CDC - Item 4 - Review Of Development ProposalsMemorandum
To: Bill Crowe, City Manager
From: Stephen Copenhaver, GRC
Date: November 6, 2002
Subject: Review of Development Proposals - Northeast
Corner of Temple City'and Valley Boulevards,
Since the adoption of Project Area No. 2, substantial interest has been
expressed from both property owners and developers in redeveloping
the northeast corner of temple City Boulevard and Valley Boulevard.
The,subject area is significantly underutilized and certain individual
properties suffer from obsolescence and dilapidation. A sampling of the
existing uses includes offices, homes, an abandoned service station, a
multi-tenant industrial building, a bakery distribution center, and
roofing company (now closed). Additionally, the two largest parcels in
the area are vacant.
To encourage investors to consider a higher level of land use, the
subject area was rezoned to accommodate retail uses. At the time it
was thought that retail use of the property, if proven feasible, would be
attractive from the perspective of additional sales taxes and there was
a strong desire on the City's part to encourage the development of a
supermarket.
A number of developers have approached the City or inquired about
the property. The first developer, Robert McCoy, requested that both
Rosemead and El Monte grant conceptual approval to his pursuit of a
project identified as Eaton Village and in return his partnership would
pursue acquisition of the private parcels and the development of a 30-
acre shopping center of approximately 500,000 square feet. Although,
Mr. McCoy was successful in negotiating acquisition agreements with
certain property owners at high prices and claims to own a couple of
parcels, his efforts to date have not been successful. The support for
his project has been eroded by his inability to secure any binding
contracts with the retailers he said were interested; his request for
seventeen million dollars in public assistance; and his failure to meet
deadlines and complete acquisition closings.
COMMISSION AGENDA
NOV 12 2002
ITEM No.
5=~ 5.%992 12:37PM NCB AP.CHi TECTURc NO. 7ES F.2
I
z
I
Q
O
n
pZ, J~ ~ 4Y 'Y
I
n~
,i
r
LL
ILI
If pL
r- j U1 O
II L
~UJ3,L
d
J
C
NET LE-S F=o?EFT: _
le / , ~PC>r~ ;VZOACZ.&Cd , / c2G ,
COMINIERCILkL REAL ESTATE
Au6-L'st 29. 2002
Ms. Barbara Toth
Watt Mattag gent Co.
2716 Ocean Park Boulevard
Suite 3020
Santa Monica, CA 90405
RF,: Valley Boulevard / Temple Cit} Boulevard
Rosemead. CA
CVS Drug Store
Dear Barbara:
N71A FAX (310-399-6681)
As you know m.; cor pang represents CIvS in the geater San Gabriel Valley. VJe arc seekin? on
their behal; sites at signalized intersections xvith zood to excellent rafnc counts and strong o ove-
twomile demoe aphics. Accordingly,u'ebelieve C% S u°ould have interest in locating at the a bbove
referenced intersection in Rosemead.
Please provide additional project info ,cation as it becomes aVaila'ol:. Thank You.
Vcr truly Yours.
RETAIL NTET LEASE PROPERTIES, INC.
eepp A
Brian M. Trac,;
President/CEO
BMT/kb
360 N. Sepulveda Boulevard • Suite 1020 • El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 252-7656 • Fax (310) 414-0040
f.uzzust 30, 2007
Mr. Richard Heller
3~7att Corrynercial P,-operies
2-1e ' Oc_: Perk Blvd, Suite = 020
e
Santa Monica, Ca 90405
Re: .3pprx. 2.5 net usable acres at
ICE comer of'Valley Blvd and Temple Cir',
Rosemead. Ca
Derr M4 . Heller:
CT Realty Corporation is interested in purchasing the referenced property per he following
term_ and conditions: r
1. Buyer: C.T. Realp' Corporation, or assignee.
2. Price/Terms: S20/s.f. of net usable s.f., all cash at the close of escrow.
3. Deposit and Escrow: immediately after acceptance of This letter of interest by seller,
parties shall negotiate a purchase contract. After the execution of the purchase contract,
escrow shall be opened with First American Title insurance Compar.•y, and Buyer shall
deposit 550,000 ll]io a-, interest bear:P.°_ account with escrow-. This deposit shall be full\'
refundable, until Buyer completes its 60-day due diligence period. which begins upon
execution of tie purchase contract. If Buyer elects to proceed a`er its due diligence Denod,
the 550.000 deposit shall become non-refundable, except for seller's default. and shall apply
to the purchase price at closing. Escrow shall close 60 days after the end of the due diligence
period. Closing costs and escrow prorations shall be handled as is normal in the county.
4. Due Diligence/Sellers Deliveries: At the inception of the due diligence period, seller,
shall deliver to Buyer the information noted below; and any other information ir. its
possession re_aiLng the property, including a prcliminarv title policy and ALTA survey for
the property. During the duc diligence period, Buyer shall have the right to enter upon and
inspect the property, seller's files regarding the prop; and meet with governmental
authorities-regarding the propeny' {if ncededl. Buyer's due diligence shall include, but not be
limited to, physical, engineering, environmental, and other inspections buyer deems
necessary', tittle review, including review of an ALTA survey of the property. review of any
leases, contracts, real estate tz-xes, governmental correspondence, construction documents,
etc. All inspections and reports shall be done at Buver's costa Buyer, in its sole discretion,
will del'--mine 11 the results GI IIS ulle Cl hgence are acceptable. li n0i, BuI ma- ie: minaie
y tiA S
a.i2'660 J=. 75' ~11. .n..I J_..J.~
501 it i.'Y. !r.!>. c.::_:_'_OG }'?•POC;i c-:.:.CN, C+.;:FJt vin
6
n
D
O
O
O
D
n
Nx
01n mI m0
Ny
N
n; m°DI y
0l 3Dn Sln-~mmr000
m
-
n ~ma nl3 r
°
z O
° ➢
1L11 NiASAm
p
C
o
im
T
y
-
D`"
`"w
Dr vl
,
l
v~.
2Ayin 3~n
Am➢p
O mP o-
~
r.,
n
~
pmacg
ZD
y
z
°
<c
y
o
rD4~m~
y
_I
r
~ PoN~ miN yN ,e
m 5-1p3 p
ZN~°F 'n m
o
V~
~
mA
n
n
CN
D
~~n1~0~'nl~vi0 3020 p ~
9 C
O
0.
ON
0N
O
p PNn2m2 n
I V O
~y10^OyC
P
O
y
33
1ti
y
p p
in
O DNV DT°C p n O'm
P .
D
~
~ r zx n0< = m O~
m
ND
~o 1"N
-
o
x
2
Nx
=1n
m
1
3 m
N
-
-
; 1,00 io
m n a
Nm
z
m
m a.z. -0
in
0
p°
i
~
3
f
mp
y
_
,
,
p
_ --1 _O .J go
O
D
~
m z
z
60
m
o
-
om
zI
x ym
a
m
o
w v
gee
o
m
rm
I O
nN
A
C p
ti
r
-1
N
D
a
O
P=
~ O
j
m
~
o[
D
-la
1
w
O
J
(J
C^
S
~
p
$ 525
ci
o
P D
mp
o0
oc
N
.
pm.
PK
m
y
~m
n
-
G'z .0
DI
zm
oN
c
m
'
m
n
y
i
9
D
0
m
2
ym
ffi
I
~
~
N
~
m
T
,N
O
NO
mS
dOIJem QQ
5~2~m
a
g
~
Q QQ n
~
'
p
$
x ~
5
22
25~u
~25~~w-~'y'r°~e~~25
$
a
g
$25
y
25 b
D
ONO
PIP
m P O
Sy
C
D
P
mr
$8
i
XXr n
U -S
ms~ S~g.i
n
~
o
~o
o
0
P
y
m
c
n
0
z
z
c
v
v
x
x
U5
rmpsny m~0
pz mm
A
Do.
m
m
y< m n
0 0
n > ~ m
A
m
ti
n
G1
m
zP
n N
m
~Dm
m n~
a ~o~l"p
z
0
m
3
P
qO T
O
b
Fni
°
i°p z
- o
on
oNic~oNN
n
gmoc
~
cc
~mOp>tF~ a°~
?N m
S
rm-m
fn=~;oNn; <p
m
m
A
. O
L N
3
P y~ Z N P n~
D
L
~
.
C
A
-
1
N
N
<
Z
~
A
y4
n
-IPn N
KN
~mr
z
q
c
o T
ym
N o
~ (zi~
3
m
m m
D
D
b -
n
mA
O
~ K a
N
n
y
C
A
y
y
r ,n
C N
C
N
. _IZ
~ m
un
y
Q
~
pS
m~
0
n ~
A
K
m
G"'z
' p2
Lf SON
.
In ~
nn
ac
N
i y
om
PK
ym
5DA
z
m
m
55~~ QQ
e~°mo ~'o 25 ~K
55~~ 55~~ 55~~
o252525A
om
c
NC
A
~momo~go SS
aUR
OP
In
m~
l~O
'
NA
n
b 1K.~l 1.
~ r'I W m a m u~ + m
8Oo
O S Or O p
p
Ro
N
m
_
~
a
~e,oem~ cu
s
N
~
g~.
ss
,J nnj ~ry m ~
W
SnOK
~
N
Hm N
O N U N ~ N
u
NN
O~ N~ 'P
mm
K
6
W
m~ a~ O U i b
N 0 S
a8'P tSg°: ;a
a~m8m
.
NUmm 0mC b
oOU
S
P
.
NN
p
~
mF
J
W e
IO A
K
N
U
~
J
1
n
m g N m O N➢ +1 m J
O~ O S m
m
1,
N
1 n
-
I
U
m
1..1
D-
O O U> O N
N S
p
Y
J
O
u~
K
'm
'J
UA
I
'~~JI
-
OT_NN
N
p
q~+ O P m m J P
u l P
O~ U S O
n
C
me
-
~m
s
ti
.
'~T e8S g' '~J'W
RR
5
~
oi5 m
.Zz
nno
APp
N N N
ISO T
D m
~
p p p
.
N N
I
Jul), 3, 2002
Bradford W. Johnson. Director
Cite of Rosemead Planning Department
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead. California 91770
Telephone (626) 569-2100
Fax (626) 307-9218
RE: Northeast Comer of Valley and Temple City Boulevards
Dear Brad,
Per your letter dated June 12, 2002, Regency Centers is pleased to submit Regency's plan to develop the
Northeast Corner of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard per the Rosemead Redevelopment
Proposal guidelines:
A. DeVel0per Identification
Regency Centers-14200 Culver Drive. Suite S Irvine California, 92604 (949) 726-6076
2. Regency Centers is a publicly traded REIT based out of Jacksonville, Florida that is a NYSE
Company traded under ticker symbol "REG". Regency acquires, develops, manages, and operates
Neighborhood Retail. Shopping Centers in 22 states nationwide. Regency has California offices in
San Diego, Irvine, Los Angeles and Walnut Creek with currently over 30 properties in Southern
California, which are existing assets or are currently under development. Nationwide, Regency
owns over 280 Centers.
3. Regency Centers Corporation, a Florida Corporation or Regency Centers LP, a Delaware limited -
partnership
4. Hap Stein-Chairman, Mary Lou Fail-CEO, Bruce Johnson-CFO
5. Thomas E. McDonou<sh-Senior Vice President Investments
David Horenstein-Senior Development Manager, Investments
Ron Underwood-Bickle Underwood; Newport Beach, CA; Architect -
6. Lam' Larson, Regency Centers; Senior Project Manger who has worked as a project manager in
Retail Centers for over 15 years. Recently completed projects include: Rancho Santa Margarita
- Town Center-Ranch Santa Margarita, Ameriage Heights Target Center, Fullerton
B. Experience
a, b, c. 1. Campus Marketplace-Ralph's, Longs Center, Twin Oaks Valley Road and Discovery
Road, San Marcos, CA- Neighborhood Center. Regency Centers LP
2. Garden Village-, Rite Aid redevelopment, Western and Westmont San Pedro, CA-
Nmhborhood Center. Regency Centers LP
3. Westridge Village-The old Road/Valencia, Valencia, CA-Under Development
Albertson's Center- Neighborhood Center. Regency Centers LP
4. Valencia Crossroads-Mcbean Pkwy/Valencia, Valencia, Under Development Kohl's
Department Store-Regional Center. Regency Centers LP
Regency Cenier5,.14200 Culver Drive Suite S.
Irvine, CA 92604
Office: 949.726.6000 Toll-Free: 688.705.3905 fax: 949.653.9515
www. regencycenters.com
I~
C. Projeci Description
E Valley Blvd and Temple City Blvd
2. Site Plan-included -
3. Ding Store, (2) two Fast Food Retailers, Retail Shops, a min Public Storage facility
4. Valley Point Center will have a Drug Store with 5/1 parking ratios and (2) Restaurants using 10/1
parking ratios. Also included in the development will be an upscale shop-building pad with
service type uses, which could include national coffee and dry cleaner users. Total Building area `
shall include 25,790 sq.ft. of retail building area and 50,625 sq.ft. of mini-storage building area (2
stor)'). -
5. Rental rates shall be $2.00/sq.ft. nnn (which is typical among new Retail centers) with desired
demographics of roughly 100,000 people within a 2 mile radius with the average household
ntcomes of $45,000.00. See attached demographics. ✓
6. Regency Center typically manages its own Centers.
7. See attached Cost and Income proforma
8. See attached I O-Year cash flow
9. Prelim nary Development Schedule is attached as a project cost spreadsheet
10. Regency annual report is provided for your review. Regency has a revolving credit line of $635
million dollars and has assets over S3 billion. Regency funds all land, and development costs.
D. Request for s encv Assistance
Regency Centers is willing to develop the Valley Point Center under the proposed financial
conditions found in the attached proforma. Part of those conditions assumes that Regency can
purchase the entire 6.5 acres with the City's assistance through eminent domain at $20/square
foot. Also. Regency Centers will require from the City of Rosemead a-sales tax reimbursement of..
$103,160 for retail sales tax that the City would otherwise receive from the Retail Tenants. This
amount is based on the average sales/square foot of a typical retail Center with similar uses. The
amount can be conceptualized as follows:
5400/square foot per year in average retail sales x 25,790 Building square footage =
$10.316,000.00 of Tenant's gross sales. The City would recoup l% or $103,160.00 per year.
Thus the requested amount of agency assistance is $103,160.00 per annum
2 The reason that this requested assistance is justified can be understood by the following:
The amenity that Regency will be providing the people of Rosemead as well as all potential _
consumers in the adjacent cities will be one of an upscale, safe, clean and overall pleasant
shopping experience in a corridor that needs retail uses. The only way for a developer to create a
retail center on the Northeast comer of Valley Boulevard and Temple Boulevard without needing
funds directly from the ciry of Rosemead for the purchase of the land, is to allow the developer to
recapture as miscellaneous. income an amount that can justify the developers $7 million dollar.
investment. Per the proforma, Regency can justify a 10.49% return on its investment by including
the $103.160.00 annual contribution of sales tax revenue from the city of Rosemead..
Very truly yours,
Regency Centers L.P.
David Horenstein
Senior Development Manager
Cc: Thomas E. McDonough
C)
0
0
~
V3
y
9
=
$
z
=
~
p
~
.
0
~
~
~ 3 IL
~
~
d
CQ
perp'`
~
•
l
jL
lyyl~~~~
~
F'~
v1
FNM
L
_
6
6f
/
/
FITT .1 _ y U L ~ C
5 ~y
S~
a 1 i
: ~ y u1
b
N
I _2e
Sy _
I~
Tf
LL
L
/
a8.
GJ
I r
I
q I
al
Iw
a I
O I
^:j IN
I~
g~'•II~
~~Uf
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
1990 Census, 2000 Estimates & 2005 Projections
Calculated using proportional block groups
LaV Lon : 34.081311-118.0583
February 2001
F1
2000 Estimate
25,538
115,648
269,932
O
2005 Projection
26,936
122,063
285,667
- Q
1990 Census
23,759
107,255 -
248,213
1980 Census
20,066
90,518
206,081
o
Annual Growth 1990-2000
0.7%
0.8%
0.996
i
a
Projected Annual Growth 2000-2005
1.1%
1.2%
2000 Est. Households
6.958
32,285
75,273
2005 Est. Households
7,344
34,153.
79,873
-
1990 Est. Households -
6,590
30,434
70,304
j
1980 Est. Households
6.501
29,728
67,324
Annual Growth 1990-2000
0.6%
0.6%
0.7/
2000 Population 0 to 9 Years
18.2%
17.5%
17.5%
2000 Population 10 to 20 Years
17.4%
17.0%
17.0%
-
2000 Population 21 to 29 Years
13.5%-
13.2%
13.2%0
2000 Population 30 to 44 Years
24.1%
- 24.0%
24.1%
0
2000 Population 45 to 59 Years
15.5%
15.6%
15.6%
C
2000 Population 60 to 74 Years
7.6%
8.10".
%
B.
2000 Population 75 Years Plus
3.7/0
4.696
4.5%
2000 Est. Average Age
32
- 33
33
2000 Est. Median Age
31
32
32
2000 Male Population
50.5%
50.096
50.0%
2000 Female Population
49.5%
50.0%
50.0%
1990 Single Males
18.896
18.6%
18.2%
1990 Single Females -
13.5%
13.8%
13.8 011.
1990 Married Couples
51.0%
50.9%
51.4%
1990 Previously Married
16.7/0
16.7%
16.596
2000 Est. HH Income $150,000 or More
1.5%,
1.996
2.596
2000 Est. HH Income $100,000 to 149,999
3.9%
5.0%
5.7%
2000 Est. HH Income $75,000 to 99,999
8.3%
9.4%
9.5%
2000 Est. HH Income $50,000 to 74,999
19.8%
19.8%
19.3%
w
000 to 49,999
HH Income $35
2000 Est
20.3%
19.1%
18.5%
,
.
O
2000 Est. HH Income $25,000 to 34,999
14.6%
13.6%
13.7%
Z
2000 Est. HH Income $15,000 to 24,999 -
15.9%
15.0%
14.B%
_
2000 Est. HH Income $0 to 14,999
15.896
16.2%
15.996
2000 Est. Average Household Income
547,000
$49,275
$51,595
2000 Est. Median Household Income
$36,542
$39,920
$41,170
2000 Est. Per Capita Income
$12,825
$13,906
$14,636
Number of Businesses
- 872
4,095
8,285
Total Number of Employees
12,625
45,882
87,901
Pv2000, Sites USA, Tempe. Arizona, 480-491-1112 - 1 of 3 - -
Demographic Dat
a Source: Clarit
as
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
1990 Census, 2000 Estimates & 2005 Projections
Calculated using proportional block groups
Lat/L on: 34.08131/-118.0583
February 2001
Fi
2000 Estimated Population
25,538
115,648
269,932
2000 Est. White Population
50.8%
52.5%
50.9%
lu
2000 Est. Black Population
- 0.9°i6
0.7,6
0.8%
¢
2000 Est. Asian & Pacific Islander
25.7%
24.896
25.596
2000 Est. Other Races Population
- 22.6%
22.0%
22.8%
2000 Est. Hispanic Population -
15,232
65,856
151,044
2000 Est. Hispanic Population Percent
59.6%
56.9%
56.0%
20D5. Est. Hispanic Population Percent
62.2%
59.396
57.096
1990 Est: Hispanic Population Percent
54.1%
52A016%
- 52.3%
1990 Adult Population (25 Years or Older)
13,446
62,231
142,777
w`
Elementary (0 to 8)
22.9%
22.6%
22.6%
0 v O
Some High School (9 to 11)
17.7!°
16.295
18.3%
o
High School Graduate (12)
24.90%
23.5%
22.395
-
Some College (13 to 16)
16.6%
16.6%
16.40"
°
w S
Associates Decree Only
7.5;5
7.396
7.1%
a
Bachelors Degree Only
7.7%
6.8%
9.5%
Graduate Degree
2.7%
3.0%-
3.996
1990 Total Housing Units
6,056
31,562
73,185
1990 Owner Occupied Percent
49.4%
46.7%
47.4%
1990 Renter Occupied Percent
46.7%
47.7,6
48.6%°
1990 Vacant Housing Percent
3.9%
3.696
3.9%
Homes Built 1999 to 1990
1.1%
1.3%
1996
y
Homes Built 1985 to 1988
6.0%
5.2%
6.7,5
Homes Built 1930 to 1964
5.6%
4.9%
4.8%
m
Homes Built 1970 to 1979
10.9% -
9.5%
11.301,
Homes Built 1960 to 1969
- 20.2%
19.5%
19.4%
N
Homes Built 1950 to 1959
27.6%
28.6%
26.9%
Homes Built 1940 to 1949
- 21.295
20.996
19.996
Homes Built Before 1939
7.4%
10.10Y.
9.595
s
2000 Est. Value $400,000 or More
- 2.5%
4.6%
9.4%
2000 Est. Value $300,000 to $400,000
11-.1%
11.7,6
12.695
2000 ESL Value $200,000 to $300,000
39.2%
36.3%
35.295
2000 Est. Value $150,000 to $200,000
25.6%
25.2%
22.996
2000 Est. Value 5100,000 to S150,000
13.1%
' 1220%
11.995
2000 Est. Value $50,000 to $100,000
3.8%
3.3%
3.396
2000 Est. Value $50,00040.$75,000
1.1%
1.1%
1.3%
2000 Est. Value $25,000 to $50,000
1.796
1.70%
2000 Est. Value $0 to $25,000
2.0%
1.9%
1_8%
2000 Median Property Value
$195,661
$208,715
$216,189
1990 Median Rent -
$577.0
$572.0
S561.0
C20D0, Sites USA, Tempe. Arizona, 480-491-1112 - 2 of 3 - Demographic Data Source: Claritas
Project
Proforma
Valle) Point Center -
- Revised 7l31200'_
Rosemead. C.4
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Version I
Drug. Shops, fads
`kWSRCONSTRUCTIWBUDGETa r
line Item
Ytx ~
Bud el
f r `
Cost PSF
- ~ `ywr
Cost PSP (BTS)
Iand/Closing/l.egal
2 .407,240
93.54
Pre-Acquisition Costs
100.000
653.698
3.99
1--5.35
31.91
Sit-work Costs
1,600.200
62.05
76.10
Shell Costs
215;145
8.34
10.50
Tenant Improvements
937,947
36.37
45.78
Sufi Costs
940
212
8.26
Rasing Commissions
,
Financing Holding Costs
SW.982
19.66
'
Ir"T I1 nR11 WrT COST
56,634.351
5257 25
'
1'IELD~MATRIX',t"
s.¢:,t
.
3
Total
PRT
% NOI
NOI Cost
Yield
90%
$626.232 56.634.351
944%
95`D0
$661.022 SG 6+4,351
9.9650
'>.$695813 $6,6-'3435VWI9-' :
10550
5730,604 56,634.351
11.0150
I10%
5765.394 56.634.351
71.5450
e~p~vers~m i.m
Project
Proforma
LAND ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ,-ECONOMICBASLSZ.,'
*
+ `iiLAND
-
i
z,..na
ACRES
S/SF LAND I
TOTAL
PARCEL
6.5(10
.00
20
5.66?.800
Purchase Price
0.19
55.000
Title /Legal/Closing _
0
Commissions
0
0
4.000
20.00
...484.800
Less: Anchor Sale
(174 740)
Cormissions/Closine Costs
0
0.000
0
00
Less: Pad Sales
,
0
Comnssions/Closinp Costs
1500
73.11
=.4117.'A0
NET LAND COST
_
' ''w3''I~ •LAND, AN?,liS'SIS -CO~'E
n~
4-
R:4GE-,n
_
LAND AREA
AREA
UNITS
6.500
Acres
Retail land
0.000 .
Acres
Less: Pad Sales
4.000
Acres
Less: Anchor Sale
NET LAND AREA
1.500
Acres
-
1(18.900
S uare Feet
Building coverage
14,490
Drug
6.000
Shops
Misc
Ground Leases,
2.500
'
Retail Pad 1
s
Retail Pad 1
TOTAL RUILIIING AREA
2
re Feet
SITE COVERAGE 23.7%
e,ve<vmi.as
Project
Proforma
COSTS:
,;..;y reyl- a'Rh, TOTAL`PRE=DH'EI;OPMENTLCOSTSm~`
SITE ITEM vsF BLDG.
;
T(1TAL S
0.19
5.000
Geotechnical Smdy
029
1.500
Phase ISII Environmental
0 '9
i 500
Survey - .ALTA -
0.29
0
Topographic Survey
0.19.
5.000
Traffic Studies
0.00
0
Phase II Environmental
039
10,000
Architect Planning
0.19
5.000
Civil Engineering
0.91
=5,000
Entitlement
0.55
15,000
Pre-Development Legal
?0,000.
Misc.
TOTAL PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS
3.88
100'000
SITE\1'ORI COSTS
s.
Re uireme
Tom]
Clearing and Grubbing
0
Earthwork and Site Grading
0
Building Pad Preparation -
0
100,000
Demolition
0
Enhanced Paving
0
Site Demolition
0
Utilities (New)
0
Utilities (Relocate)
0
Site Lighting
0
Drainage and Storm Sewer
Landscape Premium (50.25 per land SF)
0
Site Fumishings
0
0
Entrance Signs .
0
Amenity Package
0
Testing and Inspection
0
City Grading Pemm & Utilities
Electrical
-
0
0
Traffic Signal
0
Fountain
-
0
impact Fees
0
Side, als/Pedesnian Bridge
Sitework Contingency -
0
On/off Site Cosa (55.5 per SF)
695,950
Contingenq. (540)
34,945
Total Sitework -
933,898
LESS:
Public Storage reimbursement
Other Reimbursements Ground Lease
180'000
TOTAL
6°3.899
cl,verwwl.M
Project
Proforma
HARD COSTS
SHEI LiCOSTSx a° a• ' 3~? U i 'i"
TENANT SIZE
a °
SHELL PSF
xa saa,Tx : rJ
SHELL TOTAL
14.490
80.00
1.159.00
Drug
6
000
70.00
420.000
Shops
.
' 1.000
Shell Contingency (.5%)
440
20
75.10
1.601,'_00
IT(1TA1. SHF.I.L COSTS
.
9:~TENANI`_IA4PR0N'ENt$NTS !t'~RY
TENANT
~~«;r$''
SFLE
~~''e,
ya
TI PSF
TI TOTAL
14.490
10.00
144.900
Drug _
6
000
10.00
60.000
Shops
.
0 .245
1
Contingency (5%)
TnTAT TFNANTIMTRMTMENTS
20.490
10.50
.145
5
Cm varaw~ I.,s
Project
Proforma
SOFT COSTS
SOFTICOSTS -
a~:To'ta
Architect:
Design., MEP. Swctural
4.50
92105
Pre-Development Planning
-
0
Exterior Concept Design
-
0
Additional Services. -
0
Expense Reimbursement
0
Anchor Reimbursement -
0
Landscape Architect:
Pre-Development Planning
0
Landscape Design
0
Expense. Reimbursement
0
Anchor Reimbursement
0
Civil Engineer:
'
Pre-Development Design
0
Siteworl: Design & Construction Drawings
_
5.04
130.000
Expense Reimbursement
0
Anchor Reimbursement -
0
City Permits/Fees
10.66
275.000
Permits/Fees Reimbursement
- 0
Developer Overhead (4% of H.C. and A&E)
7.75
200,(100
JV Developer Management Fee
-
0
Marketing
0
Legal
3.88
100,000
Propem Taxes (Prior to C. O.)
3.40
87.739
Anchor Reimbursement
-
0
Construction Bond
0.32
8.339
Contineencv(5%)
Li3
44.664
Toml Sn17 Costs
36.37
937.947
nilities, matt testing, survey
1.25% Land Cost a 50% of 115% Hard Cost
:COT USSIONS`r_LEASING x
z
f
1 ~
TENANT
SIZE
OUTSIDE
OUTSIDE
$ PSF
TOTAL
Drug
14.490
_ 6.00
86.940
Shops
6,000
6.00
36.000
Misc
Ground Leases -
Retail Pad1
45,000
Retail Pad 1
45,000
TOTAL COMMISSIONS
20490
70.39
212.940
1.00%
i.00%
i.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.010%
~c" vmsim axis
Project
Proforma
;~'Y ~!;,FLNANCLNG/HOI;DING•COST5~16?~a_.`>r;
` r
~y;:;y,"w- s
~ ~_~~F
v~.,Total.v
Financing Costa (See Detail in cost Projections)
506,992
Total Financing and Taxes 506.982
INCOME
r a a w`'.SPA'CE a` a
~.%-`SIZESt A
,,REN7$/SFx,
'"RE
NTAI $ ;
Drag
14,490
24.00
347,760
Shops
6,000
24.00
144,000
use
5yc ~a
gp~62S
l y~
103,160
Ground Leases
-
Retail Pad 1
75,000
Retail Pad 1
-
-
75,000
TOTAL RENTAL INCOME
20.490
36.36
744.920
REIMBURSEMENTS'
Common Area Maintenance
-
64'475
Adminisuation Fee (10% of CAM on leases)
6.448
Propm)' Taxes -
-
68,627. .
Insurance
4.610
Total Reimbursements
144,159
Tom] Income
-
889,079
VACANCY & COLLECTION LOSS (Excluding Anchors/Credit/Chain)
(13,455)
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
-
875,625
EXPENSES
Management Fees - Non-reimburseable (4.0% of Total Income)
4.00%
(35,563)
Common Area Maintenance
52.50
(64.475)
Property Taxes - Based on Total Construction Cost
53.35
(68.627)
General & Administrauve - Non-Reimbursable
S0.05
(5,000)
Insurance -
$0.30
(6.147)
Total Expenses -
(179,812)
NDT (1PPR ATINC. 1NC(1ME
695,813
~glsF
Not less than $5.000
c,vRm Ln
e Q rv m~ ~ ~ P O 0 m P m N o ~ N
n _ „ m _ r n m n O "
° ~ r Im n
` I I II
o « ~ m P Im Irv Im I« n
R
> p m
o pp O p m n
O n ^ m pp ~ n ~O rP ° n m OC b m c ^ m
m O m m m h m P m N p n R
p
11
. C ~ m m P O I P N I m I n I m ~ Y
U~ I I n R
>
I~ R
N P n II
O n P O m N . P m _ n N N _ O N Y
~ O V ,D O m n n rv^ N O ri n p
mrv » mnP ~ ~ IP Im I IN Im I~u
II
R
O C m V m N N 11
pp n O- m rv ~ . P O~ ~p m P ~D b ~ r ~I
~p ~ m m b P m
' - m N ~ n n N O p n Imm I n n 1" - I~ M Y
n P N N 11
n
n ~ R
i o
_ _ m& m rv N N ~ P P n
o$N~ ~ gn - n m mil
b _ N - n n P n ~I ,
I
- O p n n r ll
~D Y
~ `n. M I In II
yy II
r d I p u
O P .p p $ N N P O~ m~ r . O p I '
b n n °r P ~O P m b r✓ r 0' 11 '
-t `O P_ mn lOry Im I bn n IP Im Ib p.
O m ~ I,D IN_ _e P
> C ° P 11
e P Q o n m n
a ^ h N n O ~ NO] N n Nm m n O N ? m. N jj
Q ~ m ip P - ~ ~ n n m R
u m n
9 yy Im ~ Ir I II
c N$ » $ n n l y ° 10 I M n '
K > g I I N m m o m P n No O m .p R
Qw b ~ ~.n !mr d T ,G m n O rv rv~ P N 6 P m Y
' V PN M p nnP - O.ImN Im I ~pn n Im Im I« n
e Y Y II
Y q V I I1D I _ n
o r m n
n n 0 r ~ N P n m m O m~ n m ~ ~
e m
$ n m I r N n
n0 ^ NPP = O Imrv ° I mmP n Im I~ I~~.
y " .
p ~ I I P 11
10,
' ° ~ ° o I m I 'O e «
' $ « e mN I Im u
o II
e e
o ° ° n o $ n °n o N O o ° n -
n•q< o n I~= I~ PNn.:Nri ~ NI4 '
e e ~ N N I O m I r I u .
N>°O
W
m
C W
m y N ~ Z W
Cy > ¢ p w x p O
> ~ C L C ~mj K In ~ v ~ 2 ¢
s ~ u ~ ~ c § N w ~ r z - OW
uNi w .2 a c Ea T N o p1. r¢~_^.
Fat ` C l9 % 6 i a_ W F m
9 ev Z 'E 9 E n Q> > z ? `v-' u o w
LL p~ ~ w s s r ~ O Ua W G g d.= F Z r S
aS
j'
T
j
Y
>
^
~
r
JS
s
1
3C
a
n
~
~
B
;
-
-
v
_
_
-
C
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
ti
e
F
s
S~1
a
Y
r
~
k
~
b3
S
t
y
-
{
S
yr~
Yli,
-
-
St
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
V
q
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
y
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
lu
- -
i
NY`
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
TA~ 9
9 R.
O ~ tl
2
O
-1-
ro
77
O
n
ran
d '
a
~n
a
a
r~
7t
In
~[b~y
l`1
d
x
r~
H