Sorry for the delay. I’ve been pretty backed up over the past week, and I’m trying to catch up.
Pretty short agenda this time, coming so close after the previous one. We start the meeting with a closed session involving two sets of existing litigation. This is followed by a study session regarding options for power reliability in the Moffett Park area. In the past, we’ve had some complaints from businesses in that area about power problems (mostly fluctuations in power levels). Power fluctuations can be something of a big deal to high-tech companies, so the city is looking at ways to mitigate them.
The general meeting starts with the swearing-in of new boardmembers and commissioners. We then have a presentation to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Fremont pool. Then comes something rather significant – a presentation to discuss the impact of the state’s pension reform actions on our long-term budget.
The consent calendar is moderate, this time, with a grant acceptance, a minor modification to an existing contract for rebuilding the Council Chambers’ broadcast control room, a modification to the City Manager’s contract, and two second readings of ordinances. Then it’s on to general business, which is just two items this year.
Item 2 involves exploring tools to help the city deal with cases of interior hoarding. You may recall that there was a murder earlier in the year on Revere, which was partially provoked because a hoarding situation resulted in hazardous conditions, which led to the hiring of the individual who has been arrested for the murder. This provoked Council to approve a study issue to see if the city has the appropriate tools necessary to resolve hoarding situations that come to the city’s attention, and here we are.
Item 3 looks at creating an ordinance to add requirements for housing and transportation mitigation for developments that exceed 70% floor area ratio. This looks at a loophole that was noticed during the approval of a recent project (the one on Maude and Mathilda). We require housing mitigation and transportation demand management programs when we issue a use permit for properties that exceed zoning. But this was a case where we didn’t issue a use permit – we rezoned the property, which doesn’t have the same requirement (this was done for policy reasons). So we directed staff to look into creating an ordinance to close this loophole, which is what we’ll be discussing.
That’s about it.