Raj’s Votes on Development Issues

Raj Salwan was appointed to the City Council in 2012.

He ran for election in November of 2014 but lost. He ran again in 2016 and won. He has been serving on the City Council since then. This page is basically the flip side of the list of my development votes. That page and this one show that Raj and I have radically different positions on the kind of development that should be approved in Fremont.

In Raj’s first two year term as an appointed Councilmember (2013-2014), there were 12 controversial votes on real estate developments and land use. In every case, Raj voted in favor of the developer and I voted against (see items 1-12 below). I was the lone ‘no’ vote on ALL of these.

Raj was elected to Council in 2016. From then until 2020, there were 11 controversial votes on real estate developments and land use. In every single one of those votes, Salwan voted in favor of developers. In ten of those votes, I voted against the interests of developers. Salwan and I only agreed on one project – a 4 home development on Decoto (see items 13-23 below).

The following is a list of the non-unanimous real estate development and land use votes that occurred from 2013-4:

  1. 2/5/13 – 42800 Caldas Court – 33 home development right next to the Sabercat Trail. Many residents spoke out against the proposed development. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)
  1. 26/18/13 – 17 unit development by Lennar Homes requiring a General Plan Amendment (GPA). Many residents spoke out against the proposed development. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  2. There was a second vote on the Lennar development to delay the General Plan Amendment so that it could be grouped with other GPAs. This is because by law a city can only amend its General Plan four times a year. By bundling amendments together, the Council is able to accommodate more changes requested by developers. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  3. 7/16/13 – 3065/3111 Washington Blvd. Another General Plan Amendment increasing the density of the site from low to low-medium density to accommodate the developer. A couple of speakers spoke in opposition. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  4. There was a second vote on Washington Blvd. project to approve the development with the increased density. Both of these votes were actually on the consent calendar until I pulled them. Developers’ requests were often just moved along without any discussion prior to my being on the City Council. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  5. 2/4/14 – Improvement agreements for previously approved development at 42800 Caldas Ct. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  6. 5/13/14 – The developer requested a reduction in density requirements in the Downtown area. Instead, they wanted densities that would allow for, of course, townhomes. I did not agree that we should accommodate the developer’s request. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)
  1. 7/8/14 – Yet another General Plan Amendment. This time to rezone a 2 acre parcel on Stevenson from open space to residential. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  2. 7/22/14 – Approval of four General Plan Amendments at once. Again, this is done as a single GPA so that the City can accommodate more developers’ requests for General Plan changes in a single year. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  3. 9/9/14 – Rezoning of 39311 Mission from multi-family residential to a ‘Planned District’ (PD). Like General Plan Amendments, this is another way to let the developers get what they want. In this instance, a lot zoned for multifamily residential, which would have provided rental units, was changed to a PD. Planned Districts basically say the zoning and other requirements (i.e. setbacks, road widths) can be whatever the developer wants. They ended up with 30 tightly packed townhomes on the site. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  4. 9/16/14 – The developers of 42800 Caldas Court that was approved in 2013 came back to Council requesting modifications to their Planned District. They needed to reduce the setbacks so that they could pack in more homes. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  5. 11/18/14 – Initial discussion of the residential development at the Connoly’s Furniture site on Fremont Blvd. The property owners requested a General Plan Amendment from commercial to residential. This allowed for the removal of the 3.7 acre commercial area and the development of 92 townhomes. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

Raj returns to the Council in December of 2016

  1. 2/7/17 – Council considered approving a development at 4133 and 4167 Peralta. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  2. 3/14/17 – This was a General Plan Prioritization Request* to consider a development of 28 single family homes on Crystalline Dr. This was an amazing request as the property sits between two active earthquake fault lines. Salwan voted yes. Lily Mei and I voted no.

  3. 3/14/17 – Council considered the approval of a 55 unit development to the east of Mission Blvd. The project was approved on a 3-2 vote with Lily Mei and I voting no. Salwan voted yes.

  4. 6/20/17 – Council received a report and considers increases in the commercial linkage fees. These are similar to affordable housing fees on residential properties. A number of speakers spoke in favor of increasing the fees. I was the sole advocate for increasing the fees. Salwan and the other Councilmembers directed staff not to increase the fees.

  5. 7/11/17 – Final approval of a development at Ardenwood / Paseo Padre. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  6. 7/11/17 – Final approval of a development at 44851 South Grimmer Blvd. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  7. 5/1/18 – Council considers General Plan Amendment to convert a 0.79 acre site from commercial to residential. The new development will have 13 townhomes at 36341 Mission Blvd. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)

  8. 5/1/18 – Council considered a General Plan Amendment to convert a 1.9 acre site from hillside residential to low-density residential to accommodate the developer’s plans to pack in more homes. The new development will have seven single family lots at 241 Morrison Canyon Road. Salwan voted yes. (I was the lone ‘no’ vote in a 4-1 vote.)
  1. 1/15/19 – Council considered a rezoning of a 1.9 acre parcel near Morrison Canyon Road to allow for eight single family homes. Salwan voted yes. I was the lone ‘no’ vote. I felt that the incentives being offered by the developer were not adequate considering the number of homes that would be allowed.

  2. 3/19/19 – The Council considered the development in Centerville at Fremont and Peralta. The development would demolish the existing buildings, including a historic fire station, and allow for 72 townhomes, 93 apartments, and 26,000 sq. ft. of retail. The applicant got numerous youth to speak that they wanted the small community room to be built (done only if the historic fire station was removed). Many people spoke against the development and demolition of the fire station. The motion to approve the development passed 4-3 with Mayor Mei, Councilmember Kassan and myself casting the dissenting votes. Salwan voted yes. Note that this development never happened because the developer, Silicon Sage, went bankrupt after being charged with fraud – Silicon Sage had maxed out campaign contributions to Salwan as well as other Councilmembers.

  3. 7/7/20 – Council considered an appeal of Planning Commission’s denial of a four single family home development on Decoto Road. I felt that the design resulted in something that matched the existing neighborhood and was in favor of the appeal. The final vote was 4-3 with Councilmembers Kassan, Salwan, Jones and myself voting in favor.

*A general plan prioritization request is a process done prior to a formal approval. It is basically a straw vote that let’s the developer see if the Council is generally amenable to their proposals.