PD - 1991 - WithdrawnWi=; TERN FEDERAL SAV, NGS
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
July 22, 1993
Mr. Steve Piasecki
Community Development Center
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
RE:
THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE
Dear Mr. Piasecki:
On June 4, 1993 Western Federal Savings was placed under
conservatorship by the Resolution Trust Corporation ("RTC"). It is
the policy of the RTC to require non-contingent offers to purchase
real property. Western Federal has received and rejected a
contingent offer from Mr. Les Pelio to purchase the Winchester
Drive-In property.
In order for Mr. Pelio to complete his investigation of the
property prior to resubmitting a non-contingent offer to Western,
he needs to meet with you and other City officials to explore
various land use concepts for the Drive-In site. Western Federal
does not object to Mr. Pelio meeting with you and reviewing land
use issues for the property and would encourage you to assist Mr.
Pelio so that he can complete his investigation of the Drive-In
site.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Your cooperation is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
KM\780. ss
WESTERN FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION
13160 MINDANAO WAY
P.O. BOX 9959
MARINA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA 90292
(310) 306-6500
CITY OF MPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
tOe ee r'
June 17, 1992
Mr. Ken McKay, Asset Manager
Western Federal Savings
13160 Mindanao Way, Suite 210
Marina Del Rey, CA 90295-2395
SUBJECT:
Purchase Agreement between Western Federal Savings and
WTA Development
Dear Ken:
Thank you for providing the City an excerpt from the Purchase Agreement
between Western Federal Savings and WTA Development. The information
has given us a dearer understanding of the timelines facing WTA.
Staff has serious concerns with the requirement that WTA obtain written
support of Campbell staff for the general plan amendment before August 17,
1992. Staff will not be able to provide such a letter by that date. Given a
project of this importance, staff will not be able to provide a recommendation
on WTA's forthcoming proposal until we have received and analyzed
information such as the following:
· Complete applications for the general plan amendment and zone change
Complete application for the planned development permit, including a
detailed set of development plans.
· An analysis of alternative land uses.
· The environmental impact report.
As we have indicated to Stu Adams, it is also necessary that WTA undertake
an extensive public involvement effort with business owners, property
owners, and neighborhood groups in the surrounding areas.
Although we cannot provide the letter of support, we are willing to provide a
Letter to Ken McKay
Pase -2-
June 17,1992
letter confirming that status of WTA's proposal as of August 17. The letter
can also document that WTA has been consulting with City staff. If there are
other forms the letter could take, please let me know. We would like to work
with you and WTA to structure a letter that will fulfill everyone's obligations.
On a related matter, staff has determined that the Department of Planning
will be the lead department on the WTA project. Please direct all future
contact to myself.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Senior Planner
CC:.
Stewart Adams
WTA Development
P.O. Box 10098
Palo Alto, CA 94303-0854
Steve Piasecki
Marty Woodworth
Don Wimberly
535 Westchester File
mckay6-9.1et(mcl5)
t is remodeling project that began in mid-Sel~
ter. tember. Completion of the first phase of the
:ion project -- which includes a new office wing,
Eugene Louie -- Mercury New:
interior remodeling of the community center
and renovation to the city's corporation yard
building -- is planned by April.
you don't drinl
potential p~oblems as th,
clubs have been proposed.
Commissioner Lee Cha:
said he thought it was a
borhood that residents d
neighborhood is not shy al
said.
Several people in their i
looked forward to going
would be a refreshing chal
to get drank.
"It's an exciting idea,"
"There's usually not muc
out to a bar and get hanu
comedy club, it's differel
don't drink that much."
The club would serve;
nights for "under 21" el
would be served. The tow.
new alcohol permits in
officials feared too many
into residential neighbor
downtown business distrk
and bars.
n
help
gulf war
or 12 h'ours to raise
Los Baflos wrestler in-
m class accident. This
tided to increase the
psomeone closer to
ting to assistant Coach
!.
· something out our
le said.
held its first fund-
se 'We wanted to find
~ bring the team carna-
ther," Gilmore said.
around a cause outside
~s something this team
said.
'OOL SCENE, Page 2
Campbell drops
building plans
Opposition rose
for ex-drive-in
By Michael Cronk
Mercury News Staff Writer
Development plans for the
former Winchester Drive-In site
were shelved by the Campbell
Planning Commission last week
at the request of city staff after
opposition from property and
business owners in the McGlin-
coy Lane area.
"The application for a
planned development permit
has been removed from the cal-
endar, which puts it in limbo for
the time being," said Randy
Tsuda, a senior planner with the
city.
Tsuda said the major reason
for the action was that since the
property owner, Western Feder-
al Savings and Loan, hadn't yet
selected a developer for the site
there really wasn't a viable pro.
ject for the commission to con-
sider.
Another reason, he said, was
that an issue raised by the pub-
nc regarding truck access and
loading on McGlincey Lane
hadn't received much attention
in the city's draft environmental
impact report.
Western Federal was seeking
a planned development permit
for a 245,000-square-foot "desti-
nation commercial" project fea-
turing the type of store that be-
comes the destination for a
shopping trip, such as a discount
warehouse type store open 'to
the public.
The 25-acre drive-in site is
part, of a 101-acre addition of
the McGlincey Lane area into
the Central Campbell Redevel-
opment Project Area. Putting
McGlincev in the redevelop-
See DRIVE-IN, Page 6
Campbell offi(
to upgrade do
By Michael Cronk ample
Mercury News Staff Writer downt(
Campbell city officials and mcr- succe.~
chants renewed their vows to revi- corem
talize the downtown area during Gatsb.~
an old-fashioned town meeting He als
held last week at the Gaslighter ly
Theater. servia
The merchants, some of whom regula
believe the economic plight of the reque~
downtown hadn't been a top priori- The
ty at City Hall, arranged the meet- projec
ing to present their concerns about talizil
the area's future to City Manager much
Tom Frutchey. Mayor Michael Ko- Frutcl
towski and officials from the city's to beg
redevelopment agency also attend- be co~
ed. Ap
For their part, the city officials retur~
reassured the business owners that the fi'
the city is moving ahead with plans Camp
to revitalize the downtown and will verte~
listen to any suggestions, fie w
"We need new forums for keep- City
ing communication open and this is loop
a start. As problems arise we need were
to talk," said Frutchey. "I think The h
there is tremendous potential for the
the downWwn area and the entire to-bm
city." bell
Frutchey ~ited some recent ex-
6 .,.:Extra 3 · San Jose Mercury News · Wed., November 20, 1991
':"' Cover Stories -
Los Gatos to form first rede,.
But Loekfeld, director of the eotmty's Los Gatos officials say the county's
i OS GATOS
dyer the redevelopment agency. The agen-
cy would still proceed pending the out-
oome of such legal action.
"County official Frank Lockfeld, who has
I~een involved in the negotiations, told the
douneil that the county viewed the agency
as "a noble idea, but a rip-off of fellow
gOvernments · · · the last thing we want to
see is additional agencies causing a burden
Center for Urban Analysis, said after the
meeting that he doesn't expect a court-
room battle. "The last thing we'd like to do
is go to court. We do want to make an
agreement with Los Gatos. We're waiting
to hear back from them on another offer."
Councilman Steve Blanton said Los Ga-
tos' property ~ revenue represents such
a small overan amount to Santa Clara
County that "I find it hard to look at this
situation as critical dollars for the coun-
(on the county)."
Campbell pulls plan for drive-in
IDRIVE'IN sideration of a freeway inter- hours of 8 and 5, when we make
change on Highway 17 to service our Uving, there would be 2,200
from Page 1
opment Project Area. Putting
McGlineeY in the redevelopment
area would facilitate improve-
merits to utilities, storm drains and
streets.
' However, property owners along
MeGlineey said they feared the
traffic generated by development
of the Winchester site would mean
the death of their businesses, many
of which have been in the area 25
to 35 years.
The opposition was led by Deena
Vaughn, an executive with San
jose Forest Products on McGlin-
cey Lane, who presented a letter at
the commission's Nov. 7 meeting
accompanied by a petition signed
by more than 250 business owners
demanding more in-depth traffic
studies and requesting further con-
the Winchester site.
The drive.in site is essentially
landlocked, with access mainly
through side streets._,that~.~raafl~
ready heavily traveleu. ~-c
EIR concluded that development
of the site would create significant
traffic problems, but that those
problems could be corrected
through traffic engineering mea-
sures.
"Everyone agrees that the Win-
chester Drive-In site is an eyesore
and should be developed," Vaughn
stated in the letter, Her letter said
most business owners want to co-
operate in attracting a destination
retailer "but object to using
McGlincey Lane as a driveway."
The letter stated that more than
20,000 cars and trucks daily would
use McGlincey. "Between the_
share would be about $3 million or $4
million over the 40-year life of the rede-
velopment agency, under the most recent
plan proposed to county officials for div-
vying up the funds.
Los Gatos officials also pointed out that
the town saves the county thousands of
dollars by paying for street, police and
library services to county residents who
live in islands surrounded by the town.
During the town council hearing, several
residents whose homes in the older Al-
mond Grove neighborhood behind North
r
cars per hour. This will totally tie
up the street and our own business
vehicles will be trapped on our
rt "
pr~P~tv~ ~affic engineer Gary ,~Kr~l,_-
ge;'~id traffic volum_es .w.oma .~.
much lower than that. But, ne sam,
"They are right about the conflict
with truck loading and the amount
of traffic that will be generated if
the site is developed."
Vaughn said local property, o .w?,_-
ers want city offici',ds to .w.,ori~ m~um'
Caltraus in coming up w~m a sol -
tion for traffic problems that
would arise from development of
the site.
Although he initially favored the
idea an a freeway interchange
kn in 1989, Kruger said subse-
t studies indicated that would
harm a number of nearby residen-
tial streets.
S(
The
heat(
ly w
~nnie
,rium
hedu;
The.,
sinc
Campbell officials hear
merchants' complaints
COMPLAINTS
from Page 1
ffusiness. However, the new config-
uration isolated the downtown core
ahd further hurt sales.
'Liz Gibbons, project manager,
said the city has already purchased
........... +~t u~.bia and tr~ffJc
& We have to
redefine the
downtown in an
attractive way.
NOTICE TO DESTROY WEEDS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on
November 5, 1991, pursuant to the pro-
v sions of Section 17.54.020 of the
Campbell Mun cipal Code, the City
Council passed a resolution declaring
that all weeds growing upon any priv..ate
property or in any public street or a{tey,
as del ned in Section 17.54 010 of the
Campbell Municipal Code, constitute a
ublic nuisance, which nuisance must
ge abated by the destruction or removal
thereof.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pro-
erty owners shall, without dolayL~.m.°v.e.
P~, ~uch weeds from their prop?[t~. ,mu,
7~'~-~h.. no half of the street in tro.nt ano.
between the io! lines tn
ed or such weeds will be destroyed or
, . ......... ~ .~altiiLbv
Special 12 Po
1. Check Electric
Z Clean & Grea~
3. Check Motor [
4. Clean &Orea
I.5. Lubricate ail }
6. FREE Bag
COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN
NOVEMBER 11, 1991
1. BACKGROUND
2. ISSUES
A.
B.
C.
Redevelopment Plan Amendment
Future of Box Retail Uses in Campbell
Congestion Management
3. OPTIONS FOR DRIVE-IN DEVELOPMENT
A.
B.
C.
Status Quo
Scaled Back Project
Withdraw PD Application
Winchester Drive-in Update
Introduction
Purpose: Status report, major public issues, alternative approaches,
commitee's input
Update
A. 3 projects
PD 91-04 -- 245,000 destination retail center
Expansion of the Redevelopment Project Area
EIR on both items
B. PC has held hearing on DEIR, forwarded to CC after FEIR is prepared.
C. PC held two hearings on PD permit, third hearing tommorrow night.
D. Major Issues
Traffic
Existing truck loading and access on McGlincey and Cristich
Air Quality
Fear of RDA
Petition signed by 250 people, asking for further traffic studies and
an interchange at WDI site
Three Ma.ior Factor~
Redev Project Area Expansion
1. Need to get RDPA expanded in order to get any development on
site, box retail or otherwise
B. Congestion Management Agency
If the PD Permit is not approved by January 1, project is subject to
the CMA, which will make development of site very difficult.
C. Feasibility of Box Retail
Originally when changed the LU designation to destination comm.,
Costco was interested in developing site.
Costco is no longer intereseted on site and is looking at the Apple
building at Hamiton/Salmar.
Site planning, traffic concerns with Salmar site, also subject to CMA
o
In Costco's place is store called Pace, the box retail arm of K-Mart.
· Pace's representatives will be meeting on 12/5 to decide to hire
consultants to futher evalute the site.
Alternative Action Plans for the City.
A. Status Quo
Continue on current schedule, approve 245,000 retail center
Problems:
Public opposition
speculative b/c no user, yet
Political fallout may make it difficult for CC to expanded RDPA
Greater possibility of lawsuits
B. Reduced Size of Project
Attempt to address public concerns by reducing the size of project
* eliminate traffic impacts on San Jose intersections
· reduce air quality impacts
GARNETTA J. ANNABLE
951 Dry Creek Road
Campbell, CA 95008
November 7, 1991
NOV
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Attention:
City Council Members
Planning Commissioners
Redevelopment Manager
Planning Staff
Re:
PD 91-04 - Western Federal Savings and Loan
Requests for Storm Drain Condition 10.c. Be
Incorporated Into Planned Development Permit
Dear Council Members, Commissioners, Manager and Staff:
As a condition of the Planned Development Permit, it is requested
that you require in addition to Improvement 10.a and b. that the
Planned Development Permit include Improvement 10.c. which would
.provide that t.he developer, conStruct a storm drain capture system
0n' the site which is ~esigned to catch run off~ store it· in large
pipes on the site, and slowly.triculate such run-off into the
storTM drain system. Such a system would reduce the current over
capacity drainage into the system during peak storms. Such a
system is ~ecessary in.light of.the ~fact that the present, system
is incapable of meeting both present and future needs.
The City of San Jose projects which were recently approved on the
Camden High School Site and the Cambrian Elementary. School Site
included such requirements as a condition of the PD development
to reduce peak storm flow into the substandard existing system.
Such a storage system and triculation system is an appropriate
requirement for the Planned Development Permit and is necessary
for the health and safety of the community until such time as the
Union Avenue line can be replaced in its entirety.
Please give this request your serious, favorable consideration.
Very truly yours,
GARNETTA J. /~NNABLE - -
November 4, 1991
WINCHESTER DRIVE IN, PD APPROVAL
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
o
o
o
San Tomas Expressway Improvements @ Route 17 (added EB lane,
sidewalks, bikeway, ped access to Trail)
Curtner/White Oaks/Camden Improvements @ Route
lane on Curtner and on White Oaks, sidewalks
north side, and signal improvements)
Curtner/McGlincey Traffic
intersection, restr~.ction of
Curtner e/o McGlincey, signal)
17 (added
and bike on
Cristich Renovation (full street improvements, signal at
McGlincey, and parking replacement)
Union/McGlincey Intersection Improvements (signal and
channelization)
McGlincey Improvements (2-way left turn lane, truck loading
provisions)
White Oaks/Rt. 17 Ramp Improvements (restriction of White
Oaks to cut-through traffic in a.m. and p.m. peak and
adjustment of White Oaks/Bascom left turn signal,
signalization of ramp)
Improvements (improved
turns, truck restrictions on
Boyd Bookkeeping
NOV 4.- 1991
CITY MANAGEIrS OFFICE
City Council
70 North First
Campbell, Ca. 95008
Re: proposed MC GLINCEY re-dev, area
October 31, 1991
Dear Councilmember,
We, as a property owner on McGlincey, are OPPOSED to the
proposed redevelopment as detailed in the DEIR.
Our main objection to the proposal is the INCREASED TRAFFIC
in the entire neighborhood.
The proposed access to the former drive in site is only ONE
TRAFFIC LANE, in or out, for approximately 12,000 vehicles per
day.. This would be more traffic per lane than on San Tomas
Expressway. This equals: GRIDLOCK
Thank you for your anticipated consideration for our con-
cerns.
Best~Regar~
J~net Boyd, man~
copy cjf
NOV 0 ~ 1991
6280 Wes~ Las Positas #203 · Pleasanton, California 94588 · Phone (415)462-8950
City Council
70 N. 1st. St.
Campbell, CA 95008
Councilmembers
Nov. 1, 1991
RIgI E VED
NOV 4 - 1991
CiTY MANAGER'S OFFICL
I am writing to object to the subsidizing of the Retail development of the
Winchester Drive-In site.
Western Federal was subsidized once already when they bought the site through
the Savings and Loan bail-out. They got a deal when they purched the property.
Why should taxpayers Give them more money now?
Don't spend 10,000,000 dollars in Western Federals' behalf for a Retail
center Campbell doesn't need.
Ken Reade
Jeffries Drive
Campbell, CA
Ken Reade
476 Jeffries Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
20N B~LANT ~ ~ 1. 6.1991 'ally ~, 2
Donald Ballanti
Cerlffied Co,s,~ltin~ Meteuroiogis~
142~t Scott Street
El Cerrilo, Ca. 94530
(415) 234-60~7
Fax: (415) 232-7752
I~OZLILWDI.~
FRO#! DON BALT, ddlTZ
ReDeVeLOPMenT ~t~J% B~J~SZON A~R QUJ~ZTY ZH~ACTS
The regional impact of the project wal quantified using tho
U'R~g~ZS-3 computer program. As you know, ~ha original analysis
SOn, mined in my ~uly 1901 repor~ utilized generalized ~.rip
generation rates for Oho pro~eo~ land uses. IC was pointed out
that ~hsse ratil wire tOO high for Chis particular project, so ~lle
%ra~lS-~ run wal repeated using modified trip rates provided b2
=he pr~e~: =raneporta~ion consultant. The reviled reaultl were
included In my revised report da~ed August XPPl. ~e revised
resul~l ihowed l~wer emission to:als, DuC the emissions of both
~eactiva Organic ~aiel and Oxides of Nitrogen Itill ex~eeded ~he
1~0 poundl per daM threshold cf significance.
Tho emission of Oxides of, Nitrogen is Chi htvher of ~he two
pollutants. To ~aach ~he ls0 pound ~er day threshold, ~he curren~
emission of 286.1 pounds per day would need to bo reduced by 48%.
Reaching this threshold could ~a accomplished by reducing ~rip
generation by 45%. Trip reductxon measures alone are unable Co
accomplish reductions of this magnitude, particularly for the
aommercial portions of the pro,eat. Meeting Chi leO pound ~er dam
threshold ~cr oxides of nitrogen would probably require down sizing
project.
An alternative approach Would be to reduce the average trip length
of the project. The URBEMIS-3 program considers the project
generate ~wo types of ~rips: work and non-work. Work trips are
employee trips, and 2he URD~MXS-3 program givel ~hese ~rips an
average length of 8.~ miles (one-way). Non-worM tripe are shopping
related ~rips wi~h an assumed f. rip length of $.$ miles (one-way).
It ie possible tha~ Chi impact of the project could be recalculated
with ehor~er ~rip lengths if i~ were possible to document that
~eee assumed tripe lengths are too lo~q for a pro, act o~ this
~ypa. It should bm no~ed that reductxon cE ~rip lanq~h by an
average 48% would not provide & 48% reduction in vehicle emissions
since evaporative and Oold start excess emissions are related to
the number of trips and not the trip length.
Please call if you have questions on this in~ormation.
Aiz Pollution Meteorolo~Lv · Dispersion Modeling * Climatulogicnl Analysis
SAN JOSE FOREST PRODUCTS
911 McGLINCEY LANE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 371-3321
October 30, 1991
To: All property and business owners on McGlincey Lane
and all other interested parties
DO YOU WANT TO CLOSE YOUR BUSINESS?
DO YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR PROPERTY VALUES GO DOWN?
Of course not, you say. Then don't sit down and watch our
street become a driveway to Costco!
Please read the attached letter I have prepared for the Planning
Commission. I have tried to speak for all of us, but I need
input! The City needs to see your signature in support of
protecting ourselves.
PLEASE COME TO OUR OWN MEETING (THE OWNERS) ON
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4TH AT 7:00 PM
AT CARROWS RESTAURANT.
WE WILL PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND PREPARE A UNIFIED FORCE
TO BE RECKONED WITH!
WE NEED SIGNATURES ON THE PETITION THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS LETTER.
WE CAN MAKE CHANGES, IF NECESSARY. BUT YOU MUST BE THERE!
SHOULD YOU NEED TO DISCUSS THIS BEFOREHAND, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT
ME AT MY OTHER OFFICE AT (707) 894-2568.
WE NEED TO STICK TOGETHER.
THERE ARE MANY OF US, AND WE DO COUNT!
DEENA VAUGHN
CONTROLLER --
AND
RICHARD B. PASEK
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, Calif.
October 30, 1991
Re: McGlincey Lane Expansion Area and Campbell Redevelopment
Commissioners:
This letter is written on behalf of the property owners and
business owners on McGlincey Lane. We are in support of this
letter and are signing the enclosed petition to put the Planning
Commission on notice for the record of our fear for the future
of our businesses.
The term "Redevelopment" brings to mind positive phrases like
Rebuild, Rejuvinate, Revitalize. Anticipation of the benefits
to come should not blind us to the dangers. We must take all
the time necessary to uncover and thoroughly investigate any
possible dangers.
Everyone agrees that the Winchester Drive-In site is an eyesore
and should be developed. There are different opinions as to a
s6itable use, for example "open space", such as a park versus
commercial development. However, the proposed "box retail",
such as a Costco and/or Homeclub have the powerful advantage of
generating tremendous sales tax income for the City of Campbell.
It is assumed that these funds would be used to benefit the
community as a whole, thus it is easy to understand the City
representatives' favoritism towards the project. On the surface
it appears to be like a transfusion for the ailing economy of
Campbell, bringing rich new blood to the area, which most of us
support as well. However, for many of us on McGlincey Lane, this
"cure" is clearly suicide for our businesses. Obviously, the
cost to the community, the entire community must be evaluated.
That is the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
which is supposed to look objectively at the impact of a project
on the entire community. Then staff should research all possible
alternatives to accomplish the project, while mitigating the
negative impacts. Thus far, this report has failed to perform
it's function satisfactorily.
We came to the meetings, we listened to what the EIR was supposed
to produce. We made comments and suggested alternatives. We
want to cooperate and see the City get these box retailers, but
object to using McGlincey Lane as a driveway to Costco! This
driveway would have to be widened, condemning some properties,
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
October 30, 1991
Page 2
putting the owners out of business. The remaining businesses
would have a steady stream of cars and trucks going by, well
over 20,000 per day. Between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00, when
we make our livinq there would be 2,200 cars per hour, which is
37 cars per minute! This will totally tie up the street. Our
own business vehicles will be trapped on our property. Our
customers will think twice about being caught up in the maze of
increased congestion "over there by Costco" This will result
in a slow, sure death of our businesses, which have been operating
here for 25-35 years.
When we suggested the Freeway interchange in and out of the Drive-
In site, it was brushed off with the comment "it's not policy".
Pressing further, we were told "we have talked to CalTrans and
it's not feasible" Obviously, the City, the EIR group, and the
Bank paying for the report had already made up their minds how
to route traffic to Costco.
On October 24, the Planning Commission listened to the EIR staff
claim that the existing and the future traffic problems can be
"easily mitigated" by adding three stop lights! To their credit,
the Planning Commission also listened to the people who drive
these roads every day verify that they wait through two or three
signal changes to get through an intersection now! Adding over
12,000 cars per day on an already congested stree~ is not "easily
mitigated" by adding a stop light! More cars will simply back
up at more stop lights!
A gentleman proposed a more in depth traffic study. On various
days, at various times the exact number of cars passing through
a street, the exact length of time it takes a car to get through
various intersections can all be recorded. This should be done
regularly, over the course of an entire year, as many businesses
and the resulting traffic are seasonal. For example, Costco
traffic would rise significantly during the Christmas season,
while McGlincey Lane traffic is busier during spring and summer
months. Let us find our just how much traffic is already existing
and how it flows (and clogs up) before determining how to handle
any additional traffic!
We were relieved to hear one Commissioner direct the EIR staff to
"look further into CalTrans and the freeway interchange idea"
However, the EIR staff obviously needs more detailed, exact
instructions, particularly as this alternative was not their first
choice.
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
October 30, 1991
Page 3
We, the public who are at risk woUld like to have an unbiased
CalTrans engineer discuss the possibilities with us. If we
(the City and the tax payers) make a real effort, we can solicit
CalTrans cooperation in providing a solution. After all, they
do work for us.
Cooperation should be the name of the game. We property and
business owners want to cooperate. However, be advised that
we will not be railroaded into becoming a driveway for Costco!
We would anticipate and appreciate the Planning Commissions
cooperation in demanding more in depth sudies of this project.
Thank you.
The concerned property
and business owners of
McGlincey Lane.
Attached: Petition
November 4, 1991
WINCHESTER DRIVE IN, PD APPROVAL
~0~i.~~ .~ TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FOR MITIGATION
1~ : '
~ ~f~~-~ 1. San Tomas Expressway Improvements @ Route 17 (added EB lane)
2. Curtner/White Oaks/Camden Improvements @ Route 17 (added
lane on Curtner and on White Oaks, and signal improvements)
Curtner/McGlincey Traffic Improvements (improved
intersection, restriction of turns, truck restrictions on
Curtner e/o McGlincey, signal)
Cristich Renovation (full street improvements, signal at
McGlincey, and parking replacement)
Union/McGlincey Intersection Improvements (signal and
channelization)
McGlincey Improvements (left turn lanes where needed - with
parking replacement as required, truck loading provisions)
Industrial area traffic management: generally, enforcement
of Motor Vehicle Code to prevent abuse of private property
for U-turns, etc.
8. Development of site not to result in significant traffic
impacts at any intersection named in DEIR.
~ ~ ~]:~_~OTHER, RELATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
--
General Policy' Redevelopment Area Expansion should not use
! the capacity freed up by construction of Route 85. The
mitigation program should result in better traffic
operations with the project than would result without the
project (and without the mitigation measures) either with
without Route 85 in place.
Bike and ped improvements at Camden Interchange and STEX,
and provision for bikes along all of STEX and Camden.
Camden/Bascom improvements: add second northbound left turn
lane, right turn lane southbound.
o
Reduce cut-through traffic on White Oaks, Shelly and
Redding.
Signalize White Oaks @ Hwy 17 northbound off/on ramps.
Camden/Curtner signal interconnect with Bascom and Camden.
o
o
Ongoing traffic management cooperation in White Oaks between
San Jose and Campbell including signal coordination,
neighborhood traffic mitigation and operation of Camden/17
Interchange.
--~ ? ~ p~ \u~l. _~-~ EXPECTED BENEFITS: DRIVE-IN MITIGATION
1. With Rt. 85 open, and with the proposed development open at
the Winchester Drive In, the following traffic conditions
will occur, l~ ~ ~.~. ~t~aK hour:
i~-~EVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
1991 [ No Project With Project
Existing Open* Open**
Camden/Curtner
SB 17 @ STEX
Bascom & Union
Bascom & Camden
F D C
F C B
D , C B \
Assumes none of ~'he above public improvements and
mitigations are in place in 1995, but Route 85 is open
Assumes total program is in place, and Route 85 is open
and full project is open
The LOS program assumes that signal operation is
optimized in the DEIR, and this is not the case. The
assumption is done to remove any "mitigation" achieved
for the project through optimization of existing
operations through signal retiming. Retiming can be
done without the project and costs almost nothing. ...... ~
The construction of area streets to modern standards and the
installation of signals at three existing, unsignalized
intersections will increase access to all properties, and
will thus increase property values.
o
The location of box retail in this area will have the effect
of shortening existing trips to similar stores further away.
The regional effect will be to reduce traffic loads on
freeways and expressways, reduce total vehicle miles
travelled, and should not significantly affect regional air
quality. The DEIR analysis was "worst case."
The project uses available capacity of the road system,
because the peak trip generation for the box retail lies
outside the typical commuter peaks (ie. on Saturday).
Further, traffic to and from box retail will be spread to
several streets rather than being concentrated on Cristich.
WINCHESTER DR
Signal
Creek
Sigfial
(if Caltrans
approves)
Signal/truck resriction
CURTNER
~; '
(if San Jose approves)
WINCHESTER DR
Ireek rd
CURTNER AVE
9500
Irs00 1
0
0
0
0
Daily Traffic Volumes
1991 Existing
[~4 wi~ ~ojeo~ wi~ ~ou~ ~]
PETITION
MCGLINCEY LANE EXPANSION
I SUPPORT THE ATTACHED LETTER AND URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DEMAND
MORE IN-DEPTH TRAFFIC STUDIES AND TO PURSUE THE PROPOSED FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
IN AND OUT OF THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE.
10.
13.
14.
17.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
28.
29.
30 '
//o
I~?
1~o
BURTON CONSTRUCTION CO.
879 McC=lincey · Campbell, California 95008
Telephone 377-4280
NOV 5 - 1991
al~ K~IAG~'$
October 26, 1991
CITY COUNCIL
?0 North First
Campbell, Ca.
Dear Councilmember
for the
1.
e
re: McGLINCEY REDEVELOPMENT AREA
The purpose of this letter is to O BIE C T to the proposal
development of the former drive in site for r e t a i 1 s a 1 e s.
TRAFFIC, per DEIR, will increase 5 times =GRIDLOCK.
The DEIR does not make any allowance for LARGE (70') TRUCKS,
buses, emergency vehicles or any other future development.
The cost estimate in the DEIR provides for a SUBSIDY to the
developer in the approximate amount of $ 10,000,000.00.
This "gift" of public money for private development is not
fair and is un-democratic. All other on&off site development
was paid by the property owner, WesternFederal should not
be an exception, they can pay for their own.
The drive in site is CONTAMINATED with a s b e s t o s o
T h e property owner should be required to clean it up at
their own expense. Everyone else pays for their own clean up.
The City & other agencies should enforce the codes
uniformly and not selectively.
Very Truly Yours
Arthur R. Burton
copy cjf
FILE COPY
CAMBRIAN COblMUNITY COUNCIL
Randa.l R. Tsuda, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
re: McGlincey Lane Expansion
of Central Campbell Re-
Development Project Area
Draft EIR (91-01} Sept 91
Sch # 91053013
Dear Mr. Tsuda:
The Cambrian Community Council Sub-committee on the Campbell Re-
development area and Winchester Drive-In Site has reviewed the
[)raft Environmental impact Report.
Although the report, is very thorough, there are a few items which
we would request further study:
The Winchester Drive-in Proposed Project should coincide
with the opening of SR-85 on or about 1994, due to the very
negative impacts especially on air quality and extremely
poor levels of service - F and below. Therefore, we feel
that this project's completion should be tied directly to
SR-gS's opening and not before. Additionally, we feel that
ingress and egress should be provided directly off SR 17 as
it would relieve congestion away from SRI? and Camden and
SR]7 and Hamilton Avenues which are both at level F service
and are severely impacted.
Traffic on Curtner Avenue between McGlincey and Bascom
Avenues should! be limited to autos only. Semi-truck/
trailers should not be allowed to cut through Curtner Ave.
In this respect, figure :4-15 should propose a median th:at
~,'ou]d not. a|lo~ ~emi-truok access west on Curtner Avenue.
A "no ~'uck sign" should b.'3 placed on Curtner going east at
Mc Glincey and on Curtner going west at Bascom Avenue.
We have studied the lane configur{tion at Camden/White Oaks/
Curtner/S~]7. The EIR does not address cut-through traffic on
White Oaks Avenue nor does it address the additional cross traffic
onto White Oaks Avenue and onto the freeway on White
Oaks Av/SR17. One left turn lane from Camden to Curtner and one
I~n~ fi. om Wh~le Oaks to C~rtner ~'ill not be ~adeq~:~t.e for th~ ~
of trips generated by the development of this site, especially at
the PM peak period.
~ef~ Ul~t, Chairp.erson of The Cambrian Community Council
FILE COPY
REI~EIVED
OCT ~ 1 1991
~o
CAMBRIAN COSl.Xll.:N[rY C'OUNC[L
Randal R. Tsuda, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, C-~ 95008
re: McGlincey Lane Expansion
of Central Campbell Re-
Dexelopment Project Area
Draft EIR (91-01) Sept 91
Sch = 9105:,01U
Dear X!r. T%uda'
t'he Cambriar, (],)mm~,~n~ty Count, il Sub-committee on the ~ampb*ll
d~velooment area and Winoh~st. er Drive-In Site has reviewed the
l)rat't Environmental impact Report.
Although lha report ~.~ v,~ry thorough, there are a f~w items which
we would re,,:iue.~t further study:
The Winchester Drive-in Proposed Project should coincide
~ith the opening of SR-85 on or about 139-1, due to the very
negative impacts especially on air quatit, y and extremely
poor levels of service - F and below. Therefore, we fee~
that this pr,),ject's completion should be tied directly to
SR-aS'a opening and not before. Additionally, w~ f~el that
ingpe~s and egress sl~ould be f)rox-ided directly oft' SR 17 as
it ~,)~lld relieve congestion away from SR17 and ('amden and
SRI7 .and Hamilt. on Av~n~les ~hic'.h are both at level F service
a~d are s~v,r,,ly impacted.
Ax.'~n~e~ sb.~[,J, be limited to autos only. Semi-franck/
trailers should not be al.lowed to cut through Curtnep Ave.
5h:. GI.'~n~,ey and ori ('urLneP going west at
;~ }~.ix'e .~t~l~ii~,] ti~e lane ,;~,nFigtirat, ior: at Cam,ten/Nhite Oaks/
Uuri'ner/SPlT. 'l'h~ E[R does not address cut.-through traffic on
White Oaks Akpnue nor does it address the additional cross traff'ic
onto White Oaks Axenue and onto the freeway on White
J:~!~ }'i.,m ~J,~ ';.~k?. !-(: ('!ii'tiler ,,iii ~,'~t b~ ~,t~,l,~iw r.~,' tt:~ =
the PN peat< p~vl~,d.
,
/il
McOLINCEY LANE EXPANSION AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
and
WlNCHF. STER DRIVE-IN DEVELOPMENT
Public Informational Meetine
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 o[ the Public Heanng process,
and a summary of the Winchester Drive-In proposal. He explained that
there are presently three projects encompassing the McGlincey Lane area:
(1) development of the Winchester Drlve-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 project and the Draft EIR. 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:
e
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.
Thursday, November 7, 1991, 7:30 ]~.m., before the City of Campbell
Planning Commission, second public nearing on the Winchester Drive-In
Development and Draft EIR.
Late 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
rec. eived by ,the Planning Department/Planning Commission will be responded
to t~y 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
and Winchester Drive-In Development
October 16, 1991
Page 2
Environmental Impact Report
Valerie Young, CH2M 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
~dentified impacts. Ms. Young outlined the significant effects and
mitigation measures as reported in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Draft EIR.
4. Traffic Measures
Gary Kruger, City Traffic Engineer, reviewed the traffic mitigation
measures described in the Draft EIR.
4. Public Comments/Questions and Answers
Kendall Smith, 251 Curtner.
(Q) Is the Redevelopment Agency restricted to development within the city
limits of Campbell?
IA) Yes.
Q) The proposal shows the taking of part of my property, which is
located in 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 right-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 another 50 feet on the street so the remaining property owners can use
the street to their best advantage, and maybe 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 chanse between existing
conditions and the future. From a traffic engineenng standpoint, the
lane is not needed until 2000.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR
and Winchester Drive-In Development
October 16, 1991
Page 3
James Griffiths, 971 Dry Creek Road, owner of 260 CYistich.
IQ) Do you plan on expanding to more than two lanes?
A) The 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
may be substitute parking provided on the east side of Cristich.
(Q) The light at Mc(31-incey and Union is needed, but I don't see where the
traffic is going to go when it comes out of the new development. How is
this going to affect Union?
(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, will be more. Cristich and McGlincey and McGlincey and Union will
reqmre signal control.
David Schrader, 213 Crisfich.
(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 ofyour alternativesg.
(A) No. This is just an alternative looked at in the EIR, and will be
more seriously reviewed in 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 within 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 approved would lie with
the Planning Commission and City Council. (Q) Wo u 1 d e x t e r i o r s t o r a g e
[)ds still be allowed?
The McGlincey Lane Preliminary Report does not change land use or
zoning in the area. If there are legal existing storage yards,
redevelopment would not cause everything to I>e put inside. The properties
most likely to redevelop are those that don't have substantial
improvements on them.
(Q) You wouldn't be condemning because of more higher use?
(A) It is possible that if somebody came in witl~ 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.
IQ) Is there a completed Redevelopment Plan for the area?
A) The McGlincey Lane Expansion Area and Accompanying Amendments
Preliminary 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
Report is most detailed in terms of what we want to accomplish and the
dollars involved.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR
and Winchester Drive-In Development
October 16, 1991
Page 4
(Q) How 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-in 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, when 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.
IQ) 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 h a v e $1.5
million ind. icated in the budget for this whole project and in the EIR
document ~s 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
requirements are until a specific development proposal is submitted.
(Q) The EIR addresses some areas in a global 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 no incentive to redevelop.
Steve Ulett, 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
Winchester 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 m.ake it a public street.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR
and Winchester Drive-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) The 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 Curtner 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,
planning to enlarge the street? Would it become a sweeping turn
slightly realigned?
(A) Just a signal.
are you
and be
Lance Levy, 390 McGlincey.
(Q) Why do we need sidewalks and who is going to pay? If we are going to
lose parking on McGlincey, the property owners are going to lose revenues
which we 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 McGlincev?
(A) The City has adopted a policy to require sidewfilks 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. The School District would like to go on record as disagreeing with
the statement 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: '~Nill the proposal have. an .effect upon, or
result m a need for new or altered government serwces ~n 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
IQ) Who pays for the EIR report?
A) It has been paid jointly by the Redevelopment Agency
Federal Savings has paid a pro rata share in proportion to
development, i.e., 23 acres out of 100.
and Western
the proposed
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR
and Winchester Drive-In Development
October 16, 1991
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 qmte 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
drastically 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 bud~get. Th!s is our
best guess and we don't have $2 million. Funds will omy come ~n as the
area redevelops and we l?Ut the money back in to the area. The $2 million
is not targeted for the drive-in site.
(Q) Is the City/Redevelopment prepared to donate $12 million towards the
site, or how much many funds are budgeted toward this one particular site?
(A) This is our estimate in terms of improvements. A lot will go for
development 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 Ci.ty
doesn't have $2 million to make it happen and therefore Redevelopment ~s
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 development, the City will receive significant sales tax revenue to
be used for police, fire, and pubhc works services.
Craig Smith, 251 Curmer
(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.
(Q) Western Federal is liable for 23%, or almost $4 million. That is
still $15 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) Those comments should be directed during the hearing on the
Redevelopment area expansion, not the EIR.
(Q), You drew all the plans, all the projections. No matter what we say,
we re being sacrificed. Any other developer would pay for street
improvements in the whole area. I don't want his piece of property. I
bought mine for my retirement. I want him to develop, but don't sacrifice
me. Will you buy our properties if because of this ~mprovement 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
and Winchester Drive-In Development
October 16, 1991
Page 7
Ray Matsumoto, 196 Curtner
.(Q) I've been in business for 31 years and we've talked about the traffic
jam 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 you'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 McGl~nceY 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 u.p to Camden and San Tomas
Expressway and create gridlock. We ask m our letter that access off of
the drive-in site on to Highway 17 be considered, even a metered light.
Unidentified Person
toQ Being that the City stated their main reason for this whole plan is
economic benefit of the City, is there, or has there been a p~an 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, property values go up.
(Q) Not completely. On Vietenhelmer and Cristich the property owners are
going to be asked for bond issues.
(A) We haven't worked out the financial details. At this point, the
major .portion will be paid by the Redevelopment Agency. We are doing a
Local Improvement District (LID) in the Dillon/Gilman area. The Agency is
jutting in half the value of the improvements.
Q) Sharmon Palms is relying fully on theproperty owners.
A) 20% 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 in
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.
McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR
and Winchester Drive-In Development
October 16, 1991
Page 8
335 McGlincey
This is a business are and I've never seen a business area .[o down in
value because of more traffic. Most businesses encourage trathc to come
in and bring in retail traffic. A lot of businesses would gladly change
over to retail which pays more rent than the types of businesses in there
now. Regarding the drive-in, remember 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) How many cars per day would be required to make a business like
Costco a viable concern?
(A) The figures are ~iven 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 Si.nghram, 870 McGlincey
(Q) During the sc~)ing sessions there were several questions asked. When
will those be answered.
/~/ In the Final EIR.
As part of the EIR, there are two reports from Ames and Moore to
Western Federal; were those paid for by Western Federal or the City?
IAi} By Western Federal.
Is that not a conflict of interest?
The Supreme Court released a decision that it is not a conflict of
interest.
/AQ/ It isnota standardposition for the City.
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
(O) 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,
Marlene Pomeroy
Recording Secretary '
I I IV'~.,/q VI i VI,..,/I...IV, · · IVI · ~
IN THE
750 RIDDER PARK DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 05190
CITY OF CAMPBELL
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
City of Campbell
75 North Central Avenue
Cam bell, CA 95008
· eeeee
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ~
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA] ss.
The L~. being f,~St ~ sworn, deposes ~ncf says: 'TrOt at el limes herelnaher ~m~ af~w~
I~ Itl i I ~ ~ h ~K Stlt~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~1~ ~. ~ ~t I ~y Io ~ ~1~ ~
a~ ~l~ ~: a~ ~s at a~ ~ aa ~ t~ ~ sim ~ t~ ~ ~k ~ ~ ~t~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ly ~ Santa ~a. State of ~l~. t~t ~M ~ ~ ~ N~ k I~ w~
g~ of t~ O~t ~ of I~ State of ~il~. ~. as ~d ~ ~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~s ~ ~ta~ ~t~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~J ~ty of San ~ ~ ~ C~_~ ~ State
~ Io ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~h ~ a~x~ ~ a I~ ~t~ c~. was ~ ~ ~t~ ~
~ ~ ~ t~ I~ ~t~ t~
September 19, 1991
Dated at ~ Josa. C~.lo,ria
29th October 91
· ~, of 19
NOTICE OF'AVAILABILITY OF A
. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
NOTICE OF PUBUC REVIEW PERIOD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING '1
NOTICE OF. PUBLIC HEARING'
No.ce a here~y given that the Campbell
_Department of Planning has prep·red ·
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for the McGlincey Lane Expansion of the
Centre cam=, nedevek)Pmem Protect
Area(EIR 91.01)...
The McGlinc~/Lane Ex~ Area cof~
81sts of approximately 101 ~ pdmad~
located along McGlincey and Crlatlch
Lanes (cea Figure 1). The areais bounded
by Highway 17 to the west and Camden
to Union Avenue.
?his DEI~ e¥·luates · propesed
· mendment to the Centr·l C·mpbell
exp·nd the bdundariea of the existing
Are· to Include the McGItncey L·ne
Ex~nslon Area and incorporate related
The amendment 'cOnsiSts of the
following components:
A. Amendment of the e3dsUng Central
Campbell Redevalol~nent ~ to
., I:xovide foc b'le following:
losing. Redevelopment Plan, such as Omits
of tax Increment rev·noes and t~)m~ed
c. Potont~ ~t of ~
lng approxirrmtely six acres in ere·.
eh'eats from · private eh'eat tO · public
etmet stiua:lards.
F. Provision of other i~e improve
The EIR is intended to ~ewe as a pr·gram
EIR for use in consideration of the prep·sad
amendments to the Redevelopment Plan
and as the project EIR fo~ consideration of
approvals required In oonjunclk)n with de-
velopment of the former Winchester
Informational Meetin[i
The City of Campbell and the Campbell Re-
development Agency will hold an info,ma-
ti·hal meeting on the DEIR and the Rede-
velopment Area Expansion on October 16.
1991 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held
nave of~ the DEIR. Wdtten =onvne~s must
II I be received by.November 4,.1~11 for ~o~-
~! I 81deraflon~ ~Vritten '~eon)._me, .nfs should ~be
I ~ ~oun~l Chambers at 70 Nodh First
Interested peraona ma~; appea~ and be
_Y~ may review ,, cx~,y'of me DEIR atihe
,~amp~ll-Ubr.,ry ~,t ?? North H,,rri$on
, ~artmant of Plannln0 at ?o North F~rat
,S~'aat, Camp~a~..Ym~ may mo ~ a
~ of the DEIR (for me ~ of dupl~-
.on~ or a ..mmary o~ t.a ~EIR at me
For More Inf0mmtJgn ..... ~: ~ L'
· ~.~.~
· e · · San Jose Mercll
amendmen~ to the Redevelopment Pllm
m~l a~ the prelect EIR fo~ oo~Idemtion of
velopment of the former Wlncheste~
OltV9~ gte.? ,/-::: ~. ~
Informational Meetin9.'~-
g'0 1~3dh First S~'eet, ~ !,':? ':: ./
;=.':.~' .- .L'.' :"
Public Review Period/Public Healin~
I'mve on the DEIR. Written oomments must
be~.eoefmd by Novemb~ 4. 1991 kx
~}emtton. Written oomments should be
': 70No~hFimStreet .'
· ~, CA ~006
p.m. The Hearing will be held in C~
G~y Counca Ghambenl at 70 Nodh Flrlt
Irit®mSted per~°n$ ;'m~y"~lPpear and be
PubSc Review Pedod. ~: :,~
Availability of DEIR .... :,
You may review a copy of the DEIR at
Campbell Library et 77 North Herdson
kYef-cde, ~11 of et the C, ampb~ De-
pertinent of Planning et 10 North Rrlt
Street, ~1. You may ~ obtain
~3p/of the DEIR (fo~ the co~ of
b~ Department of Pining at (40e)
~140.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
:~,. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING .';:.'
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING:
)eftotice is hereby given t~t.tbe ~1
~m~t of ~nning h~ prepar~ ~
E~~ i~ ~ ~R)
~n~a~lM~II~ ~ ~an~on ot t~
~ ~p~ll R~ ~
located along McGlinceY and Crisfich
Dy Highway 17 to t~ west 4nd Cl~en
~ U~ A~.
~ ~p~n
· m~ndm~nt to th~ O~ntr~l
fl~~ ~. ~ ~= ~11
expand the ~undaries of the exllting
~ ~11 R~e~ ~
Area to mc~u=e the McGlincey Lane
~ans~n Are~ a~ ink,rate rel~t~
~11 R~m ~ ~
~1;
~ R~e~nt ~. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ In=e~nt r~en~s ~nd
~ P~~ (~ 91~) ~
U~~
~o~te~ ~ a~ ~ ~
E. ~nv~n of ~ ~ ~ o~