Fremont City Council narrowly OKs controversial Niles Gateway Project

FREMONT >> New housing may begin to take shape by next summer at one of the main entrances to Fremont’s historic Niles district.

After more than six years of debate, court battles, public meetings and community discussion, the council has approved the controversial Niles Gateway Project from developer Valley Oak Partners, allowing 57 town homes and 18 condominiums to be built on a roughly 6-acre, former industrial site site at 37899 Niles Blvd.

The council’s 4-3 vote earlier this month reversed a July 2020 Planning Commission rejection of the project and granted an appeal in favor of developer Doug Rich of Valley Oak.

Vice Mayor Jenny Kassan and Council members Teresa Keng and Yang Shao voted against the approval, and Mayor Lily Mei and Council members Teresa Cox, Rick Jones and Raj Salwan voted in favor.

Kassan said she was concerned the developer wasn’t offering enough community benefits to justify the approval, and Keng said “extreme caution” should be used when deciding what gets approved in historic Niles. She thinks the dense housing would cause too much of an impact to traffic in the area.

Shao said he wanted to see more affordable homes included in the development, or to see fewer homes overall, such as a 60-unit project option that was outlined in an environmental impact report.

The site, immediately visible to people entering the district on the southern end of Niles Boulevard, has been unused for decades and once housed a chemical and metal treatment product manufacturer and the Schuckl Cannery, among other uses.

The original project proposed by Valley Oak in 2014 included 98 units and about 7,000 square feet of commercial space and was approved by the City Council in March 2015, but that later was invalidated after a residents group called Protect Niles won a lawsuit against the city and the developer.

The ruling forced a full environmental review of the project, which the city initially tried to skip. A panel of appeals court judges also upheld the original ruling.

After the environmental report was completed,

“In an ideal world, we would ask for more things, ask for more changes, but some of these projects would never get done because we will not be able to keep everyone happy.”

— Raj Salwan, councilmember

Valley Oak pitched a similar project with 95 units and commercial space and again was rejected by the Historic Architectural Review Board in October 2018, when many residents spoke against it in a heated meeting.

The project considered by the council March 9 was reworked in many ways, with several changes spurred by the developer working directly with Protect Niles members.

Proposed building heights were lowered to two stories from three, design elements were changed to fit better with Niles’ aesthetic and all commercial space was eliminated to help cut down on the traffic impact and avoid too much competition with existing businesses, city staffers said. More landscaping also was added.

Rich, the developer, told the council he shrank the project design significantly.

“I can honestly say I’ve never worked on a project where I’ve reduced the size and scale of a project more than what we have done now in response to comments to this project,” Rich said.

“Is everyone happy with the final project? Of course not,” he said. “People have different opinions about what they like. That’s part of the human experience.”

The majority of the council said the revised project represented a good compromise between the developer and the community.

“In an ideal world, we would ask for more things, ask for more changes, but some of these projects would never get done because we will not be able to keep everyone happy,” Salwan said, noting he would have preferred to see some commercial space retained.

“I think we should take this opportunity to go with something that the majority of people can live with.”

The developer will pay in lieu affordable housing fees to the city and include three units at moderate-income affordability levels to meet the requirements of the city’s affordable housing ordinance.

To sweeten the deal, he also offered to pay $300,000 to go toward the city’s planned safe parking program, which is aimed at giving people who live in their vehicles a consistent and secure place to park and sleep.

“Getting that program started is something that’s critical and I’m hoping to be able to do, instead of a year or two out, right now,” Mei said at the meeting.

Even after the changes to the project, some members of Protect Niles remained opposed to the development, citing the need for more community benefits, increased affordable housing and concerns about traffic impacts near a sharp curve of Niles Boulevard.

But other members of the group said the changes from the developer were hard-won and appreciated and expressed support for the project.

Kassan, at the meeting, said she thought any councilmembers who had received election campaign donations from the developer in the past should disclose it to the public at the meeting, though no one did.

A check of campaign filings by this news organization shows Salwan and Jones both received donations from Rich during their 2014 runs for City Council, with Salwan receiving $500 total and Jones receiving $249, one dollar below a threshold that would have precluded him from voting on the project as a planning commissioner at the time, he said.

Salwan recused himself from a vote on the prior project in February 2015 as a planning commissioner because of the donation, but didn’t recuse himself on March 9 as a councilman.

“This is a new project, a different project, and I did not take any contributions from Doug Rich for my 2016 campaign,” Salwan said in a telephone interview this week.

Asked if the donation had any impact on his vote to approve the project, he said, “Absolutely not; my decision was based on what was best for the community.”

Jones, for his part, said he didn’t “think it was pertinent” to disclose a sevenyear-old donation during the meeting.

“In 2014, there really wasn’t all of this conversation about people taking money from developers. It seemed to be a pretty routine practice at the time,” Jones said in a phone interview this week. “That donation had absolutely nothing to do with the decision on the approval of the project.

“I think it’s a great project. This is a case where the developer has worked with the residents for a number of years,” Jones said. “They’ve come to kind of a middle ground to get something done there.”