building site or fully equipped fire station or
contributes to dedicated City account for future construction.
4. Provides significant additional fire equipment as determined
by the Fire Department.
5. Provides for a police substation (subject to City approval).
6. Provides for a building site for a new facility.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to public safety enhancements, describe in
detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the
community.
The ro`ect will be re aired to install a number of surveillance cameras within the
Socia-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 11
parking area and at the entrance into the store which will enhance public safety in
responding to calls for service from this development. The project will also pa
approximaLely5
613,082 of Development Impact Fees which have been established
by the City to fund various public facilities, including police. The project will also provide
additional revenue from increased property tax assessment, new net sales tax,
business license tax, and other revenue sources that may assist in funding police
services.
J. School Enhancements. Does the project enhance schools or their operations
within the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance schools within the
community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.
1. Senior citizen development adds revenue but no impact.
2. Provides day care and after school program(s).
3. Project is close to schools serving the project.
4. Contributes equipment or other enhancements to existing
day care and after school programs.
5. Assist schools with land or financing (such as Mello Roos).
If this project provides,benefit(s) that apply to schools, describe in detail the benefit(s)
with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.
The project is not a residential development and is not considered growth inducinci in
nature, either directly or indirectly.The project will pay State established school fees
based on commercial building square footage rates prior to building permit issuance
that is estimated sist in fundinq school
facilities.
K. Traffic. Does the project reduce traffic, enhance systems to improve traffic
conditions or otherwise improve traffic within the community? The following are
accepted ways to improve traffic within the community which may be determined to be
a benefit to the City of Redlands,
1 Provide financial mitigation which helps alleviate parking
problems in town i.e. by contributing to the parking district.
2. Incorporate "traffic calming" elements into the design of the
circulation system.
3. Support for alternative forms of public transportation or
public transportation facilities.
4. Add biking and pedestrian access to off campus intellectual
or entertainment resources.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 12
5. Have a unique method of prod uct/i nvento ry delivery.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to traffic, describe in detail the benefit(s)
with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.
The project will construct a new bus stop/turn-out for Omnitrans along the site's San
Bernardino Avenue frontage which directly supports an alternate form of public
transportation. In addition, the project will construct an extensive network of public
infrastructure located along the project site's four frontages and within the vicinity that is
estimated to cost approximately $4,856,191. The project will also pay the City's
Development Impact Fees that have been estimated to be approximately $5,613,082.
Cumulatively, this project will significantly enhance the public infrastructure within this
area and contribute toward upgrading the area's existing public improvements.
L. Wastewater System Enhancements. Does the project enhance the wastewater
system within the community? The following are accepted ways to improve the
wastewater system within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to
the City of Redlands.
1. Provide a dual system to use potable and non-potable
water.
2. Provide financial contributions to tertiary facilities at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
3. Improve water quality.
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to the wastewater system, describe in detail
the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.
The project will construct a dual system for potable and non-potable water along the
project's San Bernardino Avenue, and New York Street frontages. The project does not
propose any further enhancements to the wastewater system, nor does the nature of
the development within this area necessitate the need or requirement to provide
additional wastewater system enhancements. The project will pay City established
Development Impact Fees and provide additional revenue from increased property tax
assessment, net new sales tax, business license tax, and other revenue sources that
may assist in funding new public infrastructure to benefit the City's wastewater system.
M. Miscellaneous Preservation or Enhancements. Does the project enhance or
preserve elements within the community?
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 13
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to enhancement or preservation of elements
that are important to the City, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons
as to how the item(s) benefits the community.
According to a Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Tierra West Advisors in February
2010 for MeasureQ, (Initiative For Responsible Retail in Redlands), the project's trade
area is approximately 3 to 6 miles, or a 15 to 20 minute drive. The project has the
potential to capture a greater share of the retail leakage that is taking place within the
City. Therefore, the project may capture larger sales tax revenue from taxable sales
when compared with the existing Walmart on Redlands Boulevard. Tierra West
Advisors estimates that the City experiences a leakage of approximately $907 annually
per capita. The total consumption within a five minute drive from the project Is
approximately $239 million; this includes general merchandise, apparel, electronic,
household goods, and vehicle maintenance, prepared food and groceries. The
consumption for such items and services sharply increases to $1.5 billion within a 10
minute drive, and to,$2.96 billion in a 15-minute drive from the proposed site. Thus, it is
anticipated that the Redlands Crossing Project may realize a high sales volume due to
its Proximity to a large consumer spending base, and higher inventory levels than a
non-supercenter Walmart. This will provide a substantial amount of long term revenue
that will help fund essential City services.
SOCIAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
This project may create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services for
those social factors checked below within the "Potentially Significant," "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation" or "Less Than Significant" as indicated by the checklist on
the following pages.
Agricultural/Citrus Removal X Police Services — Recreational Programs
Wildlife/Habitat X Downtown Impacts — Land Use Compatibility
X Traffic Residential Design — Schools
Fire Services Cultural Facilities
Paramedic Services Park Facilities
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
V I find that the proposed project will not create unmitigable physical blight or
overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or
evaluation is needed.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 14
I find that although the proposed project could create unmitigable physical blight
or overburden public services in the community, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project by the applicant.
I find that the proposed project may create unmitigable physical blight or
overburden public services in the community, and additional information or
evaluation is needed in the following areas:
I find that the proposed project has already been evaluated for socio-economic
impacts and the prior evaluation adequately evaluated this project.
Signed:
Robert D. Dalquest, AICD
Assistant Development Services Director
City of Redlands
March 15, 2012 (Revised March 19, 2012 at ERC Meeting)
EVALUATION OF SOCIAL FACTORS
Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," "Less Than Significant Impact," and "No Impact" answers are provided
on the attached sheets.
Patent['ally
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. AGRICULTURALICITRUS REMOVAL. Would the
proposal:
a) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses) ?
b) Remove active citrus groves from production?
Awiculturall/Ciltrus Removal.
1.a,b) The project site contains soils designated by the California Department of
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 15
Conservation as "'Prime Agricultural Lands", as identified in Figure 5.2 of the
MEA/EIR. Conversion of important agricultural land to urban uses was identified
as an unavoidable significant impact in the Final EIR prepared for the East Valley
Corridor Specific Plan (EVCSP). In approval of the EVCSP, a statement of
overriding considerations was adopted and acknowledged this unavoidable
impact as acceptable because of the important benefits provided by the plan,
particularly to increased employment opportunities and an improved
jobs/housing balance. Thus, the potential impact to farmland would be
considered less than significant. In terms of citrus grove removal, the project site
does not contain any groves and has been fallow for over 10 years.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant hAtigation Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
2. WILDLIFEIHABITAT/OPEN SPACE
PRESERVATION. Would the proposal:
a) Eliminate or have negative impact upon
wildlife corridors?
b) Tend to urbanize open space
impacting preservation and
conservation of natural
resources?
c) Interfere with use of recognized
trails used by joggers, hikers,
equestrians or bicyclists?
d) Eliminate, reduce, or have any
negative impact upon wildlife habitat
areas to include the protection of fringe
or buffer areas?
Wildlife/Habitat/Qpen_Space Preservation.
2.a) According to the Biotic Resources Map (Figure 7.1 of the MEA/EIR), the subject
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 16
site is not within a wildlife corridor.
2.b) The project site is within an urban area consisting of commercial, light industrial
and residential uses. No part of this project would adversely impact open space.
2.c) According to the General Plan Trails Map (Figure 7.1) contained in the Open
Space and Conservation Element, the project site is not near any designated
trail.
2A) According to the Biotic Resources Map (Figure 7.1 of the MEA/EIR), the subject
site is not within or near a wildlife habitat area and does not have the potential to
cause a negative impact to biotic resources.
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Incorporated Impact Impact
3. TRAFFIC. Would the proposal:
a) Result in increased vehicle trips or
congestion?
b.) Create additional traffic so as to be in
conflict with the policies of the General
Plan?
c.) Does traffic impact livability of a
residential neighborhood on streets
which, due to design or terrain
features, street side development or
other factors, have greater than usual
sensitivity to increased traffic? V
d.) Create additional traffic so as to increase the
level of service on roadways that are adjacent
to or in the vicinity of the project?
Traffic IMpacts.
3.a) According to the traffic study that was prepared, the project is anticipated to
generate approximately 19,481 daily vehicle trips during the weekday, with 1,402
trips occurring during the PM peak hour, and 22,907 daily vehicle trips during
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 17
Saturday, with 1,941 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Although the
project will lower the existing level-of-service (Existing Plus Project) at several
surrounding intersections, this will be mitigated to a less than significant level
with implementation of five (5) mitigation measures contained in the EIR
prepared for the project. In addition, the project will pay the City's Development
Impact Fees, the CMP Regional Development Impact Fee and will pay a "fair
share" contribution for those intersections requiring mitigation which are not in
the City's Fee Program. Payment of these fees will mitigate cumulative impacts
from the project's traffic for Opening year 2013 traffic conditions and 2030 traffic
conditions.
1b) Additional traffic generated by the development will not be in conflict with the
policies of the General Plan. Section 5.20 of the Circulation Element establishes
City standards for traffic levels-of-service which bases a significant impact of a
project on the LOS C standard. In other words, a significant impact results when
the LOS of a street or intersection drops below LOS C, or in the instance when
the existing LOS is either D, E, or F, and drops to a lower LOS. The project will
be required to construct improvements at five intersections that will result in a
less than significant impact to the "existing" traffic conditions with the addition of
the project's traffic.
3.c) The project site is within an area designated for commercial uses and is
accessed from San Bernardino Avenue, which is a major arterial street, and is
adjacent to the 210 Freeway northbound and southbound ramps at San
Bernardino Avenue. Traffic generated by the project will not way impact the
livability of residential neighborhoods or streets.
3.d) See 3(a) and (b) above.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 18
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact lrnpact
4. FIRE AND PARAMEDIC SERVICES. Will the
proposal result in:
a) Requiring fire and paramedic services that are
beyond the current capabilities of the Fire
Department?
b) An increase in response time for essential fire
or paramedic services to the remainder of the
community?
c) The need for additional fire or paramedic
facilities or equipment?
Fire and paramedic services.
4.a) The Fire Department indicates that current capabilities are adequate to provide
fire and paramedic service demands for this development. The project will
incorporate fixed fire protection systems which will mitigate any impacts relative
to this issue.
4.b) The development will not impact essential fire or paramedic services to the
remainder of the community. The project would be served by Fire Station No.
263 located at Orange Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, and is below the
minimum response time.
4.c) Present capabilities of the Fire Department will not require additional fire or
paramedic facilities or equipment as a result of this project. The project will pay
Development Impact Fees which have been established by the City to fund
public facilities, including fire and paramedic services. In addition, the project will
be assessed the Paramedic Assessment in accordance with Proposition P.
Also, the project will provide additional revenue from increased property tax
assessment, sales tax, franchise fees, business license tax, and other revenue
sources that may assist in funding fire operations.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 19
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
5. POLICE SERVICES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Requiring police services that are beyond the
current capabilities of the Police
Department?
b) An increase in response time for essential
police services to the remainder of the
community?
c) The need for additional police facilities or
equipment?
d) Increase in crime as a result of
the type of business?
Police Services.
5.a-d) The project concerns a 256,614 square foot commercial/retail center. Present
capabilities of the Redlands Police Department would not be adversely impacted
with project development, however, cumulatively the project will along with future
development under the General Plan, require increased police services. The
project will pay Development Impact Fees which have been established by the
City to fund public facilities, including police. The project will also provide
additional revenue from increased property tax assessment, new net sales tax,
franchise fees, business license tax, and other revenue sources that may assist
in funding police services.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 20
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
6. DOWNTOWN IMPACTS. Would the proposal result
in:
a) A reduction of the number or types of
businesses located in the downtown? — —
b) An unfair or unreasonable competitive
disadvantage to existing businesses
downtown? — —
c) Creation of vacant buildings and the potential
for blight? — —
d) Cause an unreasonable
increase in traffic downtown? — —
e) Economic and social effects of
businesses competing with
downtown businesses? — —
Downtown Impacts.
6.a-e) According to the Tierra West Advisors Fiscal Impact Analysis, the Downtown
area retailers represent approximately 46% of the taxable sales in the City while
the existing Walmart on Redlands Boulevard represents only 8.54% of the
taxable sales. The project is located approximately one mile from the
Downtown area. The project concerns the development of a 256,614 square
foot retaillcommercial center that will be anchored by a 196,114 square foot
Walmart Store and 60,500 square feet of outparcel development with retail,
restaurant, and commercial uses. The firm of The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
prepared an Urban Decay Study for the project's Environmental Impact Report
to evaluate the potential economic impacts of a retail development project if
such impacts have the potential to indirectly result in adverse physical changes
to the environment that may manifest themselves in the form of urban decay.
Based on the Urban Decay Study relative to the Downtown area, the study
concluded that the project will not have a significant impact on the Downtown
area based on the following factors:
1). Residual demand is anticipated to be sufficient to support the project without
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No, 330
Page 21
diverting sales from existing General Merchandise, Apparel, Furniture, and
Other/Specialty (GAFO) stores and restaurants,
2). Small merchants in the Downtown already face big box competition from the
Citrus Plaza shopping center and the Redlands Town Center, and the project, in
and of itself, will not significantly increase the market draw of these established
centers as it relates to Downtown businesses.
3). The Downtown's existing vacancy rate at 8.2% is within the "normal vacancy"
rate for relatively healthy retail markets (usually 5% to 10%), and there are no
visible indications of urban decay (i.e., dilapidated buildings or marginal uses).
And,
4). The Downtown has a strong representation of boutique retail, eating, and
drinking establishments, and service-based businesses that offer a mix of
merchandise and services that are not directly comparable to the type of goods
available at the type of big box stores that would locate at the project, or at the
Citrus Plaza Center and Redlands Town Center developments.
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Nfigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
7. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with existing codes and or standards? N/A
b) Meet minimum point standards of the NIA
Residential Development Allocation
process?
Residential Design,
7.a,b) The project is a 256,614 square foot retail/commercial development within an
area designated for commercial uses. No part of this project contains a
residential component.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 22
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
8. CULTURAL FACILITIES. Would the proposal result
in:
a) Impacts to an historic residential structure,
neighborhood, or district? V
b) Impacts to an historic commercial structure or
district?
c) Impacts to cultural facilities such as the
Smiley Library, Redlands Bowl, Lincoln
Shrine, Joslyn Center, Community Center,
etc?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
e) Potential to disturb existing religious
facilities?
f) Impact or restrict religious or sacred
uses?
Cultural Facilities.
8.a-b) The project site is vacant land and does not contain any historic residential or
commercial structures on the property,
8.c) The project will develop an attractive commercial/retail center at the gateway to
the City from the north along the 210 freeway. The project will not be growth
inducing and would not ultimately create an increase in demand upon the cultural
facilities of the City. The project will pay Development Impact Fees and provide
an increase in revenue to the City from increased property tax assessment, new
net sales tax, franchise fees, business license tax, and other revenue sources
that may assist in providing funding for existing cultural facilities. Thus, the
project will not have an adverse impact to cultural facilities.
8.d) No part of this project has the potential to affect unique ethnic cultural values.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 23
8.e-f) The project site is undeveloped land within an area designated for commercial
uses and will not result in impacts to existing religious facilities or restrict
religious uses.
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mligation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
9. PARK FACILITIES AND RECREATIONAL
PROGRAMS. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in use or demand for park facilities
or programs to include manpower, facilities or
equipment?
b) A ratio of parkland to population which
exceeds standards and or goals established
by the General Plan?
Park Facilities and Recreational Programs.
9.a,b) Based upon the absence of a residential component, the project will neither
adversely affect existing or planned park facilities or recreational programs within
the City nor create a significant new demand for additional recreational facilities.
The project will pay development impact fees and provide an increase in revenue
to the City from increased property tax assessment, new net sales tax, franchise
fees, business license tax, and other revenue sources that may assist in
providing funding that could be used to benefit park facilities and recreational
programs.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 24
Potentially
Sianificant
Issues and Supporfing Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact
10. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Land uses that are not compatible or
consistent with the General Plan?
b) Economic impacts on
businesses and small property
owners from a project
C) Physical separation or division
of an existing community
d) Loss of jobs for the community?
e) Overcrowding of housing?
Land Use Compatibility.
10.a) The project is a commercial/retail development and is consistent with the
Commercial designation of the General Plan. This designation is intended to
provide areas suitable for a mixture of retail and commercial enterprises.
10.b) The project does not pose an economic impact on businesses and small
property owners. The project will contain a new Walmart Supercenter, retail,
restaurant and commercial establishments that are intended to serve a trade
area of 3 to 6 miles.
10,c) The project is a retail development within an area designated for general
commercial uses and adjacent to a regional and local transportation network. No
part of this project has the potential to separate or divide an existing community.
10.d) The project when completed and occupied is anticipated to create a total of 206
permanent new jobs; this includes 85 new jobs at the Redlands Crossing
Walmart to go with the 230 jobs that will be relocated from the existing Walmart
on Redlands Boulevard, and 121 jobs from the development of the nine
outparcels. This increase will not be at the expense of other businesses located
within the City, as this project will contain retail, restaurant and commercial
businesses.
Socio-Economic Evaluation Checklist
Conditional Use Permit No. 945
Minor Subdivision No. 330
Page 2
10.e) Based upon the absence of a residential component, no part of this project has
the potential to result in overcrowding of the current housing stock within the City.
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources. Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Wtigatlon Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
11. SCHOOLS. Would the proposal result in:
a) Creating an overcapacity in schools? a+'
b) The need for additional school facilities or
equipment ?
c) Land uses not consistent with or
compatible with existing
educational facilities in
community?
d) Social or academic impacts on
students resulting from school
closures.
Schools.
11.a-d) Based on the absence of a residential component to this project and a
determination that the project will not manifest a growth-inducing impact, the project
does not have the potential to adversely impact schools. Any potential direct and/car
indirect impacts attributable to the project will be offset through the payment of State
established school fees assessed at the time of building permit issuance. The amount
estimated that the School district will receive from the project is $129,485.
Exhibit "A"
TABLE I
CITY OF REDLANDS,MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY:
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 9 YEARS YEAR 10
LAND USE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 24312 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
RURAL LIVING(0.2-0.4 dh..e) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VERY-COW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-2.7&9a ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-6.0 dula"e) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEVELOPER
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSIT'Ir'RESIDENTIAL(0-8.0 dgaa.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-15.0 d&iII) a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0
_HIGH_DENSITY j9-27 0 dWad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0
TOTAL,RESIDENTIAL UNITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0
CUMULATIVE,RESIDENTIAL UNITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
PROJECT RESIDENTS 11
RURAL LIVING(0.4-0,2 dWacre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-2.7 dufaare) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-6.0"acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-8.0 dd ) 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-16.0 dull-) 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
HIGH DENSITY0-27 dOfafael 0 0 9 9 9 9 q q q 9 9
TOTAL,PROJECT RESIDENTS 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a
CUMULATIVE,PROJECT RESIDENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
CUMULATIVE PROJECT ACREAGE/Z
RURAL LINING(0,4-02 dulc ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Loo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(D-Z7 dul-) 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 000 000 oCo om 0.00 0,00 NA
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-(Lo dtme) 0.00 OCO 0-00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1100 0.00 0.00 NA
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(o-80 dfam) aloo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 NA
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(0-15.0 clidacre) 0.00 (Loo (Loo 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0-00 0.00 0.00 NA
MGH DENSITY fQ_27 dWacy�e) 90-0 0l-00 a.-M 11.0-0 9-A 0.00 Q._QQ 1-00 A.0-0 9.000 NA
CUMULATIVE,PROJECT ACREAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 uo 0.00 0.00 0_00 000 NA
LAND NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES,ANNUAL 13
RETAIL 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 33.0
INDUSTRIAL 0.0 a 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0.0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
ANNUAL TOTAL,NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 33.0
LAND NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES,CUMULATIVE
RETAIL ILI) 0.0 00 0.0 0A (La 0.0 33.0 33.0 33-0 NA
INDUSTRIAL 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 (ILO 0'0 0,0 NA
OTHER NOW-RESIDENTIAL P-9 4_0 22 60 All 2_0 0-0 010 A-0 N6
CUMULATIVE TOTAL,NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 0-0 (To 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 330 33.0 33.0 NA
LAND NON-RESIDENTIAL EOUS,CUMULATIVE 14
RETAIL tLo (Lo 0.0 00 0.0 0A 0.0 2967 298l 296.7 NA
INDUSTRIAL 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0A 0,0 0-0 0.0 NA
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 (Lo Q.9 6 0 010 91-0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0-0 PiLA
CUMULATIVE TOTAL,NON-RESIDENTIAL EDLPS 00 0,0 0,0 0A 0A 0.0 0.0 2967 2967 2963 NA
BUILDING NON-RESIDENTIAL SQ.FT.,ANNUAL
RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256,614 0 0 2513,614
INDUSTRIAL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL TOTAL,NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256,614 0 0 256,614
BUILDING NON-RESIDENTIAL SCLIFT,CUMULATIVE
RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256.614 256,614 256,614 NA
INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 NA
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 9 9 9 9 Q 9 9 a NA
CUMULATIVE TOTAL,NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256,614 256,614 256,614 NA
SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT,
NOTES;
1,Average number of I-'id..t.px Deffng L4*f"DU)E2,id.d by ti. a Ph— 3.Au.-average s4=�.11-4fe f the fb-d�the Genera;Plan;.
Resid..ts p.,DU ReIaq 180%
Indo trw 0.0%
2. other 0.0% DEVELOPER
Rw.I Lang(leas than 02-0.4 dWha.) NA
Very-Low ResidebtW(0-2.7 duf.�_) NA
Loo y Rsid..fial(0-&0 dg-.) NA 4, td, 11'
Low-Mod f-Demily Resider"(0-80 ft.�) NA.DEVELOPER ECUs per MER
M.&'��-Density R_�id-tlal f0-15.0 dwse)
High De,,yty(0-2TIJ d.1-) EiAAI� GENERAL PLAN SUILDOUTP FA R_-Prledd Ar g.
RETAIL 6,646,200 ozo 661 A3
INDUSTRIAL 19,048,400 OAO 576.70 OT-HER
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIA[_Ll_6Lj_990 04-5j `.-1_Q�LCT
0,336,550
2,342-40
`As bftA.ed In Che Cenmf Plan
ypl.al H �lqro CfTHVP
9.05
TABLE
CITY OF REDLANDS:MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY,
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS SECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS
RESIDENTIAL NET APPORTIONMENT FACTORS AS A FRACTION OF I.Q%TAX RATE
RURAL LIVING ASSESSED VALUE $0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $0 PROPERTY TAXES PASSED THROUGH TO CITY if :E:0�CATY
LOW-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $0 DEVELOPER
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $0 7.B—cl m.....t df ii�th.adopted 1998-99 bdgA
MEDIUM-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $0
$0
HIGH DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE 11
NON-RESIDENTIAL UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS
RETAIL ASSESSED VALUE '245
INDUSTRIAL ASSESSED VALUE [$
1.05�'] RESIDENTIAL
OTHER NON-RESIDENTtAL ASSESSED VALUE KOO DEVELOPER UNSECURED TAXES AS A%OF SECURED CITY
NON-RESIDENTiAL:
UNSECURED TAXES AS A%OF SECURED =1.00%
YEAR YEAR YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
FISCAL YEAR ($SXI.OW) end of; 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SECURED ASSESSED VALUE CALCULATION:
ANNUAL ASSESSED VALUES ffgARLY INCREASE)
RESIDENTIAL
RURAL LIVING $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0
HIGH DENSITY RPSIQ9fflrJAL $0 N 10 LO io- $0 $2 $0_ D $_0
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6209 $0 $0
INDUSTRIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL v $0 K V M_ 0- 19 $0 V_ Lo
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $62,999 $0 $0
TOTAL YEARLY VALUATION INCREASE: $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,999 $O $0
99LVIATIVI ASSESSED VALUES
RESIDENTIAL
RURAL LIVING $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 V $0 $0
HIGH DENS"RESIDENTIAL LO $0 _$_0 V N Vo $a $9 LO
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $,32,999 $62,999 $62999
INDUSTRIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OTHERN-RE 10 Lo 10 LO $_0 IQ N 5-0 $40 Lo
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,999 $62,999 $62999
TOTAL CUMULATIVE ASSESSED VALUE $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $62,999 $62.999 $62,999
SECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATION:
CITY OF REDLANDS
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1132 jt3
NON-RESIDENTIAL K LO 9 10 $Q _Z 1-13-2
TOTAL SECURED TAX $0 $0 $0 $0
UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATION.
CITY Of REDLANDS
RESIDENTIAL $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 go $0 $0
hPN,EEal99NT"lA $2 $0 4Q LO p EI LOli-3 m U-3
TOTAL UNSECURED TAX REVENUES TO CITY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13 $13 $13
TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES TO CITY $0 $0 $0 $0 — 50 $146 $146 $1.46
TABLE
CITY OF REDLANDS:MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY:
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPMERTY TRANMR ASSUMPTIONS
TY Tp'�R
�ALES AXES PASSED THROUGI
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ASSUMPTIONS. I TO 1--Cl- 1-IDENTIALPROPERrYTURROVERRATS Clw
MEASURE T TAXES PASSED THROUGH
L. IT AUTi10RiTY 4.00°h PLO 6COM PROPERTY FEE'RRTE
INETHROUGH IGHTED AVERAGE PRICE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES T PASSED.48FIBITAXASAIAOFRESALEDOLLAR
AVERAGE RESELENTLAL"TGAGEG!0II6 $01 DISPLACED EXISTING CITY SALES TAX PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX TO CITY
ANNUAL MORTGAGE PAY'LIENTIS 06.60%& $0[CITY PROJECT TAIL TAXABLE SALES PER SO FT
AVG HOUSEHOLD INCOME(31 luccw;PAYM.PM RAittA: w RTAE-
RSTIL TAXABLE EXPENDITURE P&OF*CCW: I-,� 1ILM.TS AL
PROJECT
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL
AND WITHIN INCORPORATED CRD
fX-AI —AI'dt'—Uh A,UB do.U57_98
YEAR I YEAR 2 YEARS YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEARS YEARS YEAR"
FISCAL YEAR ,(Scx1,A'}Yt etrd d: VISE-- 260T 20066 2449 "lo 294$ 2012 _..M$ 2SI4 ZINO
SALIESa USE TAX REVENUE CALCLILATKNII(CLIKILALAIn
101REG7 SA STAR GENERATION
RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE EXPENDiTURES $0 so w $0 so $o SO $0 so so
TOTALTAXA 40 w v SI So -v v la 0
RESIDENTIAL SALES TAX GENERATION w $0 w $0 $0 w Ao w so $0
Yg,�t,,�N>s43ATiON
RETAIL TAXABLE SALES $0 Y0 $0 so $0 so 'XI sJum 440.8132
INDUSTRIAL TAXABLE SALES $0 $o $0 $o - so w $o so $0
OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE SALES $- vi $0 $0 $0 w $o $0 $0 $0
GU&TOTAL DIRECT TAXABLE BALM so w $0 $0 w w $0 Wm S40A02 $0AW
IQ ;Q N 49 N w 19 mm mm ENO
TOTAL DIRECT TAXABLE BALER SE $0 $0 $0 w $0 R, $2tzm $27.M $272D4
TOTAL DIRECT"LES TAX GENERATION IN 0 w 50 w w $0 Sm U72 $m
TOTAL PROJECT SALES&USE TAX REVENUES,APPLIED TO COSTS So - - - n sm $m
RESIDENTIAL ME&SURETEALES TAXES SO so w ;o w so 34 so so $o
NON-RESIDENTIAL MEASURET SALES TAXES $o Yo w $0 w $0 $o so $o $o
RESIDENTIAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES so ;S w $0 w w w SD $o $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES $o So 0 w V) $0 so $o IS $0
TOTAL PROJECT"LES&USE TAX REVIROJES,FOR TRANSPORTATION $0 w $0 $o
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX CALCULAI KIN PU110A.ATPJ MF
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES SSW $OW Sam WER SILOS WIDE $ow $mw Wo som
NONRESDENTIALPROPBRTI TRANSPERTAXES V-0, W-W N" lamm 349-0 MUD W."Q $i.T3 M-M ALD
TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $0 $o So $oso $2 $2 $2
...........
SHADED CELLS ARE VARMLEASSUMFROM ORS W UM LMW TO THE PROJECT.
TABLE
CITY OF REDLANDS*MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY:
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
BUSINESS tICEI45£FEE REVF3N!£ FRANCHISE FEES jPER TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
RESIDENTIAL NA RESIDENTIAL WON-RE&DENTiAL NUMBER OF AVAILABLE HOTEL ROOMS
NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL FRANCHISE $16,711 su8711 OCCUPANCY RATE
SUSINESS.LICENSE FEES ARE CHARGED AT A PATE EQUAL AVERAGE BILLING RATE PER ROOM
TO$12 FOR THE FIRST$5,000 IN CROSS SALES,PLUS$3 %PASSED THIROLIGH TO CITY
FOR EACH ADDITIONAL$5,000 INCREMENT IN,GROSS SALES. AVERAGE YEARLYCICCUPANCY REVENUES TO CITY
YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR I YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
FISCAL YEAR m 2 2407 2048 2009.
2010 zoli 2012 2013
_2014 2045
BUSINESS LICENSE FEE REVENUE
RESIDENTIAL
RURAL LIVING NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FIA NA NA NA NA NA NA RA FLA FIA
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA UA NA NA
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA -m NA NA NA m NA 111-1 NA NA
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NOWRESIDENTIAL
RETAIL $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $24 $24 $24
INDUSTRIAL $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24 $24 $24
TOTAL,BUSINESS LICENSE FE£REVENUE $b $0 $0 $p $0 $0 $0 $24 $24
FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE
RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE FEES $0,00 $0,000 $0000 $0,000 $acloo $0-000 $-000 $(),DW SoCoo $0mo
NON-RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE FEES $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0,00 $0.000 $0.000 s0-000 $4.959 $4.959 $4,059
TOTAL FRANCHISE FEE RF_VEN17E $0 $0 $4 $0 $0 $0 $o $5 $5
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE
TOTAL,TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE $0 $0 $0 --$O $0 $0
SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT,
TABLE 6
CITY OF REDLANDS:MODEL
OTHER REVENUE AND REVENUE SUMMARY
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
OTHER GENERAL REVENUES(PER DAPI-TA METHOD}t1__ INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS
OTHER TAXES/2 $10.86 EFFECTIVE INTEREST E2.50 J OTHER
OTHER REVENUES $6.96
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NA
LIBRARY NA
POLICE DEPARTMENT NA
POLICE-ANIMAL CONTROL NA
POLICE-RECREATION NA
POLICE-SENIOR SERVICES NA
FIRE NA
PUBLICWORKS NA
SUBTOTAL,OTHER REVENUES PER CAPITA: $17.83
1.See Appendix for calculation of per capita multipliers- For items vothout values,a net cost technique is being emptoyed.
2.Other Taxes includes Public Safety Sales Tay
-
YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
FISCAL YEAR ($a A A00) end of., 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20111 2012 2013 2014 2016
PER CAPITA REVENUES
OTHER TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NQN:R!19!DENTIAL $0 to- 1-a $0 LO $9 19 io- $-G $0
TOTAL,OTHER TAXES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
gitiER REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 LO $0 $0 IQ $0 $-() $0
TOTAL,OTHER LICENSES,PERMITS&FINES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 io- $0 io to- La LO §_0 $0
TOTAL,STATE REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LIBRARY
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 W $0 $0 $0
NQU:RgaPEND& $0 Lo $0 N io_ 12 42 $0
TOTAL,FEDERAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 to- $0 $010- io_ $0 $-o $-o $O
TOTAL,CITY ATTORNEY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
POLICE-ANIMAL CONTROL
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL LO $0 $0 $0 i(Q) N- §LO $0 $-o LO
TOTAL,ENGINEERING SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
POLICE-RECREATION
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
N2N:R99PEMLI6L- Lo so �-o io- �Lo N o 1-0 1-0 �-o
TOTAL,FIRE DEPARTMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0
POLICE-SENIOR SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL � $0 $0 $0 it) N 12 io- s(-) $0
TOTAL,JOSLYN CENTER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FIRE
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $() $0 $0 $o
NON-RESIDENTIAL $-o Lo $0 $0 10- IQ LO
TOTAL,LIBRARY $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PUBLIC WORKS
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0
MON-RESIDENTIAL io- LO 110 10 Nlo LO N L0 a-o
TOTAL,PARKS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PER CAPITA REVENUES $0 $() $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NON-RES'DENTLfiL PER CAPITA REVENUESN � $$-o $0 I(Q) 49 40- $0 N-
TOTAL PER CAPITA REVENUES $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL RESIDENnAL CASE M07Y REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL CASE STUDY REVENUES 49 1132 V- N 12 IQ $9 144-9 $449 $449
TOTALCASE STUDY REVENUES $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $449 $449 $449
RESIDENTIAL REV AVAILABLE FOR INV.INCOME $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-REStDE'd`TtA4 REV AVAILABLE FOR}NV itdCOME $o $o 10- $o so V- ig _$449 X449 M49
TOTAL REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT INCOME $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $449 $449 $449
PESIDENTfAL INVESTMENT INCOME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NQN-_RgSjOENTfA N)j'ESTM 1,)KQ U-A so
JI_ — Lo $-o so �0— 99 -V —V1 111 $All
TOTAL INVESTMENT INCOME $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $11
SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT,
TABLE 6
CITY OF REDLANDS:MODEL
POLICE DEPARTMENT,FIRE DEPARTMENT,PUBLIC WORKS&PER CAPITA COSTS
RSCALfMPACTANALYSIS
I
COST PER DWELLING UNIT 5295
NONHISSUDEMPAL RETML CALLS x,967
COST PER®UI LDINSISQUARE FOOT M47
NO"SSIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL CALLS SIA
COST PER OUILDINKS SQUARE.00T IRLUZ
OTHER ROHRESIDENTIAL CALLS 7.958
OCRITPER BUILDING SQUAAEFOOT 50"I2
MMARLANSOUSWusn 17.832
TOTAL CALLS
El—485
E)USTINS;ONELLM UNING
EXISTING NOR-REOITS4TIAL EtIWE FOOTAGE
RESIDENTIAL FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS III
RESIMENTIALMLII 3'"CITY
COST PER MYELLUIRS UNIT SIBS
N01IFAMIDENTIAL RETAIL CALLS 446
GMPER SUN-am SdUAREFOOT SITES,
NONFREWDENTMINDUSTRIAL CALLS 15S
COST PER WILIWW SQUARE FOOT W-U2
OTHER N�RESIDENTIAL CALLS 1.459
COST PER WROINGSOPAR MOT $020
TOTAL CALLS
i.
IS-If
PUBLIC WORXS MAINTENANCE COSTS
ROADS amE MILES) [�17,!)VVELOMRFAVEMr T MAINTENANCE PER LANE MILE 11 SEM CITY
TRAFFIC INTERSEf-7KINS REQUIRING SIGNALS 1,00 STREET SINE111 G PER CURB MILE-ALL STREETS 11
AGOREGATELANDSCAPIN (ACRESI
TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS&MAINTE $5.5w
12.5w
PARKACREWE(GROSM LANDSDAMMAINTENANCE MR ACRE A 7
STREETI.Mm 'S. PARKMAINTEN ePERACREU 47.=
OPEN WASE EACRER) STREETLIGHTMAINTENANCE COST PER LIGHT M IH25
LIN OMN$PACEMAINTENA EPERACRE/2 $125
STORM DRARKI MILES) d.4 TMILMAINT NARGEPERLINEML MILE 12 m
STORM GRAIN NWITLENANCE PER MILE G FM
t.S..4 —uiPIW.lHh the C4 I R.t PULdfcDE•g--
2-
"MyGENERAL GOVERNMENT DGgMCITY GEN€RRL GOVERNMENT COSTS CONTINUED
—
aw COMMON. $174� TOTAL CITY OPERATING SUEGEr 0AWW"I"WN,
CITY CLARK 5295.933
CITY MANAGER 5314.819 I%u Sews.USidi..O C.P031 I.,F—
FINANCE sNoE"Ss
CITY TREAEURES, 52,276,064 OVERHEAD AS A%OF OPERATING MCGET 1404%
COXATEmIlEr itisaw
TOTAL CITY CUPIRFRAL GOVERNMENT POSTS $E,114,EM OMRHEAO AS A%OF DIRECT COSTS 1241%
'Costa tpve b-lW-PI IUf P� t P-r.revanuas. OVERHEAD BY DEFINITION CAUSING NO CODT am%
OVERHEAD AS'A OF DIRECT,AVERAGE
OTHERNET COSTS CApITAPI.—S.
COIW-1Y DEVELOPMENT
LkORARY 523,03
YEAR I YEAR I IDAR3 YEAR4 YEAR 6 YEARS YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEARS YEARIO
FISCAL YEAR 2 —1008 2906 2010 201I 2012 =4 2016
9RYD�CT COSTS
ftIS111171AL S40W 50000 W.0G, $SUG) IGUH0 VIDW 50.00 V).m $00
00
SOMD
NONAESIDENTIAL RETAIL $0000 so'Dw $Q Wo IWADD T1000 'E"G50 so LIST $12D.562 $11-1162 $12OM2
NON RIENDENTIM-INDUST So" $UQ)Q S.." VEM, $0 wo WASS $0 ow $0.0IX` $4.m SODW
OTHER NOINRIESIDENDiU. W-m lilom $9&92 NOW MI-M VI'm ml(p-a Nm am300DW
-MTALPOLfCEDEFAIM ENTCOSTS SDOUI V`Gw TIM $0 ,,000 WEDS WSW $GDM $,X-m S *m'sw
fla�
HE,
,,DEWD, IS" $0.000 SGUO WDm 10,6.0 $0" R'" "o.-oo W.OW II(Low
ASEAN, $00,)0 40,000 so CP0 PLaHa KD)o $0000 TO 000 $19.836 515836 SISEM
INDUSTRUL SO" 057 so',Xx, WOUD $..MO $C'oIx, $.1000 $0.WU $0.000 $EU`IQ
aTFUHI Tlm vm M-91-V V-m N ADQ W-m rl-042 W" sm JKV
TOTAL FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS $0000 $0000 $PL'+A O'no) WOO $N'001 560w $1E.m ST5631I 515838
PUw.11-vt2sN3 fi-0S'u
PAVEMENT�E $". $0 WSW $DOW V1. ".250 $.---W sa250
STREET SNff.E4%LYG SO" $9.LYVI SONO 50 000£ $01" $1TO) TEGX ;0.014 $9014 $0414
TGAtTTCBM.NALOPERATION 59.600 $EGX` V'" $0 ow T00H0 $0-900 WOW $27w0 427.1KS S27-SW
LANDSCAM MAINT190405 50.000 $0 aw $01000 W�ow '0.93'1 $0 ODD W'" W." $..m33.000
PARKAdIVISNAIRDS $0001 so.ow 30.t
PU 4,000 so.4J0 IDISM $SOX, W-OW s`X)R smaw
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE Wow $0,000 S," $0,000 K"" WSW So," V500 $2.600 $2sIIII
OPEN SPACE W.IUNTERANCE To" sEom so CFA $Eom MASS $0,100 %L000 W." 40D44
S`003 SPUDS $0,11W $0,060 $0 GO $1106 $Gow S.. Sam wiam
W-PUI! -slm K099 .1,11-m TIM V-m- ELM W-31-6 vatm vAik
TOTAL.Pu 4fOf?nS CRYxTS Taboo $G'" 19-004 51" $1,6,G V"SX, WIDDI, navo SWAC9 malo
PESUNENTAi $'v'- w $0,- Va'-. $0 Wo V,+.fii,'r 59.P3^_ w Na 4cL6NS wxo
ELM MOM
TOT,h COMM TIPTOE VE KIPPI EN T JOD w WE S"" so� SODIXI mor-1
RESE'EEbM 14, $09(4 VI 56.009 $:- $0 WC w W, S. 0.� $STw' Sol,
NQ El-3 —10000 SM2921 ios M �'}`2} I L To 291-M "--m
TOTAk LAMM," 3o'06G $0" IO'cCo $1 W" PJt�o w oclo YPw zow MGM SG'"
QDLx�T '
"ONCE14H S041A SO O�G $1 cO P11,000 wo� i;;'WP VTOW Wwl SAM
Ik�-D- PaJom, EIAPQ 1-11-QN 2L�A- ILWA 1LOIAQ iv_m 29m
TOTAL C fl,DIRECT 3 V, V,GNI wo $1'0� ED.CK0 W.079 VOVS SmAm
RESIOENTNAL W OW
�c Djo WWO �o $60wl &W "llom. solow ELM
'Dffi4ESn3a_- V-Quw N1222 SUV-J i2m, 30 Qw` Ll-f-0 se A'2 r-412 IV—A'
SIJ-MOCELLS ARA VAPIAW.4 ASSU'P5M%15 Cfrt LNPJTS VDISM T6 THE:
TABLE
CITY OF REDLANDS.MODEL
FISCAL IMPACTANALYSIS DETAILED SUMMARY
YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 6 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 %
FISCAL YEAR t$s xf 000} wd.f 20'}8 2007 2008 2009 2010 Mil 2012 2013 2014 LOS OFTOTAL
ONGOING REVENUES
SHRED T
RESIDENTIAL $0 so $0 $0 $0 io $0 $0 so $0 MOSA
N04-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $132 $132 $132 28.78%
gML'CM
�TYT
RESIDENTIAL $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 OM%
NON-RESIDENTIAL, $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so s13 $13 $15 288%
mmilgo-ERCIEFAITARE'
RESIDENTIAL $o $0 $0 $0 so $0 so so $O $0 0,00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 so $2 $2 $2 om%
SALES TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 so $o $0 $0 W $0 $0 $0 090R.
NON-RESIDENTIAL so $0 $0 so so $0 m $272 $272 $272
FAXES
MFAW
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00-A
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o 0,00%
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 so $o $0 $0 $0 so $0 0,011-4
NON-RESIDENTLAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 GM%
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 so $0 0,00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so so $0 $0 0-00%
E
±M" REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL so $0 $0 $0 so $0 so $0 $0 $o 0,00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $5 $5 $5 1,08%
N
ISL%
RESIDENTIAL NA NA RA NA NA NA RA NA NA NA 000%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SD $24 $24 $24 5-32-A
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 so so so so $0 $0 0,00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 SO so m 000%
OTHER REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so so so 0.00%
NONRESIDENTIAL so w $0 so $0 so $0 so so $0 000%
CpMMUNiTY
LO
RESIDENTLAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 100%
NON-RESIDENT(AL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 GM%
LIB
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 so so $0 so $0 $0 $0 OM%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $a $o $0 0.00%
POLICE DEPAR"TSAENi
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 10 $0 $0 so $o $0 000%
NON-RESIDENT AL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 ()M%
EqUCE-ANIMAL
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $() $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 so so 0.00%
POLICE
-LRECREATION
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 so $0 $D $0 30 so $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 so 0.00%
POLICE-SENIOR SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 0.00%
NON•RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 0,00-A
TE
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 so so 40 so 0,00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 W $0 $0 $0 30 $o $0 $o 0,00%
EL
Wo
U
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $9 so $0 0.00/.
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 W $D $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0,00%
'E
!NYM
RESIDENTIAL so $o $0 $0 so $0 $() $0 $0 $0 OM%
NON
I -RESIDENTIAL so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $11 $11 $11 2.44%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $0 $u $0 $0 $0 $0 so SD $0 $0 0,00%
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL Bp&tJUES Lo $0 $90 v N ;Q $480 $460 M 100,00%
TOTAL ON-GOING REVENUES 50 —$0 $o -me-0
ONGOING COSTS
POLICE QgPART�11ENi COSTS
RES40ENTIAL $0 $0 su $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 100-/
NON-RESIDENTIAL- $0 $0 $0 $0 E3 TO so $121 $121 Wi 6792%
DEFARTIiAENY
-OSTS
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so V) $0 $0 so 0.00%
NON-REStba,ITIAL sc $0 $0 $o $0 V) so $16 $IG $ie TWA
agk=�P �
RESIDENTIAL $0 so $0 $0 $3 $0 so $0 so $0 0-0046
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $o $0 so sm $m $39 21,83%
E
'ESIDENTIAL so $0 $0 $0 so $0 so so so so 0.om
N(STrESWENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 50 $1, $0 $2 $2 $2 1,35%
rCMLfiLwITY T?
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $o $e $0 $0 so so so O'C10%
NONRESIDENTIAL $0 so $0 so so $0 SD so so so 010%
L-e Y�Ts
RESIDENTIAL so 5�a $0 50 va $0 $o $0 $o $() 100%
NONRESIDENTIAL $0 $L $0 $13 so $11 $0 IID so $0 0,00pk
TOTAL RES11DENTIAL COSTS $1 so SO $0 $0 $0 to $0 000%
iplal.NQIL� 1450 &1 $-o 1-1, $114 ".7 J178 100,00%
T'i-,AL CN-r-'fNO COSTS $0 so $0 su $3 so so $IT-- WS
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SUP.-,U9q0EF!U 0 $o $0 so so W $0 so so $c
ANNUAL WN RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPU;ShDERCIT; 1-0 sm P-82 —1232
TOTAL ANNUAL OUGGSIG,SLRPLUSADEROP� So >7 $0 so $0 W $282 $Asl- $282
ANNUAL PESSIDENTIAL PEVEWUE/GCST RATIO 0.00 a 10 0,011 D 00 000 J, 0,00 030 oao 0.00
ANNUAL NONAESIDEWAL PEVEMAECOST RA-no 0.L0 O.bO 0,oa D co 000 0,10 0,00 250 2-58 2.55
'00 0M 1,00 000 258 258 258
TABLE 8b
LAND USE SUMMARY:
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY(Commercial Only)
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEARS YEAR 7 YEAR YEAR 9 YEAR 10
FISCAL YEAR 2010, 2411 2412 2013 201d 2015
ONGOING REVENUES
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL REVENUES $OMOO $0,0000 $0,0000 $0,0000 $0,0000 $0,0000 We= WO-9361 $459.9361 $459.9361
ONGOING COSTS
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL COSTS KOM $0-0000 $0.00{)0 $0,0000 KOM $0.0000 $0,0000 $1780800 $178.0800 $178-0800
ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTLAL ONGOING SURPLU81(DFFICf-Q $0,0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0,0000 $0-0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $2818561 $281.8581 $281-8661
ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUEICOST RATIO 0,00 0.00 0-00 0,00 0,00 0-00 0.00 258 2-58 268
TABLE Sc
CITY OF REDLANDS:MODEL
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY(MIXED)
YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR I YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 %
FISCAL YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2048 2410 2011 2042 2013 2414 2015 OF TOTAL
ONGOING REVENUES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $0.0000 $0,0000 $0.0600 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0,0000 $010000 OM%
$0.0660 SO0000sQqQoo supoo V-10ow99
$QkO KM 5459.93615149-36l 1459.9-301 100M51+
TOTAL ON-GOING REVENUES $0.0000 $0,0000 $0.0000 $0,0000 $0-0000 $0.0000 $0,0000 $459.3381 $459.4361 $455.9361
ONGOING COSTS
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL COSTS 30.0000 $()Moo $0.0000 $0,0000 $0-0000 Sum Woom $0.0000 $0m06 $0.0000 0,00%
TOTAL NON-RESlOENTf&COS K-QQO-O NIQO-w K-QQOO v_oo-g_o $00000 $ap000 So. 178AW EZ9-3800 3178 QSW 100.00%
TOTAL ON-GOING COSTS $0.0000 $0.0000 $0,0000 W0000 $0,0000 $0.0006 $0-0 $178.1=0 $178,000 $178M00
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPLUSI(DEFICIT) $ok000 $43,0000 $0.0000 $oz000 $0.0000 $010000 $0.0000 $0.0000 50.0000 $0.0000
ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL.ONGOING SURPLUS!(DEFICM P&OPQ So.cqoQ 0.5-0-00-9 K-0000 $4-0-0OQ 19-0-ow mlQm VAL8-5-61
TOTAL ANNUAL ONG04NO SURPLUSI(DEFICIT) $ob000 $0.0000 54.0000 MOOGO $0,0000 $0.0000 So.0000 52818501 s284.856i $utwi
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUEICOST RATIO 0.00 0-00 0.00 obo 0.00 OM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
ANNUAL NON-REUDENTIAL REVENUE(COST RATIO 0.00 0,00 0.00 OM OZO OM 0.00 2.58 2,58 2,58
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUEICOST RATIO (Loo 0.00 0,00 GM OW OM 0.00 258 2.58 2.58
kedlands #1693
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS �E x�hi bb iV�& Ll
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Tennessee St
illi-----a)-Dema---------
---- - --------- - --l
- ---------------------------------------------------
a) Demo of existing roadway------------------------------,.__________,____5500 SY $12.00 1 $66,000
---------- ---------—------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------------------------------- -----------------
b) Earthwork Cut/Fill/Grading and Compaction 1 30000 ICY $&50 $195,000
---------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------I-------------------------------------------------
c) Subbase and paving —"Wear/ "Binder/ "S,B, ___4500....!SY 1 $42.40 1----$190,800
----_-_ ------------ ------------------------------------------ - ------ ------------------- ------
d) Markings striping and signs 4000 ILF $2,080
--------------------------------------------I-----fZ66----T-------------4-----------------�1-------------
-----------e-}-&-riW;7�j ii5ie,_rs----- I !LF 1 $15.71 1 $21,994
-----------------------------------------------------------------I-------------I-----f __t--------------t,-----------------I------------------
0 Off site water lines I !LF 1 $3620 1 $47,060
---------- - -7-______-__________----_-----_------------_---1—__----------- ———-——-———-——--——-——-—————-—--- ——-——-——-——-—————
g) Off site San.Sewer lines 1300____',LF $33.20 1 $43,160
illi_ ------------------------------- I--------------L-----------------L-----------------
h)Miseh!g�tly items not listed above
- I
Lump Sum $0
'- ------------, ------------------------------- 4--------------I --- --+-------- ----- -
-----
EreekRelocation/wettands creation Lump §uM1 I $0
------------------------- --------------Ir---------------- -----------------
Off-Site Fences I !SF 10 $0
-------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------p.„
-------------—-----------------------------------
Entrance Drive Improvements at parking lot :SY 1 $0
_d.-__---------- ---------------- ---------------
�i� Er7l n 310 ILF 1 $70,57 1 $21,877
---------- ----------------- -----------------
&urWT;1ei--------------------------------------------------------- -----4------ --------- $7.700.00 $30,800
-------------------------------------------------------------------- I
4-----f y66_---T---------illi.,--------------f.____®_-_-___..__-- ----------------
&her Off Site Reclaimed Water(12"Pvc) I ILF il $70.00 I $91,000
improvements-----------------------------------------------------"1-___-_4-------it ff�-------*-i---------------- -----------------
$1X341 00 1 $5,364
----------------
E�i_he_r_0__ff"s`i_te_improvements{Street(Street S) 4 Each 1 $2,500.00 1 $10,000
------------- ------L19L, --------------------------------------- -------------- --------------I------u---------------------------
1 !LumpSum 1 $250,000.00 $250,000
a�tW;r W;,Te improvements(Art in Public Places)
Isub-total $975,135
Traffic signal 4 way 1 :Q�y siq $350,000,
- Z------------------------------------------------------------ --------------I . gals $350,000M
I-- --- ------- ----------------- ----------------
Traffic signal-3-way !Qt signals $0
lyt;-;� ---------------------------------------- ............... ................
.jTaF
Ij;7
-- --—----------------
nal Modification if Lump Sum it $0
ISub-total $350,000
San Bernardino
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------r---------------
a) Demo of existing roadway 1 7000 1SY 1 $12.00 1 $84,000
---------- ------ ---------—-------I-----------------------------------------4--------------*------------- ---------------- ---------------
b) Earthwork Cut/Fill I Grading and Compaction 1 40000 - ICY 1 $&50 1 $260,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------,j------------------ ---------------
-----------c)---sub base and ij% Wear Binder S.B. 12500 :SY 1 $42.40 $530,000
----------------- ----------------- ---------—------------ ---- ----------
d} Markingis eLrlq 4-66---- loy 1612------ -------$-2--,8-6-8-
Mq signs.......................... It
-- ---------------- -lil ------------- -------------- ---------------
e) Curbs and Gutters I �iU6 jLF 1 $15,71 7
---------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- ----------------—---------------
0 Off site water lines 3000 '1 LF $36.20 1 $108,60C
---------- i -------------------------------------------- --------------It------------------------------ ---------------
g) Off site San.Sewer lines 1LF It $0
---------- -------------------------------------------4--------------4-------------- ---------------
h)Mise
-- ---------- _ ------a-b-o-v-e-------------------------------- 1 1'lot I 1 $0
- --------------- ------ -----L ----------------L------- -
__-
Creek Relocation/wetlands creation---------------------------------------------4--------------f LumpSum------------------ --------$0-
---
Off-81te Fences-------------------------------------"-------------------------------------- !SF-- ------ 1
-$0
--------------T ------------r--------------
Entrance Driv-e--lm-pro
vementsatparklng—lot------------------------------------- I ---- — -- IS,Y; --------- I---__- --- ----- ----i----------- --------- ---- -- -4— - —
Storm Drain(42"RCP) 1 370 1LF $81.49 _—$30
$--3
----0----1--5----
1
------------------------------------------- ,
Storm Drain-(48"W6D 1 1300 1LF $94.71 $123 12.
eTs- - --- --------------------------------------------------------- ------
-
Curb g------tEj;--------t__$7-7000.00 -- -3--8-,5-0--
C-------------4- 2500 T --- $70.--01--r $175-00
---
Overhead Trans-€st€an pales 1
14 !Each $10,000M 1 $140,00
— --------------------- 4-----------------------------------------------4---------------
1 6 1 Each $1,341.00 1 $8046
---
Other-Offsite improvements(Fire H
!yAnt,L)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-t---------L----
6,t; -----------improvements{Street Ii ht 1 6 -Each 1 $3 500 00 - $21,00(
.9-H ------------------------ -------------- -------------------L....L------ --------------
10ther $0
ISub-total $1,538,5
4 ay 2 I��ty fq2MI $250,000M $500,OC
ff 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------I _jL
r _T----------------- --------------
�raffic slanalt-3-wa y-----------------------------------------------------------
1Qty signals $0
0�*the__;er_Traff,c sj�
r-Traffic signal Modificationi--____________ILump Sum $0
Sub-total=1 $500,OC
r-4ew i ut K Avui Y\aron
------ ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------T 7*-----------------r----- -------____
,j�f existing ---------
......21_P�Lrn L_g 122�y
---- -----------------------------------------4----�y6b-d---TE�----------t-----------------------------------
......�!_�iql�work Cut/Fill t Grading 1. 1 $6.50 1 $149,500
------------- ---------------- ----------- --------------------------------------------- -----------------
c) Subbase and paving Wear Binder/ &B. 6100 1,sy 1, $42.40®__m_1 $258,640
-----------4--------------
--------------------- ---------«^s____-------------------------------------- -------------- -------------------
ns __bloti $0
----_-___.._____________________________a--_-----------I--------------I------------------------------q!j�bA and Gutters 3300 1LF
---- ---------------------------------------------- -------------
Traffic signal 4 way Is $0
----------- --------------PY-2iqU2---------------------- ----------------
TrafficQ�y signals $0
- ----------------------------------------------------------------4-------------- -----------------_--I._- ---------------
r- Ij $0
signal Modification P Sum
Sub-total $0
Pennsylvania -------------—-----------------------------------
a) Demo of existing roadway 1 1 $0
---------- ---------------—---- ----------------- ----------- --------------1§��-----------A------------------6----------------
b) Earthwork Cut/Fill I Grading and Compaction 75000 1CY 1 $4.57 1 $342,750
---------- - - _______-_-_-___--____---__-__----_-_1
------------------------------ ---- ---- -----------------
c) Subbase and paving Wear Binder/ S.B. 7000
SY $42.40 $296,800
---------------------------------- -------- ---------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
d) Markings striping and signs 11
---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------,------------- ----------------- -----------------
e) Curbs and Gutters 1 1250 1 LF 1 $15.71 $19,638
---------- ------- ------------------------------- ----------- --------------4------------- ----------------- ----------------
0 Off site water lines 1250 1L .20 $45,250
---------- - ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------L ___-______a.____$36-------------1-----------------
g) Off site San,Sewer lines 1LF 1 $0
4 1--- -----------------_1-- -__---_- --------
h)Misc highway items not listed above 1 lot 1 $0
' --- _ ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------- T----------------- --------
Creek W;locaiion/wetIandscreation I
MP LE2 --
W_ i _ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____ _______+-_________------------ -
O -�,;--�e-n--c-e-s-------------------------- - 1 1SF
- ---- --------- -------------------------- -----
Entrance-Drive
--improvements
--at parking lots ------w------------------ ---------- -----t1S--Y -tI - i
$0
Storm Drain(24"RCP) -LF -------
$110.00 ....$22,000
__ _ ---------------------------------------- ------- ------T------ r. ...........
&UrW5ets 'Each : $7,700.00 1 $15,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—---------------- -----------------
E�tWer-6i�Zlimprovements(Fire Hydrants} It 3 'Each $1,341.00 1
4 $4,023
3 Each $2,500,00 00
Other-Offsite improvements-- '-----iStr_e_eWlights_®_____________________________________ -------------
----------------------------- ------------------
---------�6T_
Other-Offsite improvements Sum
Sub-total $753,361
Traffic signal 4 way___________________________________________________________4 Qt Y-MMIL-4 1-
$0
T_rlfficsignal---- 1 1 t S
-----------------------------------------------------------1 1-------------- LQ921s �11 ------------ ---------------------
_
Other-Traffic signal Modification ' 'LUmp Sum I 1 $0
LS u��b-total $0
$4,856,19