2

Fremont not giving up on development near Tesla plant

Fremont has a $330,000 federal grant to study redeveloping the land around the NUMMI plant, gosh darn-it, it’s going use it.

The city’s next stop, it turns out, is to do an air quality study to see if they really can’t put housing near Union Pacific’s future railyard.

Here’s a snippit from a city report going to the council on Tuesday:

During a January 21 meeting with UPRR, staff learned that it is likely these sites would be used for freight rail of agricultural products or for automobile marshalling.

Since two of the three land use concepts envisioned include residential uses, staff finds it prudent that the City better understand the breadth of compatibility issues and constraints of expanded rail uses on the Union Pacific parcels to determine if residential development is viable from an air quality perspective.

To provide this understanding, air quality studies are underway and will be complete by late March to inform refinement of the land use alternatives. Once the study results are known, staff will be able to determine if residential uses are feasible in proximity to the future rail area.

In addition, after completion of the air quality studies, review of hazardous material operations in the area may be required to further ensure that any proposed land use scenario is feasible given existing constraints in
the area.

Matt Artz

  • VOR

    Wait a minute. Two of the three land use concepts envisioned residential? What, tenement housing? What the heck happened to trying to bring more businesses and J-O-B-S into the area? Why are we so stuck on housing?! Oh wait, that’s right we love developers. They are our friends. They support our political campaigns.

  • Fremont Lifer

    Part of the reason that Fremont is stuck on housing (aside from the fact that the Council is in bed with the developers) is because Fremont continues to allow the State and ABAG to dictate to them how much housing the city must build. Yes, there are consequences to defying the dictates of ABAG, but way back in ’96 Pleasanton voters chose to cap their housing at 29,000 units in an effort to maintain local control over their growth. They lost eventually, but they gained more than they lost. During the time the case was winding through the courts, Pleasanton was able to develop their commercial/industrial areas to provide themselves with a more favorable more tax revenue base to support city services. That’s what you get when you have a Council and City Attorney that aren’t afraid of a fight.

    http://www.calpacbrokers.com/news/pleasanton-housing-cap-lawsuit-update/

    http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/5584