Notes - Mtg on 10-16-1991~VIcGLINCEY LANE EXPANSION AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
and
WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN DEVELOPMENT
~blic Informational Meeting
October 16, 1991
City Council Chamber _ .
Campbell City Hall - :~
Campbell, CA 95008 ~ , ` ,
. <::
7:00 P.M. ~~~
1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Randy 'Tsuda, Senior Planner, City Planning Department, explained the
purpose of the meeting, gave an overview of the Public Heanng process,
and a ;-ummary of the Winchester Drive-In proposal. He explained that
there are presently three projects encompassing the McGlincey Lane area:
(1) development of the Winchester Dnve-In site; (2) expansion of the
Redevelopment Project Area to include McGlincey and Cristich; and ~3) a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The focus of this meeting is on
the Winchester Drive-In roject and the Draft E1R. Beginning in 1992, the
City will hold public hearings directly related to the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
Future public hearings will be held as follows:
1. Thursday, October 24, 1991, 7:30 p.m., before the City of Campbell
Planning Commission, first public hearing on the Draft EIR and
Winchester Drive-In development.
2. Thursday, November 7, 1991, 7:30 p.m., before the City of Campbell
Plaruvng Commission, second public hearing on the Winchester Drive-In
Development and Draft EIR.
3. Latc: November/early December, 1991, before the City Council, public
hearing on the adoption of the Final EIR.
Comments made during the public hearings and written communications
received by the Planning Department/Planning Commission will be responded
to by the City's Consultant, CH2M Hill, and made a part of the Final EIR.
2. Redevelopment Area Expansion
Marty Woodworth, Redevelopment Manager, gave an overview of redevelopment
projects planned for the McGlincey Lane area, and announced the
availability of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area Preliminary Report.
Staff will begin the Fiscal Review process with affected taxing agencies
and public; hearings on the amendment will begin in February, 1992.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR October 16, 1991
and Winchester Dnve-In Development Page 2
3. Environmental Im av ct Report
Valerie Young, CHZM Hill, explained the intent of the Draft EIR is to
disclose to the public potential environmental effects from a given
project and to identify mitigation measures which can offset the
identified impacts. Ms. Young outlined the significant effects and
mitigation measures as reported in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Draft EIR.
4. ~i.~ it
Gary Kruger, City Traffic Engineer, reviewed the traffic mitigation
measures described in the Draft EIR.
4. Public Commentsf Questions and Answers
Kendall Smith, 251 Curtner.
(Q) Is the Redevelopment Agency restricted to development within the city
limits of Campbell?
(A) Yes.
Q The: proposal shows the taking of part of my property, which is
located iin the County. If redevelopment is restricted to within the City
limits, how can this be done?
(A) Because of the environmental impact, and as a mitigation measure,
property beyond the City limits can be acquired. However, it is not the
City's intent to acquire nght-of-way on Curtner Avenue. The drawing in
the Draft EIR document depicting the widening of Curtner to Bascom was
developed by a different consultant not in relation to this project.
Robert Dodge, 170 Twin Oaks Dr., Los Gatos.
(Q) McGlincey Lane between Curtner and the Drive-In site needs attention
right now. There is considerable traffic, making it difficult to get in
and out of driveways. A large delivery truck loading/unloading
merchandise leaves only one lane open. The Draft EIR states that a center
left turn lane would not be required until the year 2000, but it is needed
now. The Redevelopment Agency should take everything off one side of the
street, buy the whole block, open McGlincey to the new development, and
get anotl:~er 50 feet on the street so the remaining property owners can use
the street to their best advantage, and ma be property prices would go
back up. You have to look forward and not lock us there to the year 2000
when you put the left turn lane in the middle. We need it right now. I
want to emphasize that you should be far sighted and take all the space
you need now for any projects in the future.
(A) The EIR report is just a look at the net change between existing
conditions and the future. From a traffic engineenng standpoint, the
lane is not needed unti12000.
McGlincey Lame Expansion Area EIR October 16, 1991
and Winchester Drive-In Development Page 3
James Griffiths, 971 Dry Creek Road, owner of 260 Cristich.
(Q) Do you plan on expanding to more than two lanes?
A Thee plan is to develop to 40 feet of width on 50 feet of
right-of--way, parking on one side, and a two way left turn lane. There
maybe substitute parkingg pprovided on the east side of Cristich.
(Q) The: light at McGlincey and Union is needed, but I don't see where the
traffic is goingg to ~o when it comes out of the new development. How is
this going; to affect Umon?
(A) Half the traffic goes to the freeway, the other half fans out through
the neighborhood. There is a fair amount of traffic on McGlincey, and
there wild be more. Cristich and McGlincey and McGlincey and Union will
require signal control.
David Schrader, 213 Cristich.
(Q~ ThE; budget indicates $2.1 million for traffic improvements on
Cristich. Does it include having to purchase all the property for a
frontage road which is one of your alternatives?
(A) No. This is just an alternative looked at in the EIR, and will be
more seriously reviewed m the next few months.
(Q) Do you have any idea when you would know whether you plan to exercise
that alternative?
(A) Western Federal Savings (the owner of the Winchester Drive-In site)
will be selecting a developer vv~thin the next few weeks. We would need to
get information from an eventual developer as to their preference. Once
that is indicated, then the decision making process would begin. The
ultimate decision as to which alternative would be ap roved would lie with
the Planning Commission and City Council. (Q) Wo u 1 dp exterior s t o r a g e
yards still be allowed?
(A) The McGlincey Lane Preliminary Report does not change land use or
zoningg in the area. If there are legal existing storage yards,
redevelopment would not cause everything to be put inside. The properties
most likely to redevelop are those that don't have substantial
im roverr,~ents on them.
Q Your wouldn't be condemning because of more higher use?
A It ins possible that if somebody came in with a development and needed
different parcels to consolidate, and a storage yard is one of them, it
could happen. It is something that could happen under the Redevelopment
Agency's power. Non-conforming houses and storage yards are the most
likely to redevelop.
Jim Chalmers, 700 McGlincey.
(Q) Is there a completed Redevelopment Plan for the area?
A The McGlincey Lane Expansion Area and Accompanying Amendments
Prelimina: Report has just been published and is available for review at
City Hall in the Planning and Redevelopment Departments and at the
Campbell Library. It speaks more specifically about what the plans are
for the area. In reality, the Redevelopment Agency is expanding the
existing Redevelopment Plan to include the McGlincey Lane area. The
Repport is most detailed in terms of what we want to accomplish and the
dollazs involved.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR October 16, 1991
and Winchester Dnve-In Development Page 4
(Q) Hovv can you go ahead with an EIR and vote on the EIR and the
Winchester Drive-In without completing a redevelopment plan to let
everybody know what is going to happen?
(A) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows review in a
number of ways. For purposes of the EIR, we assumed certain things:
development of the drive-m site and construction of a new City/school
district corporation yard would require 200,000 sq. ft.
CEQA acknowledges that you are not going to know exactly which projects
are going; to be built and exactly what you assumed. A Program EIR allows
you, wht:n you get a specific project, to review how closely the project
fits with your assumptions. Where it differs from your assumptions, you
do supplemental environmental work.
Q The water supply system, will that accommodate future development?
~A~ We have had a difficult time getting an answer from the San Jose
Water Company. They say it is difficult for them to answer the question
directly without the absence of a specific development project, because
they base their water allocations on construction. (Q) You have $1. S
million indicated in the budget for this whole project and in the EIR
document is a letter from the San Jose Water Company saying the water
system won't accommodate anything besides the Winchester Drive-In site for
$1,468,000. There is no future for anybody else.
(A) The EIR addresses the project specifically that is proposed for the
drive-in site because we have a proposed development project for that.
Because we don't have any other development plans for other sites in the
project area, we look at them on an overall program level specifically in
terms of the number of cars generated from the new square footage and
other overall program areas. The Water District doesn't know what the
re uireme:nts are until a specific development proposal is submitted.
(Q~ The EIR addresses some areas m a gglobal sense, but on the other hand
is specific to the Winchester Drive-In site. Why not just handle
redevelopment?
(A) All sections of the EIR include a 200,000 build out projection. We
are assuming that certain properties are built out and unlikely to
redevelop,. If there is a maximum size structure in fairly good condition,
there is nc- incentive to redevelop.
Steve Ul.ett, 2640 Curtner Lane Ct. Chairperson, Cambrian Community
Council. The Cambrian Community Council has submitted a letter in
response to the EIR, specifically citing the traffic circulation
mitigation measures prior to the opening of Route 85. The Council
represents that it would be ludicrous to allow development of the
Wmcheste:r Drive-In site prior to the completion of Route 85. The Council
also questions the statement in the EIR that air quality at Bascom/Union
and Bascom/Curtner cannot be mitigated, yet movement of cars can.
John Allard, representing 185 Vietenheimer Lane.
(Q) Could you go into more detail what the street improvements might be
for Vietenheimer, which is a right of way and not a street.
(A) The intent is to make it a public street.
McGlincey L.~ule Expansion Area EIR
and Winchester Dnve-In Development
October 16, 1991
Page 5
(Q) Would the City or Redevelopment Agency attempt to buy right of way to
make it a public street?
(A) Thc; Agency would not necessarily pay for all costs. We would expect
cooperation from the property owners.
(Q) ThE; sewer line is presently undersized, would it be taken care of?
A It is. something that could be looked at.
James Griffiths, 971 Dry Creek.
(Q) Has anyone considered the realignment of Gartner Avenue just north of
Camden.
(A) We would convert the two-way left turn into a moving lane of
traffic. No realignment of Curtner is envisioned.
Nancy Pennall, 260 and 266 McGlincey.
(Q) Regarding the proposed light at McGlincey and Cristich, are you
planning to enlarge the street? Would it become a sweeping turn and be
sh htly realigned?
(A~ Just a signal.
Lance Levy, 390 McGlincey.
(Q) Why do we need sidewalks and who is going to pay? If we are going to
lose paring on McGlincey, the property owners are going to lose revenues
which wf; should be reimbursed for. What is going to happen to the people
who have been there for 20 or 30 years?
(A) In terms of reimbursement and lost revenue, that is not something
that is addressed in the course of an EIR. These comments are more
appropriately directed to the Planning Commission and City Council when
they consider the expansion of the redevelopment area.
Q How much sidewalk would be required, and why on McGlincey?
~A~ The: City has adopted a policy to require sidewalks in industrial
areas, which includes a four to five foot landscaped parking strip and a
minimum five foot sidewalk.
(Q) If no parking is going to be allowed on the street, why require
sidewalks?
(A) It's adopted City policy.
Steve Phillips, representing the Cambrian School District. 4115 Jacksol
Dr. 7'he School District would like to go on record as disagreeing with
the stai:ement on page 1.4, that there is no significant impact to
schools. In addition, on page 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment
checklist, # 11, Population: Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution density, or growth rate of the human population of an
area? And # 14, Public Schools: "Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
following areas: Schools." "No" is checked in both instances, and the
District disagrees. The District will be submitting written comments.
Arthur Burton, 879 McGlincey
Q Who pays for the EIR report?
A~ It has been paid jointly by the Redevelopment Agency and Western
Federal Savings has paid a pro rata share m proportion to the proposed
development, i.e., 23 acres out of 100.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR October 16, 1991
and Winchester Drive-In Development Page 6
(Q) Of all the studies made in the area, I am not aware of any survey
that has been made of the local property owners in the McGlincey area,
which is far more critical than most of the other items. Property and
business owners who are not in favor or in favor should be quite critical
one would think. I am not aware of any survey. On this cost estimate of
$19.7 million, I originally estimated about $10 million. Except for the
corporation yard, it appears that all the rest of the money is being spent
for the drive-in site. Improvements wouldn't need to be improved that
drasticallly for current businesses as they exist starting with hazardous
waste abatement. One of them is the drive-in site and the other two are
sites that are currently being cleaned up. The remaining $2 million is on
the asbestos at the drive-in. Everyone else has to reach into their own
pocket.
(A) That is not the intent. This is a preliminary budget. This is our
best guess and we don't have $2 million. Funds will only come in as the
area redevelops and we but the money back in to the area. The $2 million
is not targeted for the drive-in site.
(Q) Is ithe City/Redevelopment prepared to donate $12 million towards the
site, or haw much many funds are budgeted toward this one particular site?
(A) This is our estimate in terms of improvements. A lot will go for
developmerit of the site. Storm drains would be installed whether or not
the drive-in site develops. Cristich Lane is something the City has
talked about for a long time -- regardless of the drive-in. The City
doesn't have $2 million to make it happen and therefore Redevelopment is
one way to make it happen. A lot of this is to facilitate the development
of the drive-in site, but in return from a City standpoint, with a box
retail de:velopmeet, the City will receive significant sales tax revenue to
be used for police, fire, and public works services.
Craig Smith, 251 Curtner
(Q) If the development of the drive-in site is not approved, how much
will be spent in the area for improvements?
(A) Redevelopment funds are generated as property values increase. It
does not increase your taxes Substantial funds are coming from the
existing project area.
g
(Q)
e:-tern Federal is liable for 23%, or almost $4 million. That is
still $1'• million out of everybody else's pocket. That is a lot of
financial. responsibility to everybody else to help a small group of
people.
(A) Tha~se comments should be directed during the hearing on the
Redevelopment area expansion, not the EIR.
Y
d
(Q)
ou,
rew all the plans, all the projections. No matter what we say,
we're being sacrificed. Any other developer would pay for street
improvemients in the whole area. I don't want his piece of property. I
bought none for my retirement. I want him to develo, but don't sacrifice
me. Will you buy our properties if because of this improvement we lose
our renters, we lose our livelihood? This is something that has to be
thought about. What is the environmental impact if this doesn't go?
(A) It sits there like it is today.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR October 16, 1991
and Winchester Dnve-In Development Page 7
Ray Matsumoto, 196 Curtner
(Q) I've: been in business for 31 years and we've talked about the traffic
dam when the drive-in was there. Now you're talking about three signals
and only one lane. I don't have to be a college engineer to tell you
there's going to be a traffic jam right now. Then ou're going to put in
a nice building. Customers are not going to drive through traffic jams.
(A) All way stops have a very low or limited capacity compared to
signalized intersections. The all way stop at Curtner and McGhncey has
less capacity to handle traffic than a traffic signal would.
Cristich business owner
(Q) Storm drains are inadequate. Flows eventually into drinking water.
Abandoned cars are an eye sore. I think redevelopment is good. Applaud
developer for coming in, but traffic concerns are very important and one
lane isn't going to work.
Ken Pearsall, President, Cambrian Village Homeowners
(Q) Sent a letter. Asked that traffic conditions be addressed.
McGlincey and Curtner traffic will back up to Camden and San Tomas
Expressway and create gridlock. We ask in our letter that access off of
the drive-in site on to Highway 17 be considered, even a metered light.
Unidentified Person
(Q) Being that the City stated their main reason for this whole plan is
ffor economic benefit of the City, is there, or has there been a plan for
what economic impact there will be to property or business owners? You
are taking from some place. It is going to be a severe financial impact
to other property owners for the benefit of one.
(A) If you look at redevelopment areas typically as the area improves,
access is improved, prope~ values go u~.
(Q) Not completely. n Vietenheimer and Cristich the property owners are
oing to bye asked for bond issues.
~A) We haven't worked out the financial details. At this point, the
mayor pportion will be paid by the Redevelopment Agency. We are doing a
Local Imp rovement District (LID) in the Dillon/Gilman area. The Agency is
puttingg in half the value of the improvements.
Q Sha:rmon Palms is relying fully on the property owners.
~A~ 20%0 of all redevelopment funds have to be spent on low and moderate
income housing. These funds are being used in conjunction with a
non-profit housing developer to improve the Sharmon Palms area. The law
is very specific as to what redevelopment funds can be used for. They
cannot be used for police and fire services. They can only be used in the
project area, except for the housing funds. If the Redevelopment Agency
actually works with the property owner to do a project, participates m
combining parcels, and if relocation is necessary, the Agency must
compensate the party for finding a new location. If you decide to
redevelop on your own, the Agency is not required to participate.
McGlince Lane Expansion Area EIR
and Winc~estc:r Drive-In Development
October 16, 1991
Page 8
335 McGlincey
This is a business are and I've never seen a business area go down in
value because of more traffic. Most businesses encourage traffic to come
in and brink in retail traffic. A lot of businesses would gladly, change
over to retail which pays more rent than the types of businesses m there
now. Regarding the drive-in, remembcr that the traffic was bad when the
drive-in was there because everyone was going and leaving at the same
time. 'The new development has traffic at different times and it's not
fair to make that comparison.
Unidentified Person
(Q) Hovv many cars per day would be required to make a business like
Costco a viable concern?
(A) The figures are given in the EIR. Peak hour on a week day is
approximately 12 cars per hour. 21-22 cars per hour at Saturday peak.
851 Sweetbriar, 970 McGlincey
(Q) Union to Bascom is jammed up every day all the way to McGlincey. It
is already a problem. There is also a problem at McGlincey and Curtner.
There are nothing but problems now, and nothing but more problems with
more traffic.
Art Singhram, 870 McGlincey
(Q) During the sco~ing sessions there were several questions asked. When
will those be answered.
A In ttie Final EIR.
~Q~ As part of the EIR, there are two re orts from Ames and Moore to
Western Federal; were those paid for by Western F ederal or the City?
A By ~Nestern Federal.
Q Is that not a conflict of interest?
A The Supreme Court released a decision that it is not a conflict of
interest.
(Q) It is not a standard position for the City.
A The method we have used is that the City has paid for the EIR and
administers the contract with the consultant. Western Federal has paid
their proportional share.
Unidentified Person
(Q) I would like to make a protest that the homeowners in the area have
never been notified of this plan.
(A) The law requires notification to property owners within 300 feet of
the development. We have notified property owners within 500 feet. We
sent 600 notices regarding this meeting.
Staff stated that they would be happy to meet with anyone or answer questions
by telephone. 'The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~_
;i!~
Marlene Pomeroy
Recording Sec~•etary