Council Approves Permit Parking Program Near Mission Peak

This was a difficult issue with supporters of mine arguing strongly from both sides. Sometimes in politics you just can’t make everybody happy.

On the one hand, I am definitely in favor of promoting outdoor activities. I used to be a Sierra Club hike leader. It’s great that we have such a popular destination as Mission Peak.

On the other hand, the very heavy demand combined with the small parking lot has resulted in significant impacts to the mission_peaksurrounding neighborhood. I’ve been there on weekends and seen the steady stream of people swarming the neighborhood from well before dawn to well after dusk in the summer. Also, the large number of hikers, especially those that are creating their own ad hoc paths, has caused a lot of damage to the park.

Development Approved by Stevenson & Mission (5/10)

This came to the Council a while back as a General Plan amendment. I voted against this since I didn’t feel this was the right place for more residential. While it was touted as being a more walkable neighborhood, the fact is there is no retail within a reasonable walkable range.

The project is 46 homes in your typical suburban fashion that we see in Fremont – three story townhomes/duets packed in tight, thin streets with no on-street parking, and a roadway that is dominated by two car garages. I must admit the front part of the homes along Stevenson Place will look fairly nice. The interior roadway will be only 29 feet wide from garage door to garage door (22 feet for the roadway itself). The homes will be about 31 feet high. It will definitely have the ‘canyon’ look that these developments have.

Council Votes to Endorse November School Bond Measure

The City Council voted on to endorse a $9 billion Statewide bond measure that will be on the ballot this November. The vote was 4-1 with me casting the one dissenting vote. While it sounds nice to provide money for schools, this bond measure is, in my opinion, the wrong way to do it.

The bond measure puts the burden of paying for new construction on taxpayers. I believe housing developers should pay for the new school construction that is necessitated by their developments.

schoolsWe are all aware of the current school overcrowding issue in Fremont and other cities. The main reason for this is that new development has continued at a rapid pace and the State simply doesn’t have the money to build the needed schools. I believe that the responsibility for building new schools should rest on the developers that are making those new schools necessary, and profiting handsomely from those developments.

Currently, the fees that developers are required to pay to cover new school construction are capped by state law. The fees only cover about one-third of the needed infrastructure.


Joint City Council / School Board Meeting (May 2)


In addition to watching a couple of performances by Fremont’s talented school children, there were a couple of routine items on the agenda. We heard a presentation on how both the City and the School District are implementing clean energy strategies. We also received a presentation on how AC Transit has dedicated a few bus lines primarily to get kids to and from school.

The FUSD Attorney presented a talk on Level III fees. I had requested in our last joint meeting to hear more about this. The bottom line is this is something controlled at the State level so there’s not much the City nor FUSD can do about this except send people to Sacramento to lobby for these fees to be implemented. This week local school advocates are indeed filling buses and taking them to Sacramento for just this purpose. (See my prior post on the State bond measure for more info on this.) (more…)