centerville framework plan - Fremont

centerville framework planc i t y o f f r e m o n t

07.01.2009

200 4001000 ft

1. Study area

Fremont Boulevard

Pera

lta

Boul

evar

d

Pari

Shav

enue

maPle Street

Belo

veri

a C

t.

Palm

Ct.

tho

rnto

nav

enue

Bain

e St

reet

Bon

de

Stre

et

PoSt Street

han

Sen

Str

eet

maPle Street

elm Street

oak Street

Bon

de

Stre

et

roSe

Ct.

JaSon Way

Cen

tral

aven

ue

ChurCh avenueJoSePh Street

(neW

) Str

eet

4

6

7

3

58

119

12

14

10

13

2

1

1/4 mile radiuS around train Station

prepared by

field paoli

for

the city of fremont

centerville framework planc i t y o f f r e m o n t

�centerville framework planc i t y o f f r e m o n t

1. introductiona. executive Summary

B. the character of centerville

c. overview of the framework plan

2. development opportunitieS in centervillea. existing conditions

B. long-term Development potential

c. approaches to parking

3. fremont boulevarda. existing conditions

B. potential lane configurations

c. traffic impact Study

D. mitigation measures

4. GuidelineS for future developmenta. mixing land Uses

B. Streetscape improvements

c. Building form recommendations

D. District-wide connections

e. identity and place

5. illuStrative viSion of centervillea. looking north on fremont Boulevard

B. looking South on fremont Boulevard

6. neXt StepSa. recommendations

B. timeline and priorities for implementation

acknowledGementS

table of contents

1

3

5

7

17

30

45

47

60

69

72

74

76

78

80

84

86

89

90

93

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

�Centerville framework planC i t y o f f r e m o n t

Chapter �: introduCtion

A. Execut ive Summary

the Centerville framework plan focuses on future needs and new development comprehensively, taking into account the recent development activity in the Centerville district. the plan builds upon previous planning and redevelopment efforts and highlights potential opportunities that will strengthen Centerville to become a more vibrant transit and pedestrian-oriented district.

private and public development continues to change Centerville. for this plan information from relevant plans, documents, and other publicly available sources has been gathered to establish an understanding of existing conditions and near-term development as a basis for the long-term vision for Centerville.

the framework plan is informed by a the recent history of community outreach in Centerville: community input was an integral part of the “Centerville Specific plan;” two public meetings were held in 2007 regarding development plans for the unified Site; and two public workshop sessions were focused on the district for “envision fremont Boulevard.” participants at each of the meetings consistently discussed the desire for Centerville to be a well defined and memorable place. to achieve that goal, it was clearly stated that new development should help bind Centerville together as a coherent place. another strong priority voiced by participants from envision fremont Boulevard was that pedestrian accessibility should be improved within the district.

the long-term vision for Centerville is that the district should be a transit-oriented, walkable, neighborhood-serving, commercial and mixed-use district. fremont Boulevard, as the spine of the district, should be a “complete street,” inclusive of the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, transit-users, and vehicles. an important part of the “complete street” concept is recognizing the importance of the street as a public space, and a defining aspect of the identity of Centerville and the City of fremont.

the goal of the framework plan is to revitalize Centerville by strengthening the interconnections between land uses, fremont Boulevard, and buildings that collectively influence the identity of the district. key elements that will tie Centerville together include strategic future development, a district-wide parking strategy, and multi-modal improvements to fremont Boulevard. design guidelines for future pedestrian-friendly development are included in the framework plan as a tool to assist in the fulfillment of the vision.

The core of the Centervi l le study area is the segment of Fremont Boulevard that runs from the intersect ion at Thornton Avenue to the intersect ion of Central Avenue.

The study area extends to a d istance based on a ¼-mile radius from the Centervi l le Amtrak-ACE Train Stat ion. This ¼-mile d istance is equivalent to a 5 minute walk. Included within th is d istance are paral le l s treets - Maple Avenue, Post Street , Bonde Street , and Jason Way. These areas have been ident i f ied as the Centervi l le study area. (See Figure 1-1)

2 Centerville framework planC i t y o f f r e m o n t


figure �-�: Study area

250 500�250 ft

Centerville diStriCt

framework Study area

Boundary

�/4 mile radiuS around train Station

fremont Boulevard

pera

lta

Boul

evar

d

pari

Sh a

ven

ue

maple Street

Belo

veri

a C

t.

palm

Ct.

tho

rnto

n a

ven

ue

Bain

e St

reet

Bon

de

Stre

et

poSt Street

han

Sen

Str

eet

maple Street

elm Street

oak Street

Bon

de

Stre

et

roSe

Ct.

JaSon wayC

entr

al a

ven

ueChurCh avenueJoSeph Street

(new

) Str

eet

peralta Boulevard



B. The Character of Centervi l le

the current and future identity of Centerville is based on the

following five characteristics:

1. Centervi l le Town Center – wi thin the Ci ty of FremontCenterville is one of five original towns that formed

fremont, and was the center of the washington township

prior to fremont’s incorporation. it is a distinctive district

within the City of fremont.

2. Fremont Boulevard is the spine of the distr ic tfremont and peralta Boulevards were two historic east Bay

highways. the train station located on fremont Boulevard

is a central feature of the district. retail uses remain

concentrated on fremont Boulevard.

3. Local mixed-use distr ic t wi th regional transportat ionthere are a number of existing local businesses that are

neighborhood-serving located within the district. at the

center of Centerville is the train depot, where aCe and

amtrak trains connect the district to the larger region.

4. Pedestr ian-oriented, walkable areanotably, the buildings and businesses between peralta

and parish are close to one another, forming a continuous

walking experience. the pedestrian-scaled development

pattern is a remnant of the time when the primary

transportation mode for district was the train.

5. New development in the scale and in the character of Centervi l lethe framework plan aims to encourage new development

to be built in the scale and character that accentuates the

district as a walkable place.



figure �-�: the train depot, CroSSing, and Bill Ball plaza

figure �-2: fremont Boulevard looking north, next to the unified Site

figure �-4: fremont Boulevard looking South, towardS the Center theater

5Centerville framework planC i t y o f f r e m o n t


C. Overview of the Framework Plan

City of Fremont staff and consul tants prepared the Framework Plan to focus on future needs of new development comprehensively.

the framework plan begins with an analysis of existing conditions

and near-term projects. Building upon that, potential ideas for

long-term development were studied. these ideas begin by

looking at fremont Boulevard, particularly in regard to pedestrian-

friendly enhancements. then, ideas were tested that apply to the

greater study area.

a potential long-term vision was developed as a basis for discussion.

for this vision, sites throughout the district were located and

possible new uses were proposed to help determine the potential

amount of total future development. the scenario presented in

this framework plan is only one of many possible outcomes for

the district. it incorporates the goals for Centerville described in

the framework plan, Centerville Specific plan, and City of fremont

general plan and serves as an example of strategic development

for Centerville. this long-term vision is also the basis for analyzing

parking opportunities and developing a parking strategy.

pedestrian-friendly improvements suggested in this framework

plan focus on reconfiguring the street right-of-way of fremont

Boulevard to make it a “complete street” inclusive of pedestrians,

cyclists, transit-users and motorists. alternatives that utilize

different methods of traffic calming were studied to understand the

possible traffic impacts on fremont Boulevard and the surrounding

neighborhoods.

perspective views of future development in the near- and long-

term were also developed to capture the potential for Centerville

according to the framework plan vision.

guidelines are provided that describe essential physical and

architectural elements that support the pedestrian-friendly

environment envisioned for Centerville. this plan concludes with

an outline of next steps to revitalize Centerville.

2. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES


Chapter 2: development opportunities

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS

CITy AND AGENCy PLANS

future development in Centerville will be guided and bounded by

several City plans and initiatives. the framework plan builds upon

these efforts.

Envis ion Fremont Boulevardin 2008, the City of fremont studied the length of fremont

Boulevard, focusing on the districts along it, including Centerville.

two half-day workshop were held to generate ideas for studies

and conceptual proposals. the main ideas suggested from the

workshops for this particular segment were to:

improve the streetscape character in Centerville

make Centerville more walkable

make Centerville a transit hub

emphasize and preserve cultural assets in Centerville

this framework plan expands upon the ideas that were generated

from envision fremont Boulevard workshops and analyzes the

possibilities in greater detail.

General Plan 2030 Updatea comprehensive update of the General plan is now in progress.

within it, the Community Character element, the land use element,

and the mobility element address new development in Centerville.

all potential future development suggestions presented in this

framework plan adhere to the General plan update 2030.

Centervi l le Speci f ic Planthe Centerville specific plan was adopted in 1993, but has been

amended many times since then. this framework plan builds upon

the plan, while also responding to ideas and evolving district

context that has changed in the last 1� years.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Redevelopment Agency investment in Centervi l le

over the years, the

redevelopment agency

has played a key role in

the Centerville district with

investment that promotes

physical changes, circulation

and capital improvements.

the redevelopment agency is

actively involved with near-

term projects and future

development through public-

private partnerships.



Exist ing Land Uses

the General plan update identifies Centerville as a town Center

on the future land use map. Centerville, as a town Center, is

intended to have a pedestrian-oriented character with an attractive

and distinct identity.

the businesses in Centerville serve the needs of the surrounding

community. Commercial and mixed-use land uses are concentrated

along fremont Boulevard, which follow the land use objectives

of the Centerville specific plan. the zoning allows for mixed-uses

along fremont Boulevard, wherein the ground floor is maintained

with commercial uses.

Businesses are locally owned. the types of commercial uses vary

greatly from neighborhood retailers (restaurants, markets, small

shops, personal services) to bigger format, regional-serving

businesses like dale hardware and the american animal Care

Clinic. the concentration of these shops establishes an identity

for the district, though it has suffered from storefront vacancies.

the stores are multi-ethnic, with some businesses owned by local

afghan residents. some community members have suggested that

this may be a potential theme for the district.

the train station stands out as a central public facility and a

landmark. amenities such as small parks and plazas are central to

the district and are located near the train station.

Given that aCe/amtrak trains stop at Centerville station, a transit-

oriented district (tod) overlay applies to the study area as well.

mixed-uses and increased development intensity are encouraged

for new development within tod overlay districts to provide for a

compact and walkable community.



fiGure 2-1: land use (from the General plan and zoninG)

CommerCial

open spaCe

puBliC faCilities

residential

other land uses

250 5001250 ft

fremont Boulevard

pera

lta

Boul

evar

d

pari

sh a

ven

ue

maple street

Belo

veri

a C

t.

palm

Ct.

tho

rnto

n a

ven

ue

Bain

e st

reet

Bon

de

stre

etpost street

han

sen

str

eet

maple street

elm street

oak street

Bon

de

stre

et

rose

Ct. Jason way

Cen

tral

ave

nue

ChurCh avenueJoseph street

(new

) str

eet

peralta Boulevard



fiGure 2-2: panorama of faCades alonG fremont Blvd. (Between thornton and peralta)

Minerva’s Restaurant

Souza BuildingBeauty Spot, Tattoo,

Private Security

Acupuncture Herbs Healing Center

Prince’s Barber Shop

Cutting Edge Salon

Vacant Century House

Vacant JoylabPC Former Fire Station(vacant)

Hair Studio

88

Hoagy Steaks & Teriyaki

Yuk Wah Restaurant

Pamir Food Mart

The Back Door Lounge

Rose Court

Fremont Boulevard at Parish looking West

Fremont Boulevard at Peralta looking East

Palm Court

Haller’s Pharmacy

Medical Clinic & Chiropractic

El Patio Restaurant

Maiwand Market

Check CashingWestern UnionWireless Zone

Martin’s Superstore

Beauty Supply

Fremont Boulevard at Peralta looking West

Railroad Tracks

OptomitristThe Pit Stop

Esquire Dental

Rudy’s Beauty Salon

Bonde Street

Dhillon Auto Repair

Evan and Evans Real

Estate

Carl’s Jr. Restaurant

Northwest end of Unified Site Half way between Thornton and Peralta on Fremont Blvd.

Fremont Boulevard at Thornton looking East

Southwest end of Unified Site

Bay Soccer



Alameda Masonic LodgeChoy Lay Fut Shaolin

Kung-FuCampbell Chiropractic

Bismillah Restaurant

Indian Pakistani Cuisine

Center TheaterDe Afghanan Kabob House

VacantLe Tres ChicStudio 101Full Service Salon & Spa

Tiffany’s Dance & Performing Arts Academy

Vacant VacantSmoke ShopMetro PCS /

Verizon Store

Gold Finger

Jewelry

Noori Insurance Agency

Pamir TravelEmerging Insurance

Brokerage, Inc.

Ramirez Market

Lifestretch Yoga

Cosmo Prof Vacant Round Table Pizza Vacant Sam’s Best Food Market

VacantVacant Salang RestaurantAfghan Cuisine

Beloveria CourtFremont Boulevard at Peralta looking West

Fremont Boulevard at Parish looking East

American AnimalCare Clinic

Vacant Weinerschnitzel Fremont Flowers(Creamery Building)

Hertz Rent-A-Car /

Carwash

Chevron

Fremont Boulevard at Thornton looking West

Taco Bell / Pizza Hut

Appliance Parts Distributor

Centerville Station & Cafe

Railroad Tracks

Bill Ball Plaza California Computer Services

Vacant

Bonde StreetFremont Boulevard at Peralta looking East

KFC and A&W Vacant



Ownership Overview

the majority of land within the Centerville study area is privately

owned property.

publicly owned lands, owned by the City of fremont or the County

of alameda, are located within the core of the district. publicly

owned properties include:

the Centerville unified site

train depot and adjacent parking lot

tracks and related right-of way

Bill Ball plaza and adjacent parking lot

former fire station #6 property

City initiated projects on these properties may also influence

potential sites for private development within the district.

any future development in Centerville will be through private

investment, or could involve public-private partnerships.

•

•

•

•

•

train depot and parkinG lot

traCks and riGht of way

Bill Ball plaza and parkinG lot



fiGure 2-3: puBliC and private ownerships

250 5001250 ftpuBliCly owned land (City of fremont or County of

alameda)

privately owned land

study area outline

fremont Boulevard

pera

lta

Boul

evar

d

pari

sh a

ven

ue

maple street

Belo

veri

a C

t.

palm

Ct.

tho

rnto

n a

ven

ue

Bain

e st

reet

Bon

de

stre

et

post street

han

sen

str

eet

maple street

elm street

oak street

Bon

de

stre

et

rose

Ct. Jason way

Cen

tral

ave

nue

ChurCh avenueJoseph street

(new

) str

eet

peralta Boulevard



one of the goals of the framework plan is to ensure that multiple

individual projects are compatible with each other. there are

several projects that are known, approved, or anticipated. these

projects are brought together in this plan to comprehensively

understand how they may relate to one another.

figure 2-4 shows both existing and planned projects in Centerville.

noted on the plan are important existing buildings that have

historic or distinguishing characteristics. these buildings are worth

retaining and highlighting as part of the future of the district. major

landmarks are also labeled, such as the train depot, the Cemetery,

and the holy spirit Church.

the largest project in Centerville will occur at the unified site (site

1). this is a public-private development wherein the redevelopment

agency assembled multiple parcels, unifying the site, into a larger

site for development by a private developer. the site was cleared

in 2003 and in 200� Blake hunt ventures, inc. was selected to

develop a mixed use, transit-oriented project that faces fremont

Boulevard directly. design proposals are currently being refined.

new development on the unified site will set the tone for new

development and architectural characteristics in Centerville.

the Center theater (site 2) is a key landmark among the historic

storefront properties between peralta and Central avenues.

discussions have begun to revive the theater and make it a central

attraction. improvements to the property and structure will be

needed to accommodate an estimated 450-seat theater and may

be made through a private-public venture.

OPPORTUNITy SITES

Future improvements to Fremont Boulevard and the possible strategies for enhancing parking in the future will be discussed.

Centerville unified site

the Center theater



fire station #6 (site 3) no longer operates as a fire station. this

building, owned by the City of fremont, can be adapted or may

be part of a larger new development that could include the entire

block. the most appropriate or beneficial disposition for the

former station has yet to be determined.

eden peralta (site 4) will replace existing retail with senior housing

on privately-owned property located next to the train tracks on

peralta Boulevard.

dale hardware (site 5) has submitted proposals to expand into

privately-owned properties at the corner of thornton and post.

these proposals include expanding surface parking to the corner

of post and thornton by removing two existing retail structures, on

property also owned by dale hardware.

Crown Court (site 6) is located at Central and fremont Boulevard

at the edge of the study area. this new, privately-owned housing

development will complete the corner. the corner of the intersection

of Central and fremont Boulevard, is located across from the holy

spirit Church which is one of the gateways to Centerville for those

travelling northbound on fremont Boulevard.

(former) fire station #6



11

.10

.20

09

CEN

TERVILLE OVERA

LL PLAN

1

4

5

6

3

2

FREMONT BOULEVARD

POST STREET

MAPLE STREET

TH

OR

NT

ON

AV

EN

UE

BO

ND

E S

TR

EE

TB

ON

DE

ST

RE

ET

BA

INE

ST

RE

ET

PE

RA

LTA

BO

ULE

VAR

D

CE

NT

RA

L A

VE

NU

E

CHURCH AVENUE

JASON WAY

MAPLE STREETPA

RIS

H A

VE

NU

E

TH

OR

NT

ON

AV

EN

UE

PE

RA

LTA

BO

ULE

VAR

D

FREMONT BOULEVARD

BONDE STREET

ELM STREET HA

NS

EN

ST

RE

ET

Centerville unified site

dale hardware

Creamery BuildinG (fremont flowers)

presByterian ChurCh and

Cemetery site

Gas station (dillon auto

repair)

train depot

fiGure 2-4: siGnifiCant eXistinG BuildinGs and planned proJeCts

250 5001250 ft

firestation 6

Center theater

holy spirit

ChurCh

town hall site (Century

house)

maple CommerCial BuildinG (permitted, not Built)

Crown Court

eden peralta

Bill Ball

plaza

1�Centerville framework planC i t y o f f r e m o n t


B. LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

projects supporting the historic, walkable, urban development

pattern, and economic development of Centerville are greatly

encouraged. new activity on the street through future development

can help build a stronger identity for Centerville along the central

spine of fremont Boulevard.

an objective of this framework plan is to tie projects together with

an overall vision that strengthens Centerville as a node of activity

along fremont Boulevard. Currently, the high speed and volume

of vehicular traffic through the district creates a barrier that limits

opportunities for pedestrians to cross fremont Boulevard. foot-

traffic is desired to activate the street. district-wide improvements

are needed to create the pedestrian-friendly and walkable

environment crucial to the success of businesses within the district

and Centerville’s identity.

GOAL: MAkE FREMONT BOULEVARD MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLy

improving pedestrian safety and security is an initial step to making

fremont Boulevard more walkable and Centerville more enjoyable.

the most effective safety measure is to slow traffic. traffic can be

slowed by introducing elements of “friction”.

these can include:

narrowing lane widths: drivers slow down as they become aware of closer traffic

eliminating travel lanes: drivers slow down when there are fewer lanes in the street

introducing on-street parking: drivers are more aware of slow moving traffic and cars parking when there is on-street parking. parked cars also become a physical buffer between the sidewalk and vehicles moving in the street.

adding additional obstacles: medians, signage, signals, bulb-out curbs, crosswalks, landscaping with or without trees. Changing conditions within the right-of-way and activity on the sidewalks require drivers to be more alert, and slow down.

•

•

•

•

Alternat ives to the exist ing lane conf igurat ions for Fremont Boulevard are descr ibed and studied in Chapter 3 .

SOLUTION: SLOw DOwN TRAFFIC ON FREMONT BOULEVARD



GOAL: CREATE A VIBRANT AND IDENTIFIABLE DISTRICT

Beyond the basics, a pedestrian-friendly street has:

ample street trees that provide a generous canopy for shade.

appropriate street lighting for pedestrian convenience and safety at night.

a variety of destinations that are strategically located. (figure 2-5)

narrow shop fronts grouped together for pedestrian convenience and to make the walking experience in the district more interesting.

unique signage at the pedestrian level to guide visitors to destinations.

discreet utility boxes that do not interrupt the path of travel.

a small number of clearly marked driveways. while driveways are necessary, frequent curb cuts for driveways allow cars to cut across the pedestrian zone and interrupt the pedestrian pathway and landscaping.

places to sit and rest.

places to eat outside. outdoor dining is a venue for visible activity in the district.

use of on-street parking, bike racks, landscaping, street furniture, or other sidewalk amenities to demarcate the edge of the sidewalk and protect pedestrians from moving traffic.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

street trees

Grouped narrow shop fronts

plaCes to eat and rest

on-street amenities

CENTERVILLE FRAMEWORK PLAN

STRATEGICALLY LOCATE DESTINATIONS

fiGure 2-5: diaGram of strateGiCally loCated destinations

SOLUTION: ENhANCE ThE STREETSCAPE ON FREMONT BOULEVARD



listed below are some specific ideas to Centerville that support

the enhancement of the street:

remove curb-cuts and then infill with new commercial development along fremont Boulevard to strengthen the pedestrian experience when walking through the district.

integrate Bill Ball plaza with the adjacent Bank of italy building to better integrate the side of the building with public open space. the plaza could include more outdoor seating, enhanced landscaping, and perhaps a the farmer’s market.

Build parking structures or set aside land as part of future development projects for future parking structures.

improve and reconfigure the plaza in front of the train depot Cafe to take advantage of the public open space and possibly re-routing the entrance to the public parking lot to a location on Bonde street. relocate the ada ramp access to the cafe to connect the outdoor terrace more directly to the plaza.

make Baine street a one-way street to accommodate parallel on-street parking next to the train tracks.

improve existing facades to enhance and highlight the historic building details and improve the facades on most recently built buildings to make the district more attractive.

make the intersection at thornton and fremont Boulevard more pedestrian-friendly, and less auto-serving by eliminating the free-right turn lane on thornton and using that land for features that define the corner. a reduction in street width around this intersection will make it easier to cross.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



GOAL: STRONGER CONNECTIONS wIThIN CENTERVILLE

when walking, the amount of time and effort it takes to get from

one place to the next matters greatly. Convenient pedestrian

connections encourage walking in a district. the existing street

grid and block pattern in Centerville is not pedestrian-friendly.

distances between crosswalks can be as much as 10�5 feet or 0.2

miles, about a 4-minute walk.

the General plan 2030 update to the mobility element states

goals for better mobility through street connectivity in a policy

that promotes improving the street network. thus, opportunities

to shorten block lengths to improve walkability by creating

connections through new streets, crosswalks, pathways, alleys, and

pedestrian passageways are encouraged.

the street grid in Centerville is divided by the train tracks with

street-grade connections at fremont Boulevard and maple streets.

while regular on the west side, the street pattern bends east of

fremont Boulevard. this urban pattern affects the circulation and

experience of visiting Centerville.

maple and post street are both parallel routes to fremont

Boulevard. these parallel routes help vehicles access parking by

allowing better circulation in clockwise loops. south of peralta,

maple is still available for circulation, whereas Jason way stops

short of connecting through to peralta. these connections allow

visitors to turn around within the district if they have gone past their

destination. it makes it possible for people to stop in Centerville.

south of Bonde street, fremont Boulevard blocks are permeable

with a number of courts and alleyways to access parking behind the

storefronts. the block north of Bonde, that stretches to thornton

avenue is much longer (10�5’). the size of these mega blocks

make it difficult to circulate by car or on foot through the district.

the purpose of refining the street grid is to make sure pedestrians

can easily find an efficient and adequate path that makes walking

more accessible.

General Plan 2030 Update

mobility element, policy t-2.10: additional street network connectivity should be created as opportunities arise.

mobility element, policy t-3.1: prioritize improving areas that are not connected by the City’s pedestrian network, with the objective of making walking safer, more enjoyable, and more convenient.

Centervi l le Speci f ic Plan

Circulation and parking element: improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation between neighborhoods and commercial districts.

land use element: Concept plan includes new road connections between fremont Boulevard and maple street, and fremont Boulevard and post street.

•

•

•

•

SOLUTION: REFINE ThE STREET GRID



fiGure 2-6: diaGram of the eXistinG urBan BloCk pattern

fiGure 2-�: diaGram of a refined urBan BloCk pattern

Ideas to enhance vehicular access:

Connect Jason way through to peralta Boulevard via a new street to create a clockwise loop for improved circulation around the block

Connect Church street through to a shared mid-block parking lot behind businesses on fremont Boulevard

Connect post and fremont Boulevard with a new street through the Centerville unified site

Ideas to enhance pedestr ian access:

provide a pedestrian link through the cemetery to the unified site

Connect maple to fremont Boulevard with mid-block pedestrian links or streets to improve circulation

•

•

•

•

•


REFINE THE URBAN GRAIN

10�5’ 525’ �00’ 280’

distanCe Between Crosswalks


REFINE THE URBAN GRAIN

350’ 425’ 300’ 525’ 300’400’ 280’

refined BloCk lenGths

proposed vehiCular and pedestrian ConneCtions

proposed pedestrian links, with the possiBility of limited vehiCular use

Building connections

between attractions,

landmarks, housing, and

parking foster important

spatial relationships that

form a stronger identity for

the district.



GOAL: INTEGRATE TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES

Centerville is the only historic district served by commuter rail. the

Centerville train depot is in the heart of Centerville and is served

by both aCe and amtrak. aC transit Buses #210, #216 and line u

also stop in Centerville.

there is potential to make the Centerville station an even stronger

transit hub as the population grows, vehicular traffic worsens, and

drivers switch to public transportation. working with aC transit,

aCe and amtrak to build on the existing transit services will

be crucial as ridership grows in conjunction with the revitalized

Centerville district. future transit on fremont Boulevard can take

many forms that may range from bus rapid transit to fixed rail. as

ridership grows, future transit through Centerville can build on

existing services through the following phases:

increased arterial bus service

additional shuttles

express bus service

Bus rapid transit (Brt) with stations

Brt with stations and dedicated lanes

fixed rail streetcar in dedicated lanes

•

•

•

•

•

•

fiGure 2-8: potential future transit on fremont Boulevard

SOLUTION: STRENGThEN TRANSIT CONNECTIONS

The General Plan 2030 Update includes planning for streetcar service on the Fremont Boulevard corr idor.



fremont Bart and the Centerville station are roughly 2.5 miles away from each other, which translates to 9 minutes by car and 50 minutes by foot. a better connection with more bus or additional shuttle service between the two regional transit systems would be ideal, especially as the region grows and traffic worsens. existing transit lines and alternative transit opportunities are shown in figure 2-9.

fiGure 2-9: eXistinG and alternative transit

it is important to consider the possible needs of future transit on

fremont Boulevard in planning for its future.

a dedicated transit lane will make the service more efficient.

when ridership and demand for a streetcar make it feasible, one lane of tracks will be required in each direction.

in the interim, these lanes could also be shared with vehicular traffic, as they are on market street in san francisco and in portland, oregon.

housing, services, and parking must be within walking distance

to transit to make this a strong transit-oriented district. Compact

development around the transit hub will also strengthen Centerville

by helping to make it more walkable.

•

•

•

fremont Bart

Centerville train station

fremont Blvd

peralta Blvd

Cen

tra

l av

e

future Bart route

216

210, U

Bus route

Bart

future Bart

aCe / amtrak railway

alternative transit opportunities



A POTENTIAL LONG-TERM VISION

a potential long-term vision was developed to test how the ideas

for long-term development can manifest themselves over the next

twenty years. the vision reflects the goals of the framework plan

to:

slow down traffic on fremont Boulevard to make it more pedestrian-friendly

enhance the streetscape and street frontage on fremont Boulevard to create a more vibrant and identifiable district

refine the street grid to allow for stronger connections between attractions, landmarks, housing, and parking within Centerville

take advantage of the proximity to transit by concentrating development close to the station

an illustration of the potential long-term vision is included as

figure 2-10. the intention of this illustration is to:

illustrate how approved and anticipated projects relate to each other

identify further opportunity sites for long-term development

suggest land uses for opportunity sites (indicated by color in the legend)

locate opportunities for shared parking and potential sites for parking structures so that visitors to the district have to park only once to visit multiple businesses

integrate new connections for streets and pedestrian pathways into the urban pattern of the district

increase the density of housing on parallel streets to bring new activity, throughout the day and night, to the district, and to take advantage of the proximity to transit.

Concentrate retail and commercial businesses on fremont Boulevard for convenient shopping

it was assumed that all sites within the study area were potential

sites for development, with sites along fremont Boulevard most

imminent in time frame and intensity of development. keeping

that in mind, specific ideas used to develop figure 2-10 are listed

on the facing page:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



Dest inat ions in Centervi l le

the Centerville unified site, Center theater, and fire station #6 are developed to their full potential as attractions for the Centerville district

the plaza in front of the Centerville train depot and Bill Ball plaza are both renovated and activated with outdoor seating and event space

new development on the fire station block (fremont Boulevard from peralta to parish) is mixed-use, with ground floor retail that complements the scale of the existing buildings across the street and residential behind facing Jason way.

Commercial uses infill the frontage of fremont Boulevard across from the Centerville unified site to complement the pedestrian-friendly character of the street.

New connect ions

Jason way is connected through to peralta Boulevard to facilitate better circulation through the district.

pedestrian pathways are included within new developments to connect the destinations in Centerville.

new mid-block crosswalks are added to allow for better pedestrian circulation across fremont Boulevard

parking is consolidated behind the street frontage in shared parking lots. the size of the parking lots are big enough to allow for a future parking structures as the need arises. (parking assumptions are discussed in section C of this chapter.)

Church avenue is connected to the parking lot to facilitate better circulation.

multiple pathways through parking to fremont Boulevard are preserved for access to businesses within the district.

More intense development at the distr ic t edges

Commercial office uses and housing infill sites along maple street from thornton to Central.

residential land uses infill where possible to increase the density of housing near the train station.

future development may continue across thornton as the success of the retail district grows.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



parkinG struCture

eXistinG residential

future residential

eXistinG retail

future retail

eXistinG CommerCial/offiCe

future CommerCial/offiCe

liGht industrial

Community

eXistinG trees

future trees

fiGure 2-12: a potential lonG-term vision for Centerville



125 250�50 ft



taBle 2-11: potential lonG-term development

BloCk area (aCres)

eXistinG (sf)

removed (sf) BalanCe (sf) new (sf) total (sf) far

1 5.5 41,�00 38,�00 3,000 1�3,000 1�6,000 0.�3

2 4.4 5�,300 18,300 39,000 43,800 82,800 0.43

3 1.9 35,000 35,000 �3,�00 �3,�00 0.89

4 10.4 8,000 8,000 288,000 296,000 0.65

5 2.5 15,200 3,000 12,200 22,800 35,000 0.32

6 2.3 30,000 30,000 4,500 34,500 0.34

� 2 13,200 13,200 13,200 0.15

8 4.9 65,800 53,000 12,800 195,300 208,100 0.9�

9 2.8 14,500 14,500 84,600 84,600 0.69

10 8.2 80,�00 21,500 59,200 125,600 184,800 0.52

11 1.5 26,600 6,400 20,200 21,300 41,500 0.64

12 1.6 22,�00 22,�00 8,�00 31,400 0.45

13 5.4 9�,800 21,300 �6,500 110,400 186,900 0.�9

total 53.4 508,500 211,�00 296,800 1,151,�00 1,448,500 0.62

eXistinG far 0.22 inCrease over eXistinG 285%

2

1

9

4

10

5 �

11 12 13

8

3 6

fiGure 2-12: BloCk identifiCation numBers for the potential lonG-term vision



a summary of potential long-term development is summarized in

table 2-11 and figure 2-12. the study area was divided into blocks

and development was tallied in table 2-11. table 2-11 describes

the difference between existing and new development shown in

the potential long-term vision.

in keeping with the goal of intensifying development in

Centerville, this scenario shows an increase of 285% over the

existing developable square footage. the existing floor-area-ratio

(far) at 0.22 will increase to 0.62 for the 13 blocks counted in the

Centerville district.

it is assumed that the parking will be sufficient for new development

if a parking district is created and parking is managed. parking

assumptions will be reviewed in section C

it is also assumed that privately-owned parcels can be split or

consolidated for the purposes of this test. these suggestions are

based on the objectives of the framework plan and the changes

possible in twenty years. it does not take into account the economic

climate for future development, nor the cooperation of landowners.

the long-term vision focuses primarily on the physical possibilities

of future development in Centerville and how the character of

Centerville can be revitalized through the arrangement of different

land uses, building design, and placement of features within the

district.



C. APPROAChES TO PARkING

PARkING OPPORTUNITIES AND RATIOS

there are many possibilities for parking more efficiently in

Centerville. the current parking policy does not consider the district

as a whole, but rather requires each parcel to provide parking on

site. Businesses adjacent to each other do not share parking and

thus there is a great deal of surface parking located on land that

could be used for development. this arrangement also limits the

amount of new development possible. the parking policy must be

addressed in order to increase density in the district.

strategies for improving parking efficiency in Centerville can

involve:

reducing parking ratios

Creating on-street parking

Combining off-street parking through shared parking in a parking district

REDUCING PARkING RATIOS

since 1998, the city has recognized that standard parking

requirements are not always appropriate for areas historically

developed in a “mainstreet” pattern and can act as a constraint

to revitalization if applied strictly. Centerville’s core commerical

district is one such area. the fremont zoning Code provides

flexibility in:

Commercial projects in a “mainstreet format”

mixed-use projects

residential projects near transit

reductions are possible through the zoning administrator, planning

Commission or City Council following limitations and conditions

defined by the code for each type of project.

•

•

•

•

•

•



the existing ratio of parking spaces to developed land is over 4 per

1000 square feet for commercially zoned properties in Centerville.

this supply exceeds demand: most existing parking lots are

underutilized, indicating that there is not a parking “problem”

(lack of parking supply) in Centerville. thus, the opportunity to

reduce parking ratios for new project is reasonable.

CREATING ON-STREET PARkING

it is possible to increase the number of on-street parking spaces

without changing the right-of-way of any of the streets in Centerville.

Currently, parking is not marked on most streets in the district. on-

street opportunities could be improved by painting stripes and

posting signage. as many as 305 spaces can be counted on the

streets of Centerville for public parking simply by marking their

locations.

COMBINING OFF-STREET PARkING

existing public off-street parking opportunities include the surface

lots at the train depot and east of Bill Ball plaza. these lots are

intended for transit users, but also benefit retailers in Centerville.

off-street parking opportunities exist on privately-owned land as

well. however, parking is accommodated on individual sites, which

is inefficient in layout and reserved for patrons to single destinations.

as a consequence, this situation encourages customers to shop

elsewhere within the City.



to gain an understanding of the efficiencies of shared parking,

existing conditions were compared with potential conditions using

the long-term vision developed for the framework plan (figure 2-

10) in table 2-14. Currently, the parking ratio for the area is 4.16

parking spaces per 1000 sf of building area, which provides more

parking than necessary, even by code standards.

opportunities for shared parking were identified in the study area,

and parking layouts were tested. if land for parking is consolidated,

then the layout of parking on sites could be made more efficient,

resulting in more than �00 new spaces in the district. entrances and

exits to these shared parking lots could also reduce the number

of curb-cuts along fremont Boulevard, which could mean fewer

interruptions to the pedestrian pathway and opportunities for infill

development along the main corridor. the parking ratio for the

long-term vision using only surface parking is less than 2 spaces

per 1000 sf. this parking ratio is below conventional standards, but

can still effectively provide enough parking to support businesses

in the district (see examples of parking districts in the following

section).

if parking is consolidated, there may also be enough aggregated

land to build future parking structures. this option requires a plot

of land of appropriate size and shape to be considered for the

future, independent of the cost of building parking structures and

the projected potential need for parking in Centerville. locations

for parking structures were suggested for the long-term vision

throughout the study area. it is also possible to located new

structures on publicly-owned land adjacent to the train station

where surface parking for commuters is currently located. however,

these parcels are small and awkwardly sharped and do not

accommodate efficiently-sized parking structures, and therefore

are not shown. the parking ratio, including only one additional

level of parking in parking structures, is 2.6� spaces per 1000 sf,

and can be made higher by building additional levels.

By sharing parking, pr ivate property owners can mutual ly benef i t f rom customers who park once and patronize mult ip le locat ions within the distr ic t on foot .

700 addi t ional parking spaces could be created i f exist ing parking lots were consol idated and la id out more eff ic ient ly.

An eff ic ient ly parked distr ic t wi l l require a study of the opt ions for sharing parking.



taBle 2-14: potential lonG-term parkinG proJeCtions

BloCk eXistinG ratio total new at Grade

ratio total with struCture

ratio

1 388 9.30 2�1 1.54 463 2.63

2 229 4.00 256 3.09 256 3.09

3 8 0.23 �3 0.99 �3 0.99

4 �5 9.38 514 1.�4 514 1.�4

5 159 10.46 168 4.80 168 4.80

6 139 4.63 136 3.94 136 3.94

� 110 8.33 105 �.95 105 �.95

8 244 3.�1 193 0.93 193 0.93

9 98 6.�6 202 2.39 502 5.93

10 296 3.6� 260 1.41 512 2.��

11 50 1.88 �1 1.�1 �1 1.�1

12 9� 4.2� 84 2.68 84 2.68

13 220 2.25 220 1.18 484 2.59

street 305 305

total 2113 4.16 2858 1.9� 3866 2.6�

fiGure 2-13: potential lonG-term parkinG inventory By BloCk

2

1

9

4

10

5 �

11 12

13

8

3 6

potential future parkinG struCture loCations

potential parkinG struCture not inCluded in taBle 2-14 Counts



EXAMPLES OF PARkING DISTRICTS

parking is a critical issue to commercial districts everywhere. four

examples have been chosen from the san francisco Bay area for

discussion about parking.

shared parking in midtown palo alto

low parking ratios in fourth street, Berkeley

parking structures in Castro street, mountain view

shared parking policy approaches in willow Glen, san Jose

Shared parking in the Midtown Palo Al to Distr ic t

the neighborhood retail district known as midtown is located at

the intersection of middlefield and Colorado avenues in palo alto.

parking in midtown is integrated in a way that allows for compact

development, a pleasant walking experience, and a distinctive

identity. this is more or less a typical low-density district, wherein

the buildings are one-story tall served only by surface parking.

however, it is better than the typical self-parked parcel pattern that

exists in Centerville because parking is shared. shared parking:

allows developers to use less area for parking and more area for development

Centralizes lots, making it easier for customers to park

makes it possible for stores to be located more closely to one another; close enough to park once and walk to multiple conveniences

helps to minimize curb cuts and driveways to make a district more pedestrian friendly

encourages more activity along the main street, since most of the parking is out of the way, to the rear and sides of buildings

the development and parking pattern in midtown is an example

of how to make the most out of a low-density urban environment.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

shared parkinG in midtown palo alto

on middlefield road in midtown palo alto

Continuous development alonG middlefield road



midtown, middlefield and Colorado, palo alto, Ca

shared surface parking lots



Low parking rat ios in Fourth Street , Berkeley

at fourth street in Berkeley the parking ratio is lower than 4

parking spaces per 1000 sf of commercial development. shoppers

that visit fourth street can choose from several free shared-parking

lots (privately-owned) and one pay-parking lot (at spengers),

as well as metered on-street parking on fourth street. there

are also non-metered, on-street, parallel parking spaces on the

surrounding streets; the closest spaces are located on fifth and

hearst streets.

at 4 parking spaces per 1000 sf, developers need to provide as

much land for parking as used for building. if we assume that a

10’x20’ parking space also requires some additional area for driving

circulation (pulling in and backing out) then one typical parking

space is approximately 350 sf. Given the ratio of 4 spaces per 1000

sf of developable area, a developer would need 1400 sf of parking

space for every 1000 sf of building area developed. less parking

would allow for more developable area.

parking demand fluctuates throughout the day, week, and year. the

4 spaces per 1000 sf ratio assumes parking needs for the worst-case

scenario, typically for shopping during the holiday season. for the

rest of the year parking lots are often underutilized. less parking

than 4 spaces per 1000 sf is sufficient for districts as popular as

fourth street in Berkeley.

there are several parking options for customers who visit fourth

street. on busy weekends the free parking lots fill up first, then

patrons begin taking advantage of on-street parking. if parking is

not easy to find, then patrons use the pay parking lot at spengers.

parking is always available, but not necessarily free when there is a

high demand for parking during peak times.

a fourth street parkinG lot

availaBle parkinG in parkinG lots: 504

on-street spaCes on hearst, fourth and fifth (from university to virGinia): 206

spaCes in the spenGers parkinG lot: 316

developed square footaGe:320,000 sf (assuminG the footprint of eaCh BuildinG is only one-story tall)

parkinG ratio:

1.6 per 1000 sf, CountinG only the privately-owned free parkinG lots

2.2 CountinG parkinG lots and on-street spaCes

3.2 CountinG all parkinG, inCludinG the pay parkinG lot



the “spenGers” parkinG lotpay parkinG lot

fourth street, Berkeley, Ca

the fourth street district demonstrates that parking ratios

significantly lower than 4 spaces per 1000 sf can support vibrant

commercial/retail. in fact, the lack of parking can be perceived

to be a positive indicator of success, which becomes tied to the

districts’ reputation as a popular place to visit. in some ways, this

example shows that a parking “problem” is something worth

having.



Parking structures in Castro Street , Mountain View

Behind the shops and restaurants that line Castro street in

mountain view are surface parking lots. these parking lots are

shared, but were once divided in a similar ownership pattern to

Centerville. the City of mountain view consolidated the parking

lots for shared parking.

over the years, two parking structures have been built on surface

parking lots as the popularity of the district grew. one of the

parking structures is built over ground floor retail. remaining

surface parking lots can also accommodate parking structures

or more developable square footage as the district continues to

grow.

on-street parking on Castro street is also inspiring. the City

allows and encourages outdoor dining to take place within

parking spaces, thus activating the street. on-street dining areas

are protected from traffic with planters. the street curb is also

designed to welcome on-street dining with the inclusion of a few

steps and distinctive paving.

Castro street in mountain view provides a example of what long-

term, future parking in Centerville may require. however, before

investing in a parking structure there are many options to increase

parking through:

metering: parking doesn’t have to be free if the district is successful. parking revenues can also go directly to fund street improvements within the district. the price of metering can be adjusted by demand for parking for any particular location in the district. metered parking helps to make more use of current parking spaces

valet parking: less area is needed if cars can be parked tandem or deeper with the assistance of valet services.

mechanical parking lifts: the number of parking spaces can be doubled with these devices, which also require on-site parking management.

•

•

•

mid-BloCk alley to a parkinG struCture

on-street parkinG / outdoor dininG on Castro street

on-street parkinG / outdoor dininG on Castro street



shared parkinG struCtures Built on former surfaCe parkinG lots

Castro street, mountain view, Ca



Shared Parking Pol icy Approaches: wi l low Glen Distr ic t , L incoln Avenue, San Jose

lincoln avenue, between minnesota and willow street in san Jose

is a good example of an existing neighborhood, which has been

revitalized into a successful pedestrian-friendly district along a

major thoroughfare. a key component to the success of willow

Glen is the availability of shared parking behind shops that face

lincoln avenue.

the City of san Jose owns one of the main parking lots, west of

lincoln and north of minnesota. some of the older properties and

their associated parking were historically integrated and shared.

however, at times, access issues forced owners to address parking

through various means.

sharing parking isn’t easy. private property owners tend to hire

parking attendants to protect their properties and to dissuade

people from parking in one area while patronizing their neighbor.

in other cases, fences have been erected between properties to

prevent pedestrian access and vehicular access between surface

parking lots. there have also been planning applications for

vehicle grates, vehicular gates, and other deterrents to shared

parking. staff planners are now trying to incorporate policies into

the General plan that discourage the use of fences and encourage

the removal of barriers.

it is often the case that one landowner eventually buys another

property or at least buys or negotiates easements from another

owner. however, City staff has tried various strategies over the

years to encourage sharing.

when the City of san Jose decided to reduce their parking

requirement to 2.5 per 1000 sf for specific land uses located on

the ground floor (retail, personal service, restaurants) there was

a push to require owners to agree to a set of conditions in order

take advantage of the reduced parking requirement. they would

have to agree to take down fences and agree not to keep the

public from parking in their lots in order to reduce their parking

requirements.

san Jose zoning Code referencesparking Chapter 20.90

parking requirements – table 20-190see note 3. – parking reduction for ground-floor uses in neighborhood Business districts (nBd).

willow Glen distriCt, san Jose, California



willow Glen distriCt, san Jose, California

lincoln avenueBrace avenue

minnesota

City-owned shared surface parking lots

City inherited this property from the previous land owner and consolidated the parking

this bank and restaurant have an alternating use agreement and use the same parking at different times during the day and night



further parking reduction is also available for the legal non-

conforming properties (buildings before 1965 when parking

requirements were first set in place). land owners with buildings

in place pre-dating 1965 are allowed to expand the intensity of

building on their sites by 40% before having to meet current

requirements for parking.

a covenant of easement is used for adjacent properties of the same

ownership. it is possible to count parking as one consolidated

property and remove easements in this condition. the City is party

to the easement to ensure that is not rescinded.

shared parking may be arranged in a way that allows after-hours

businesses (restaurants, theaters, etc.) to use the same parking

spaces as businesses who operate at peak times (offices, banks,

retailers, etc.). shared parking on lincoln avenue, through a special

use permit for commercial districts, can take place off-site. off-

site and alternating use arrangements typically use other nearby

properties during off-use hours. an example of this arrangement

is when a popular restaurant uses parking from an office building

after office business hours or from a bank during off-peak hours.

even without the permit arrangement, the City of san Jose generally

treats a collection of parcels that have historically shared parking

as if they are one parcel for purposes of parking compliance if they

have reciprocal parking and access easements.

Cities need a nexus to require a reciprocal agreement, but this can

be tough to achieve. without policy tools like these agreements,

it is left up to the land owners to cooperate with one another. in

some cases, this works well, in others, more creative agreements

need to be worked out.

these policies and planning practices have overcome initial

resistance to create an environment that benefits all by allowing

customers to park once and visit multiple businesses within the

district.

san Jose zoning Code referencesparking Chapter 20.90

see part 3. exceptions – other provisions for reduced parking

Change in structure or use (formula for intensification of uses in buildings that area legal non-conforming for parking and existed on or before nov. 10, 1965)reduction in required off-street parking spaces

Chapter 20.110 Covenant of easement

table 20.90 Commercial districts land use regulations

see special use permit requirement for off-site, alternating use and alternative parking arrangements.

•

•

•



PARkING POLICy APPROAChES.

there are several approaches to consolidate parking into shared

parking lots in Centerville:

shared parking can be voluntary among private property

owners so that they can use land more efficiently and to reduce

the overall burden of parking.

shared parking can be created by one large property owner to

more efficiently serve its tenants.

through policies, such as stated in the General plan, the City

can discourage fences that mark private property between

adjacent parking lots, if not for shared parking, for pedestrian

access so that they can mutually benefit from cross-shopping

customers.

the City can adopt parking policies that encourage shared

parking through cross-easements, reciprocal irrevocable

easements, and/or alternating use arrangements.

the City, through the Centerville Business district, can establish

a City parking district to manage parking and to make the

most of parking supply and demand.

the City has the option of purchasing land for parking lots and

building parking structures, if they are necessary.

the City can develop a parking plan that addresses future

parking opportunities when demand arises.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

�.

Speci f ic Plan

land use policy: subarea 1

(lu1/9): property owners are

encouraged to work with

neighbors and the City and/

or redevelopment agency to

create shared parking.

General Plan Update

implementation t-8.1B:

reducing surface parking

lot area: encourage shared

parking, developing parking

structures, and underground

parking, making more

efficient use of on-street

parking, adjusting local

parking standards, and

reducing the need to drive.

3. FREMONT BOULEVARD

CHAPTER 3: FREMONT BOULEVARD

45CENTERViLLE FRAMEwORk PLANC i T y O F F R E M O N T

A. Exist ing Condi t ions

Much of the health and vibrancy of Centerville as a district hinges

on Fremont Boulevard. in its current configuration, Fremont

Boulevard serves through-traffic vehicle flow better than any other

mode of travel along the boulevard. Pedestrians struggle with the

traffic and the speed of vehicles and thus the businesses along

Fremont Boulevard suffer.

Policies written into the General Plan Update Mobility Element

address the conditions that are found in Centerville. A major goal

(Goal T-2: Complete Streets) aims to serve multiple modes of

transportation on city streets through policies that “balance the

needs of automobiles with the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists,

and transit users.” Another goal (Goal T-4: Balancing Mobility and

Neighborhood Quality) strives to “balance speed and convenience

with the desire to have walkable neighborhoods and an enhanced

sense of space.” with these goals in mind, suggestions have

been proposed that modify the existing conditions on Fremont

Boulevard.

Currently, State Route 84 (SR-84) runs through Centerville,

eastbound from Thornton Avenue, on to Fremont Boulevard, to

Peralta Boulevard. Before street improvements can begin, SR-84

needs to be decommissioned so that Caltrans can transfer authority

over the street right-of-way to the City of Fremont. Decoto Road

will be the connector that will accommodate travelers after SR-84

is decommissioned through Centerville.

The train tracks are another unique feature that intersect Fremont

Boulevard in Centerville. Requirements regarding railroad crossings

apply. There are two at-grade crossings in Centerville: at Fremont

Boulevard and at Maple Street. Trains stopping at the station affect

vehicular traffic on Fremont Boulevard by causing traffic to wait at

railway barriers when trains are present.


46 CENTERViLLE FRAMEwORk PLANC i T y O F F R E M O N T

OPTiON 1

P P

OPTiON 2

P M

OPTiON 3

P PBB M

ExiSTiNG CONDiTiONS

OPTiON 4 - ALTERNATiVE B

PBBP M

OPTiON 4 - ALTERNATiVE A

PBBP



B. Potent ia l Lane Conf igurat ions

Four alternatives were developed for potential changes to

Fremont Boulevard that aim to improve travel for pedestrians and

bicyclists in Centerville. All landscaping and lane reconfiguration

improvement options are contained within the existing street right-

of-way and protect the width of the existing sidewalks.

Option 1: two lanes each way with no median, shared bicycle

lanes, and parallel parking where possible

Option 2: two lanes each way with a median, shared bicycle

lanes, and parallel parking where possible

Option 3: two travel lanes northbound, and one lane

southbound, turn lanes at intersections, dedicated bicycle

lanes and some on-street parallel parking

Option 4: two narrower lanes each way with dedicated bicycle

lanes and some on-street parallel parking, studied without

medians (Alternative A) and with medians (Alternative B)

in each alternative, additional crosswalks have been located to

make it more convenient for pedestrians to cross. There is also

a possibility of having pedestrian activated signals at these

crosswalks, if appropriate. where possible, sidewalks are widened

and intersections are narrowed for pedestrian convenience. Parallel

parking and landscaped bulb-outs are included wherever feasible

to provide on-street parking, sidewalk amenities, and pedestrian

protection.

The possibility of future transit would require an option that could

accommodate transit on two outer-lanes of the street, one in each

direction, regardless of the possibility of sharing transit lanes with

vehicles, or having dedicated transit lanes. Further study is needed

to determine where curb-side stations could be located, and how

future transit can be accommodated within the right-of-way.

•

•

•

•


48

14’-6” 11’ 12’ 14’-6”12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

12’

THO

RN

TON

AV

EN

UE

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

BA

iNE

AV

EN

UE

BO

ND

E w

Ay

BO

ND

E w

Ay

FREMONT BOULEVARD FREMONT BOULEVARD

PAR

iSH

AV

E

CE

NTR

AL

AV

E

TRA

iN T

RA

Ck

S

FiGURE 3-1: FREMONT BOULEVARD - ExiSTiNG LANE CONFiGURATiON

CENTERViLLE FRAMEwORk PLANC i T y O F F R E M O N T


49

THO

RN

TON

AV

EN

UE

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

BA

iNE

AV

EN

UE

BO

ND

E w

Ay

BO

ND

E w

Ay

FREMONT BOULEVARD FREMONT BOULEVARD

PAR

iSH

AV

E

CE

NTR

AL

AV

E

TRA

iN T

RA

Ck

S

100 200500 ft

Exist ing Condi t ions

The existing configuration of Fremont Boulevard is two travel

lanes in each direction with turn lane pockets in the center lane at

intersections. Bicycle are accommodated in the wide traffic lanes,

but are not striped as bicycle lanes. The traffic moves quickly past

pedestrians on the sidewalk. The streetscape does little to protect

pedestrians: on-street parking is not marked and not encouraged,

street trees are not yet mature, and generally few businesses utilize

and activate the sidewalk.



50

8’

P

8’

P

14’ 14’10’10’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

FiGURE 3-3: FREMONT BOULEVARD - OPTiON 1

THO

RN

TON

AV

EN

UE

BO

ND

E w

Ay

BO

ND

E w

Ay

FREMONT BOULEVARD

ADD PARALLEL PARkiNG wiTH LANDSCAPED BULB-OUTS wHERE POSSiBLE

REMOVE DEDiCATED TURN LANES ON THREE SiDES OF iNTERSECTiONREARRANGE CROSSwALkS TO CREATE SMALLER iNTERSECTiONLAND SAVED TO BE USED FOR THE ADDiTiONAL SiDEwALk AND LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS

•

•

•

MAiNTAiN ExiSTiNG LEFT-TURN LANE

ADD NEw CROSSwALkS AT NEw iNTERSECTiON

NE

w R

OA

D iN

TO

UN

iFiE

D S

iTE

POSSiBLE NEw ROAD OR PEDESTRiAN ROUTE THROUGH TO MAPLE STREET

ADD NEw CROSSwALk ON FOURTH SiDE OF iNTERSECTiON



51

100 200500 ft

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

BA

iNE

AV

EN

UE

FREMONT BOULEVARD

PAR

iSH

AV

E

CE

NTR

AL

AV

E

TRA

iN T

RA

Ck

S

REMOVE DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANES ON FREMONT BOULEVARD

ADD NEw CROSSwALk ON THiRD SiDE OF iNTERSECTiON


BAiNE AVENUE CONVERTED TO ONE-wAy wiTH PARALLEL PARkiNG

ADD NEw MiD-BLOCk CROSSwALk

Opt ion 1

keep Fremont Boulevard two lanes in each direction to maintain

capacity, but narrow the lanes. The outer travel lanes are kept wider

to share with bicycles on a bicycle route. Create parallel on-street

parking on both sides of the street (approximately 92 spaces).

Pro: Maintains number of current vehicle travel lanesReduces the distance to cross the streetProvides the most on-street parking spaces of all the options

Con:Allows only enough space for a shared bicycle lane, rather than a dedicated bicycle lane but allows most cars to passBicycles will need to negotiate parking cars and traffic flow

•••

•

•



52

8’

P

14’

B

14’

B

10’10’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

8’

M


FREMONT BOULEVARD

BO

ND

E w

Ay

THO

RN

TON

AV

EN

UE

BO

ND

E w

Ay

NE

w R

OA

D iN

TO

UN

iFiE

D S

iTE


•

•

•



ADD NEw LANDSCAPED MEDiAN wiTH BREAk FOR LEFT TURN iNTO NEw/ExiSTiNG DRiVEwAyS


ADD NEw BREAk iN MEDiAN FOR LEFT TURN iNTO NEw/ExiSTiNG DRiVEwAyS


ADD NEw CROSSwALkS AT NEw iNTERSECTiON



53

100 200500 ft

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

BA

iNE

AV

EN

UE

CE

NTR

AL

AV

E

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

PAR

iSH

AV

E

TRA

iN T

RA

Ck

S

ADD LANDSCAPED MEDiAN wiTH BREAkS FOR LEFT TURN iNTO NEw/ExiSTiNG DRiVEwAyS

REMOVE DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANE

REMOVE DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANES





Opt ion 2

keeps Fremont Boulevard two lanes in each direction to maintain

capacity, but narrow the lanes. Provide a median that can also be

a dedicated left turn lane at the intersections. Create parallel on-

street parking on one or both sides of the street where possible

(approximately 71 spaces).

Pro:Maintains number of current vehicle travel lanesAdds landscaping to the streetMedians provide a refuge for crossing the street midway

Con:Allows only enough space for a shared bicycle lane, rather than a dedicated bicycle laneBicycles will need to negotiate parking cars and traffic flowEliminates some of the possible on-street parking at the

•••

•

••



54


FREMONT BOULEVARD

BO

ND

E w

Ay

THO

RN

TON

AV

EN

UE

BO

ND

E w

Ay

NE

w R

OA

D iN

TO

UN

iFiE

D S

iTE


•

•

•

REDUCE TO ONE DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANE, wiDEN LANDSCAPED MEDiAN




ADD CROSSwALkS AND SOUTHBOUND DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANE AT NEw iNTERSECTiON

10’ 10’ 10’8’

P

8’

M

5’

B

5’

B

8’

P

12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk



55

Opt ion 3

Maintains two lanes in the northbound direction, but reduces to

one lane in the southbound direction to reflect the way the street

is utilized from traffic count data. Provides a median that can also

be a dedicated left turn lane at the intersections. Adds dedicated

bicycle lanes and creates parallel parking where possible

(approximately 75 spaces).

Pro: Reduces the number of vehicle travel lanes to slow traffic for pedestriansProvides a dedicated bicycle laneAdds landscaping in the medianMedian provides a refuge for pedestrians

Con:will not be sufficient for transit requiring a dedicated lane in the futureGreatly reduces street capacity in the southbound direction

•

•••

•

•

100 200500 ft

FREMONT BOULEVARD

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

BA

iNE

AV

EN

UE

CE

NTR

AL

AV

E

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

PAR

iSH

AV

E

TRA

iN T

RA

Ck

S

ADD LANDSCAPED MEDiAN

ADD SOUTHBOUND DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANE AT iNTERSECTiONS

REMOVE NORTHBOUND DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANE







56


FREMONT BOULEVARD

BO

ND

E w

Ay

THO

RN

TON

AV

EN

UE

BO

ND

E w

Ay

NE

w R

OA

D iN

TO

UN

iFiE

D S

iTE

REMOVE ONE LEFT TURN LANE SOUTHBOUNDREMOVE ONE LEFT TURN LANE NORTHBOUNDREMOVE DEDiCATED RiGHT TURN LANE EASTBOUND ON THORNTONTHORNTON wESTBOUND TO REMAiN AS iS

•

•

•

•

MAiNTAiN ExiSTiNG RiGHT-TURN LANE



ADD PARALLEL PARkiNG ONE SiDE ONLy

ADD CROSSwALkS AT NEw iNTERSECTiON

NEw MiD-BLOCk CROSSwALk

ASTREET TO BE

STRAiGHTENED TO ACCOMMODATE ON-STREET PARkiNG PER

UNiFiED SiTE PLAN

THiS PORTiON OF FREMONT BLVD CAN BE wiDENED TO ACCOMMODATE PARALLEL PARkiNG



57

Opt ion 4

keeps Fremont Boulevard two lanes in each direction to maintain

capacity, but narrows the lanes (to 11’) (Alternative A). Lanes

are narrowed further (to 10’) to accommodate a small median

(Alternative B). Adds dedicated bicycle lanes. Creates parallel

parking where possible (approximately 62 spaces).

Pro:

Maintains the number of current vehicle travel lanesProvides a dedicated bicycle lane

Con:

Fewer parallel parking spaces than the other options

••

•

100 200500 ft

B

FREMONT BOULEVARD

BA

iNE

AV

EN

UE

CE

NTR

AL

AV

E

PER

ALT

A B

LVD

PAR

iSH

AV

E

TRA

iN T

RA

Ck

S

PARALLEL PARkiNG ONE SiDE ONLy wiTH LANDSCAPED BULB-OUTS

DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANES REMOVED

REMOVE NORTHBOUND DEDiCATED LEFT-TURN LANE





C



58

8’

P

5’

B

5’

B

11’ 11’11’11’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

4’

M

5’

B

5’

B

11’ 11’11’11’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

5’

B

5’

B

12’ 12’11’11’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

8’

P

SECTiON A

SECTiON B

SECTiON C

OPTiON 4: ALTERNATiVE A

8’

P



59

8’

P

5’

B

5’

B

10’ 10’10’10’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

6’

M

8’

M

5’

B

5’

B

10’ 10’10’10’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

5’

B

5’

B

10’ 10’10’10’12’±

SiDEwALk

12’±

SiDEwALk

8’

P

6’

M

OPTiON 4: ALTERNATiVE B

8’

P

SECTiON A

SECTiON B

SECTiON C




C. Traff ic impact Study

A traffic study was conducted to analyze the potential traffic

impacts for roadway segments and intersections along Fremont

Boulevard and on the adjacent roadway network due to proposed

Fremont Boulevard roadway configuration options.1

Each option involves a combination of modifications to the existing

lane configurations through narrowing lane widths, the number of

lanes, on-street parking spaces, and the addition of bicycle lanes.

These options are intended to promote traffic calming and improve

mobility on Fremont Boulevard. The effect of these changes

reduces road capacity. This is but one factor that will impact traffic

on Fremont Boulevard in Centerville. Another factor will be the

growth forecasted in the 2030 General Plan.

The traffic study analyzed the impact on district roadways including

the effect on the surrounding network using the City of Fremont

Citywide Travel Demand Model provided by DkS Associates.

Operational analysis, using the model was conducted for both

morning and evening peak hours under the following scenarios:

Existing 2009 Conditions: Existing traffic volumes and roadway conditions are based on traffic counts and field surveysAlternative 2009 Configurations: These scenarios incorporate the proposed lane configuration options, as well as the anticipated effects of traffic diversion.Future 2030 Conditions: This scenario evaluates future traffic volumes (based on the assumed growth projections used in the 2030 General Plan) and planned roadway improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project.Future Alternative Configurations: These scenarios incorporate the proposed lane configuration options based on future conditions.

•

•

•

•

(1) The “Fremont Boulevard Traffic Diversion Analysis” was conducted by kimley Horn and Associates. The results are summarized in a report, dated March 5, 2010.



TABLE 3-7: LEVEL OF SERViCE (LOS) DESCRiPTiONS

ASSUMPTiONS

The traffic analysis of changes to the roadway is based on

the concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is represented by a

letter scale from Grade A to F, with LOS A representing the best

performance and LOS F representing the poorest performance for

any segment of roadway under significantly congested conditions.

LOS evaluates the performance of vehicular traffic only, and the

ability of traffic to move without interruption. LOS analysis for this

study used the methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual,

2000 (HCM). LOS is dependent on numerous factors, such as traffic

volume, composition of traffic, and roadway geometrics. LOS is

limited in that it does not take into account the quality of other

modes of travel that share the roadway, such as the quality of the

walking environment or bicycling environment that may be shared

on the street.

Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

Level of Service

Signalized intersections

Unsignalized intersections

Description

A ≤10 ≤10 Very low delay. Occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

B >10-20 >10-15 Generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS “A,” causing higher levels of average delay.

C >20-35 >15-25 These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D >35-55 >25-35 he influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E >55-80 >35-50 These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F >80 >50 This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. it may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.

The 2030 General Plan Update accepts LOS E&F in the Centervi l le Distr ic t as i t does in al l Planned Development Areas (Pol icy T-4.2)

“ in these locat ions, the eff ic iency and convenience of vehicular operat ions must be balanced with the goal of increasing transi t use, b icycl ing, and walking.”



The following roadway segments were evaluated as part of the level-of-service (LOS) analysis:

Fremont Boulevard – between Alder Avenue and Thornton AvenueFremont Boulevard – between Thornton Avenue and Peralta Boulevard;Fremont Boulevard – between Peralta Boulevard and Central Avenue;Maple Street – between Thornton Avenue and Peralta Boulevard;Maple Street – between Peralta Boulevard and Central Avenue;Dusterberry way – between Thornton Avenue and Peralta Boulevard;Dusterberry way – between Peralta Boulevard and Central Avenue;Thornton Avenue – between Fremont Boulevard and Paseo Padre Parkway;Peralta Boulevard – between Fremont Boulevard and Paseo Padre Parkway;Fremont Boulevard – between Central Avenue and Norris Road;Central Avenue – between Fremont Boulevard and Dusterberry way;Thornton Avenue – between Fremont Boulevard and Dusterberry way; andPaseo Padre Parkway – between Peralta Boulevard and Thornton Avenue

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.

ROADwAy SEGMENTS STUDiED

FREMONT BOULEVARD

MAPLE AVE

DUSTERBERRy wAy

THO

RNTO

N A

VEN

UE

CEN

TRAL

AVE

NUE

PERALTA BOULEVARD

PASEO PADRE

ALD

ER A

VEN

UE

NO

RRiS

RO

AD

NOT TO SCALE

FiGURE 3-8: TRAFFiC DiVERSiON ANALySiS ROADwAy SEGMENTS



impact on the Roadways within Centervi l le

A Roadway Level of Service analysis was performed for a number

of roadway segments illustrated in Figure 3-8. Corresponding

number for Roadway Segments are listed below the figure.

TABLE 3-9: ROADwAy LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE MORNiNG PEAk HOUR

ROADwAy SEGMENTS

ARTERiAL CLASSiFiCATiON

ExiSTiNGExiSTiNG +

OPTiONS 2 &4ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 1

ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3

SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS

1 CLASS i 12.3 F

2 CLASS ii 19.4 C 16.6 D 16.4 D 13.1 E

3 CLASS ii 18.1 C 18.9 C 18.9 C 19.3 C

4 RESiDENTiAL

5 RESiDENTiAL

6 CLASS i 24.9 C 24.9 C 24.9 C 24.9 C

7 CLASS i 12.0 F 13.1 E 13.1 E 13.1 E

8 CLASS i 14.5 E 13.7 E 13.7 E 13.8 E

9 CLASS ii 18.3 C 18.9 C 18.9 C 18.1 C

10 CLASS i

11 CLASS i 24.4 C 23.9 C 23.9 C 23.9 C

12 CLASS i 16.8 E 14.9 E 15.1 E 15.4 E

13 CLASS i 26.6 C 26.1 C 26.2 C 26.5 C

TABLE 3-10: ROADwAy LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE EVENiNG PEAk HOUR

ROADwAy SEGMENTS


ExiSTiNGExiSTiNG +

OPTiONS 2 &4ExiSTiNG +OPTiON 1

ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3


1 CLASS i 16.3 E

2 CLASS ii 18.2 C 17.9 D 17.9 D 13.1 E

3 CLASS ii 15.4 D 18.3 C 18.3 C 18.6 C

4 RESiDENTiAL

5 RESiDENTiAL

6 CLASS i 21.7 D 21.2 D 21.2 D 21.2 D

7 CLASS i 12.4 F 13.3 E 13.3 E 13.3 E

8 CLASS i 14.1 E 14.2 E 14.2 E 16.3 E

9 CLASS ii 16.9 D 16.7 D 16.7 D 17.0 D

10 CLASS i

11 CLASS i 24.6 C 23.5 C 23.5 C 23.5 C

12 CLASS i 14.3 E 11.3 F 11.3 F 14.0 E

13 CLASS i 23.4 C 24.6 C 24.7 C 24.5 C



TABLE 3-11: FUTURE ROADwAy LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE MORNiNG PEAk HOUR

ROADwAy SEGMENTS


ExiSTiNGExiSTiNG +


ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3


1 CLASS i 6.2 F

2 CLASS ii 7.5 F 2.4 F 2.7 F 5.9 F

3 CLASS ii 2.7 F 2.5 F 2.5 F 2.7 F

4 RESiDENTiAL

5 RESiDENTiAL

6 CLASS i 24.2 C 23.9 C 23.9 C 23.9 C

7 CLASS i 11.9 F 13.5 E 13.5 E 13.5 E

8 CLASS i 13.6 E 15.0 E 15.0 E 13.4 E

9 CLASS ii 13.7 E 11.1 E 11.1 E 10.2 E

10 CLASS i

11 CLASS i 23.9 C 19.0 D 19.0 D 18.7 D

12 CLASS i 13.9 E 14.0 E 14.0 E 14.6 E

13 CLASS i 4.4 F 4.5 F 4.5 F 4.5 F

TABLE 3-12: FUTURE ROADwAy LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE EVENiNG PEAk HOUR

ROADwAy SEGMENTS


ExiSTiNGExiSTiNG +

OPTiONS 2 &4ExiSTiNG +OPTiON 1

ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3


1 CLASS i 9.1 F

2 CLASS ii 9.7 F 3.7 F 4.2 F 10.9 E

3 CLASS ii 2.0 F 2.9 F 2.9 F 1.8 F

4 RESiDENTiAL

5 RESiDENTiAL

6 CLASS i 21.7 D 21.3 D 21.3 D 21.3 D

7 CLASS i 13.2 E 13.7 E 13.7 E 13.7 E

8 CLASS i 10.9 F 11.0 F 11.0 F 11.0 F

9 CLASS ii 10.8 E 10.1 E 10.1 E 13.0 E

10 CLASS i

11 CLASS i 23.1 C 19.7 D 19.7 D 19.9 D

12 CLASS i 11.2 F 7.7 F 7.7 F 9.2 F

13 CLASS i 4.2 F 4.3 F 4.3 F 4.3 F



Traff ic Diversion impacts

Fremont Boulevard is a major north-south arterial for the City of

Fremont that happens to cut through Centerville. Proposed lane

configurations are intended to slow traffic for the segment of

Fremont Boulevard in Centerville, which will have implications on

the greater roadway network. The impacts will be to areas close in

proximity to the project corridor, as well as further out.

For those passing through the district, alternative choices for

streets that connect the north and south portions of Fremont are

not immediately parallel to Fremont Boulevard. Alternative routes

for those wanting to cut across town may include Paseo Padre,

Dusterberry, Blacow, and interstate 880, among other streets that

roughly parallel Fremont Boulevard (Figure 3-13).

FiGURE 3-13: ALTERNATiVE ROUTES FOR TRAFFiC DiVERTED FROM CENTERViLLE

PASEO PADRE

i-880

BLACOw

DUSTERBERRy

FREMONT BLVD.

MO

wRy



Looking more closely at the immediate neighborhood, Maple

Street, Bonde Street, and Parish Street are smaller streets that will

be used for circulating around the district. There are a few clock-

wise loops that Centerville patrons will likely use as they look for

parking or the business they want to visit.

For this traffic study, it was assumed that about 10% of the traffic

will divert to the east and 10% will divert to the west (Figure 3-

14). A more complete study would require a more comprehensive

traffic model that looked at a wider region.

FiGURE 3-14: POTENTiAL TRAFFiC DiVERSiON ROUTES



The following intersections were evaluated as part of this analysis:

Thornton Avenue/Dusterberry wayDusterberry way/Central AvenueThornton Avenue/Maple Street;Maple Street/Central AvenueFremont Boulevard/Thornton AvenueFremont Boulevard/Peralta BoulevardFremont Boulevard/Central AvenueThornton Avenue/Paseo Padre ParkwayPaseo Padre Parkway/Peralta BoulevardDusterberry way/Peralta BoulevardMaple Street/Peralta Boulevard

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

TABLE 3-15: iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE MORNiNG PEAk HOUR

#iNTERSECTiON CONTROL

ExiSTiNGExiSTiNG +


ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3

DELAy LOS DELAy LOS DELAy LOS DELAy LOS

1 SiGNALizED 8.9 A 15.4 B 15.4 B 15.4 B

2 SiGNALizED 17.7 B 20.2 C 20.2 C 20.2 C

3 STOP CONTROLLED

12.6 B 13.7 B 13.7 B 13.7 B

4 STOP CONTROLLED

31.3 D 37.0 E 37.0 E 37.0 E

5 SiGNALizED 35.8 D 110.2 F 106.6 F 70.6 E

6 SiGNALizED 22.9 C 13.1 B 13.0 B 15.6 B

7 SiGNALizED 23.2 C 17.2 B 17.2 B 17.0 B

8 SiGNALizED 28.1 C 30.7 C 30.7 C 35.2 D

9 SiGNALizED 40.9 D 41.3 D 41.3 D 42.1 D

10 SiGNALizED 5.0 A 5.1 A 5.1 A 5.1 A

11 SiGNALizED 9.5 A 10.0 B 10.0 B 10.0 B

TABLE 3-16: iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE EVENiNG PEAk HOUR


ExiSTiNGExiSTiNG +


ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3


1 SiGNALizED 10.0 A 13.7 B 13.7 B 13.7 B

2 SiGNALizED 18.5 B 20.0 C 20.0 C 20.0 C

3 STOP CONTROLLED

18.1 C 24.3 C 24.3 C 24.3 C

4 STOP CONTROLLED

17.5 C 20.4 C 20.4 C 20.4 C

5 SiGNALizED 40.3 D 163.5 F 160.2 F 86.0 F

6 SiGNALizED 28.5 C 21.2 C 21.1 C 20.0 C

7 SiGNALizED 30.0 C 30.7 C 30.7 C 31.8 C

8 SiGNALizED 29.6 C 36.4 D 36.4 D 35.3 D

9 SiGNALizED 72.9 E 86.1 F 86.1 F 87.2 F

10 SiGNALizED 5.0 A 5.1 A 5.1 A 5.1 A

11 SiGNALizED 9.9 A 10.7 B 10.7 B 10.7 B



TABLE 3-17: FUTURE iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE MORNiNG PEAk HOUR


ExiSTiNG0ExiSTiNG +


ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3


1 SiGNALizED 8.9 A 31.0 C 31.0 C 31.0 C

2 SiGNALizED 13.2 B 20.5 C 20.5 C 20.5 C

3 STOP CONTROLLED

12.6 B 15.7 C 15.7 C 15.7 C

4 STOP CONTROLLED

OVFL F OVFL F OVFL F OVFL F

5 SiGNALizED 105.2 F 512.5 F 512.6 F 323.0 F

6 SiGNALizED 103.7 F 285.1 F 269.9 F 274.8 F

7 SiGNALizED 170.6 F 165.6 F 165.6 F 170.2 F

8 SiGNALizED 148.4 F 189.7 F 189.7 F 189.7 F

9 SiGNALizED 243.2 F 269.1 F 269.1 F 269.1 F

10 SiGNALizED 6.3 A 7.0 A 7.0 A 7.0 A

11 SiGNALizED 30.1 D 46.3 E 46.3 E 46.3 E

TABLE 3-18: FUTURE iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERViCE FOR THE EVENiNG PEAk HOUR


ExiSTiNGExiSTiNG +


ExiSTiNG + OPTiON 3


1 SiGNALizED 9.9 A 22.6 C 22.6 C 22.6 C

2 SiGNALizED 16.0 B 22.9 C 22.9 C 22.9 C

3 STOP CONTROLLED

18.1 C 23.9 C 23.9 C 23.9 C

4 STOP CONTROLLED

OVFL F OVFL F OVFL F OVFL F

5 SiGNALizED 85.5 F 433.7 F 433.7 F 245.9 F

6 SiGNALizED 161.4 F 210.6 F 200.0 F 437.0 F

7 SiGNALizED 267.7 F 207.1 F 207.1 F 201.4 F

8 SiGNALizED 117.0 F 133.5 F 133.5 F 133.5 F

9 SiGNALizED 260.5 F 281.2 F 281.2 F 281.2 F

10 SiGNALizED 8.3 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A

11 SiGNALizED 39.9 E 51.4 F 51.4 F 51.4 F

The following intersections were evaluated as part of this analysis:

Thornton Avenue/Dusterberry wayDusterberry way/Central AvenueThornton Avenue/Maple Street;Maple Street/Central AvenueFremont Boulevard/Thornton AvenueFremont Boulevard/Peralta BoulevardFremont Boulevard/Central AvenueThornton Avenue/Paseo Padre ParkwayPaseo Padre Parkway/Peralta BoulevardDusterberry way/Peralta BoulevardMaple Street/Peralta Boulevard

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.



D. Mit igat ion Measures

There are several intersections and roadway segments that will

be operating at LOS E & F in both existing and future traffic

scenarios. These conditions are a result of already poor LOS levels

and predicted increase in traffic volumes regardless of future

conditions. Given that new City Policy in the General Plan Update

is not to build additional capacity, the next best thing is to manage

pockets of congestion.

The two most critical intersections that require traffic mitigation are

Fremont / Thornton and Maple / Central. Mitigation measures for

Maple may include traffic calming devices such as speed bumps

to discourage cut-through traffic while allowing some vehicles

through at slower speeds. At Fremont and Thornton, mitigation

measures will need to be studied.

LOS is only one way to describe the function of a roadway. in the

future it may be more important to consider competing travel

times between private vehicles and transit, the comparable air

quality between vehicles and other modes, not to mention relative

health benefits. LOS leads us to identify mitigating congestion as a

goal, but it is a metric that should not distract from the larger goals

of the framework plan, which is to create value in a place (that goes

beyond vehicular travel.) Perhaps, like a parking “problem”, a

traffic “problem” might also bring with it more people, customers,

businesses, and reasons to be in Centerville, rather than just drive

through it.

Pol icy T-4.3 recognizes that there may be c ircumstances where some degree of congest ion may be acceptable in order to achieve another publ ic benef i t by al lowing decreased levels of vehic le speed and convenience.

Pol icy T-4.6 addresses traff ic calming and suggests a var iety of approaches to address the issue. The Ci ty of Fremont has also adopted a Resident ia l Traff ic Calming Program to discourage neighborhood bypass traff ic on local resident ia l s treets .

4 . Guidelinesforfuturedevelopment


Chapter 4: guidelines for future development

guidelines for future development are based on the ideas

presented in this framework plan. Consistent with the vision, these

guidelines establish general criteria to promote high-quality future

development in Centerville.

framework plan guidelines build upon the Community design

guidelines in the Centerville specific plan (Chapter e).

to achieve high-quality development development in Centerville,

projects will be required to undergo design review to determine

compliance with these and other City adopted design guidelines.

the design review process will be administered throgh staff and

a City-hired architectural consultant. in instances where historic

resources are involved or potentially affected, projects will be

referred to the historic architectural review Board (harB) for

action.

these guidelines aim to:

enhance and reinforce property values and property utilityencourage creativityprovide for pedestrian and vehicular needs as the district growsallow for flexibilityaccommodate security needsfoster goals for Centerville

•••

•••



mixed-use Building with ground floor retail

stores in Close proximity to one another





A. mixinglanduses

a mix of residential and commercial uses is an essential

component to the growth of a district. this includes both vertical

and horizontal mix of uses, particularly through ground floor retail

and the combination of residential and office uses above, where

allowed. the mixture will appeal to a wider range of users and will

contribute to activity throughout the day and into the evening.

an important part of getting more people to walk and bicycle is their

ability to access activities and services they previously accessed by

car. a mixing of uses within buildings and within sites can bring

important destinations closer together, increasing convenience for

pedestrians. ideally, commercial uses are near the home or office

or at least on the way between the two. new development within

walking distance from the train depot should include transit- and

neighborhood-serving retail on the ground floor. a mix of uses at

the ground floor of buildings and sites makes for a more varied

and interesting walking experience by providing more publicly

accessible destinations.

mixing uses also reduces vehicular traffic as it means that there

is a greater chance a person making a car trip for errands can

park once and walk to multiple destinations rather than drive to

each destination. thus a diverse mix of uses, particularly when

concentrated near transit, can not only create a better environment

for pedestrians, but can also reduce vehicular traffic and air

pollution, contributing to a more livable environment.

recommendAtions:

newdevelopmentis encouraged tovert ical ly mixusesAct iveuses (reta i l orcommercial businessentrances) are locatedat theground f loor tocreatea pedestr ian-fr iendly, urbanpat tern.

•

•



wide sidewalks and landsCaped BulB-outs

street amenities outdoor dining aCtivating the street

street landsCaping



B. streetscape improvements

Buildings shape street edges and frame the streetscape, which

in turn define how we experience public spaces. the pedestrian

experience is directly influenced by the streetscape elements in

the walking environment.

a high-quality street environment encourages walking. wide

sidewalks are part of that high-quality environment. signage

and graphics also help pedestrians and bicyclists find their way

through a new location. features such as benches, flower planters,

bicycle racks, drinking fountains, and lighting activate the public

realm and provide needed amenities and relief to pedestrians as

they move through the district. street furniture, such as planters

and benches, help soften the street edge, creating a comfortable

buffer between cars and pedestrians. these elements also help to

define the character and identity of Centerville. these features

support and encourage pedestrian activity.

provide as many pedestrian and bicycle access points from public

streets as possible. at the very least, pedestrian and bicycles

should be able to directly access the building from the street at

each building entrance.

along fremont Boulevard, encourage the use of on-street parking

for short term visits. Consider allowing other uses, such as outdoor

eating, to occupy some of the parking spaces and activate the

street.

landscaped bulb-outs, tall trees, and textured pavement in

crosswalks and on sidewalks help make traffic-heavy streets like

fremont Boulevard feel more pedestrian friendly. Bulb-outs and

changes in pavement materials improve visibility and safety at

pedestrian crossings. street trees help define the identity of a

street making it more memorable to visitors. altogether, such

streetscape elements emphasize that Centerville is an environment

welcoming to pedestrian and bicyclists and not just to cars.

recommendAtions:

maintainwides idewalkspost c lear s ignagethroughout centervi l leprovidestreetfurni tureprovidebicycleparkingneardest inat ionentrancesAl lowfor thestreetto beusedbynon-vehicular act iv i t iesenhance thestreetwi th landscapedbulb-outs, texturedpavement incrosswalks,uni fy thestreet wi tha var iety of c l imate-appropriate streettrees

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



faCade modulation

strive to maintain a Continuous street edge maintain a pattern of narrow storefronts along the ground floor/street edge

orient Buildings to the street



c. Bui ld ingformrecommendat ions

orient new buildings to streets. Buildings that face the street

contribute to a pedestrian-friendly streetscape. Building scale,

massing, and articulation are all important factors that influence

the character and identity of a district. the right configuration of

buildings can shape human-scaled public spaces.

new buildings should respond and contribute to their context both

in the functional and architectural sense. to activate Centerville,

buildings should be oriented toward fremont Boulevard and have

a carefully designed frontage oriented parallel to the street that is

welcoming to the public (see the Centerville specific plan Chapter

e 2.0: Building orientation.)

Blank walls, fences and gates are strongly discouraged. a

modulation in the façade is necessary to maintain variation and

prevent a monotonous appearance to the building and street

frontage. (see the Centerville specific plan Chapter e 3.0: Building

form, scale, and materials.)

infill gaps between buildings with new development wherever

possible to create a continuous street edge. however, retain

pedestrian pathways and alleys for pedestrian circulation.

storefronts should be relatively narrow, following the existing

pattern on fremont Boulevard between peralta and Central. this

concentration of retail storefronts makes the walking experience

more enjoyable.

Buildings with ground floor retail or commercial uses should be

built next to the street right-of-way.

new development is encouraged to be taller than existing, especially

along fremont Boulevard. Building heights are encouraged to be

multi-level, especially along the fremont Boulevard corridor.

Bui ld ings that enhancethecentervi l lestreetscaperespondbybeing:

Appropriate in scale:bui ld ingheightsareencouraged to bemult i- level , two tothreestor ies in height ,andpossibly ta l ler.Appropriate in s i t ing:bui ld ingshouldbelocatedrelat ivelyc lose to thestreetr ight of wayandc losein adjacency to oneanother.Appropriate detai l :facade improvements.Breakupmassingthrough facademodulat ion. eachbui ld ingshouldhaveadist inct base, middle,and topzone.

•

•

•



mid-BloCk linkages walking routes

mid-BloCk linkages mid-BloCk Crosswalks



d.distr ic t-Wideconnect ions

these guidelines begin to connect the district as a whole. each

new development should keep these larger goals in mind when

planning and designing in Centerville.

limit the number of curb-cuts along public streets by centralizing

vehicular access. each time a car crosses a pedestrian pathway,

such as a sidewalk, pedestrians are inconvenienced. vehicular

movements across sidewalks should be minimized by locating them

towards side streets and behind buildings. service and loading

zones should also be located at the side or rear of buildings, away

from the main pedestrian building entrances.

pathways between the destinations in Centerville will be important

connections. these paths will allow residents and patrons of

Centerville to easily access businesses in the district and public

amenities at and around the train depot from where they live or

where they parked their cars. these walking routes can become a

special feature of the district.

include pedestrian-accessible mid-block linkages in new

development plans that pass through public and private parcels

as part of the pedestrian network in Centerville. mid-block paths

provide shortcuts to pedestrians and bicycles by encouraging

walking and biking and increasing the sense of visibility and

accessibility between parking lots behind shops to their main

entrances on fremont Boulevard. the paths are particularly useful

on long blocks by breaking up the distance between destinations

on that block. mid-block pathways should be a minimum width of

10 feet. these connections can also be activated with outdoor café

seating or retailing.

recommendAtions:

limit curb-cutsalongpubl ic streetsdesignpathwaysbetweendest inat ionsprovidepedestr ian-accessible mid-blockl inkages

•

•

•



estaBlish and strengthen a network of destinations in Centerville

inClude opportunities for soCial interaCtion that CeleBrate the identity and uniqueness of the Community

a good plaCe offers a variety of experienCes and surprises

provide plaCes to experienCe Centerville



e. ident i ty andplace

Anotableplacehas thefo l lowingat tr ibutesat aminimum:

i t is comfortable: safe, c lean, walkable,s i table, charming, andat tract ive;i t is act ive: fun,special , useful , hasavar iety of experiencesandmomentsofp leasant surprise;i t is sociable: welcoming to v is i tors,open, and fr iendly ;and,i t is comprehensible : cohesive, coherent inident i ty, connected,readable, andaccessible .

•

•

•

•

a primary goal in this framework plan is to create a vibrant,

identifiable district that serves the community and attracts people

and activity. practically, the plan recommends that Centerville

should first become a place that provides services and conveniences

for its local residents and its regional transit users.

a great place needs to offer things to do and reasons to be there.

these offerings include places to sit, plazas to enjoy, art to touch,

music to hear, food to eat, history to experience, and people to

meet. whenever possible, places need to include opportunities

for social interaction, which can be as simple as public seating and

public art, or as complex as carefully constructed and programmed

event spaces.

new development should not include physical spaces that are only

project focused and that are exclusionary, and privatized. each new

development should be part of a public network of destinations

that reinforce the identity for Centerville. each new destination

should be a focal point strengthening Centerville as a memorable

place. Community destinations which haved community support

instill a mutual sense of pride and ownership among residents and

other users. that sense of ownership can foster a shared dedication

and stewardship of a place, assuring its long term well-being.

in order to benefit the most from new development, designs

should be as adaptable, inclusive, flexible, transformative, and as

functional as possible. it is important to identify opportunities to

make each new development inviting and attractive for residents

and visitors of Centerville.

5 . illustrativevisionofcenterville

chapter 5: illustrative vision of centerville

83centerville framework planc i t y o f f r e m o n t

perspective views of future development in the near- and long-

term are presented in this chapter to illustrate the potential for

centerville according to the framework plan vision.

a few perspectives have been developed from two views: the

first is a look northward, from the central avenue end of fremont

Boulevard, the second is a look southward from the thornton

avenue end of the study area.

Both sets of perspectives begin with existing conditions and

incorporate elements of the plan as described in preceding

chapters.

these perspectives were developed to capture a “snapshot” of

the potential for the future of centerville and to provide a better

sense of how physical improvements will shape the streetscape.

84 centerville framework planc i t y o f f r e m o n t


a. lookingnorthonfremont Boulevard

figure 5-1: existing view north on fremont Boulevard

this existing view north on fremont Boulevard (figure 5-1) shows

the masonic temple and the center theater to the left, and

firehouse station #6 on the right.

figure 5-2 incorporates pedestrian-friendly lane reconfigurations to

fremont Boulevard into the view. this illustrates lane configuration

option 4a with two (narrower) traffic lanes and a dedicated bicyle

lane in both directions.

figure 5-3 introduces potential future development on properties

along the right side of fremont Boulevard, as illustrated on the

potential long-term vision plan, figure 2.7. this illustration shows

how new development is encouraged to mix uses with active uses

(retail or commercial business entrances) at the ground floor to

create a pedestrian-friendly urban pattern.



figure 5-3: future development as suggested in the long-term vision plan, figure 2.7

figure 5-2: pedestrian-friendly lane reconfigurations (option 4a illustrated)

86 centerville framework planc i t y o f f r e m o n t


B. lookingsouthonfremont Boulevard

this existing view south on fremont Boulevard (figure 5-4) shows a

view from thornton avenue looking at the unified site and existing

businesses, with the creamery Building closest.

figure 5-5 incorporates pedestrian-friendly lane reconfigurations to

fremont Boulevard into the view. this illustrates lane configuration

option 4B with two (narrower) traffic lanes, a landscaped median,

and a dedicated bicyle lane in both directions.

figure 5-6 includes the unified site and infill buidlings across the

street as illustrated on the potential long-term vision plan.

figure 5-4: existing view north on fremont Boulevard



figure 5-6: future development as suggested in the long-term vision plan, figure 2.7

figure 5-5: pedestrian-friendly lane reconfigurations (option 4B illustrated)

6 . Nextsteps


Chapter 6: next steps

A. Recommendat ions

the main recommendations generated from this framework plan

include:

establishing a coherent vision for the public and private development projects that are proposed for CentervilleCreating a shared parking district to address the needs of future developmentreconfiguring fremont Boulevard to be a “complete street” that is multi-modal and pedestrian friendlystating overall design guidelines and requiring design review by a City-hired architect for the Centerville core area

in the implementation matrix that follows, the recommendations

and associated steps are organized in a timeframe with prioritization.

some tasks are near-term, some mid-term, and others ongoing.

strategies for implementation, through incorporation into

departmental work plans and action plans, can be structured from

this matrix.

the next important step for the framework plan is to bring it before

the community. City staff will meet with Centerville property owners

and a synopsis of the plan will be presented at neighborhood

information meetings where comments will be encouraged.

for future planning purposes, the matrix can be used to assign

responsibilities, resources, and funding. it can also serve as a

checklist to itemize concrete tasks, some of which can begin

immediately.

•

•

•

•



shoRt-teRm(0-5YeARs)

pR

IoR

ItY

hIg

h1. Complete entitlements and begin construction for

the Centerville Unified site

2. initiate decommissioning sr-84 with Caltrans through Centerville as a first step towards improving and enhancing fremont Boulevard

3. Complete design development plans for preferred lane reconfiguration to make fremont Blvd. more pedestrian-friendly and to calm and slow down traffic

4. Develop and implement parking management policies through a parking district in Centerville

5. include striped bicycle lanes and on-street parking on fremont Boulevard

6. Determine the most beneficial or appropriate disposition for firehouse station #6 and implement

7. encourage or facilitate renovation of the Center theater and continue discussion with adjacent property-owners on the block.

8. require new development in the study area to undergo staff level design review as a policy.

me

dIu

m

9. Create on-street parking throughout Centerville

10. reduce parking ratios or look for other opportunities to reduce parking requirements

11. add parallel parking on Baine street, next to the train tracks and make Baine street one-way

12. enhance the streetscape on fremont Boulevard within the right-of-way between thornton and Central avenues

13. improve the facades of existing buildings to make the district more attractive

Lo

w

14. initiate a study of the intersection of thornton avenue and fremont Boulevard to make it more pedestrian-friendly

thismatr ix ofrecommendednextstepshasbeengenerated to organizeimplementat ionefforts to ful f i l l thev is iondescr ibed inth is Frameworkplan.

B . timel ineandprior i t ies forImplementat ion



tImeLINemIddLe-teRm(5-10YeARs)

oNgoINg

1. Connect maple to fremont Boulevard between thornton and Central via pedestrian links, alleys, or streets to improve circulation

2. Connect Jason way through to peralta Boulevard

3. Connect Church street through to a shared mid-block parking lot from Central avenue

4. Combine off-street parking through shared parking in an organized parking District

1. encourage additional mixed-use development with residential uses, similar to new housing at eden peralta and Crown Court

2. as opportunities become available, help aC transit focus on fremont Boulevard and public transit to and through Centerville

3. strengthen each end of the district with projects that help define the identity of Centerville

4. encourage, retain, and improve mid-block pedestrian access to fremont Boulevard from the middle of each block

5. integrate Bill Ball plaza with the former Bank of italy Building to activate public open space

6. improve the plaza in front of the train Depot on fremont Boulevard

7. as transit grows on fremont Boulevard, begin planning for Bus rapid transit (Brt) or streetcars

5. infill commercial uses along fremont Boulevard where possible, including removing curb cuts.

6. infill the east side of maple from peralta to Central with commercial office uses

7. increase the density of housing on parallel streets to fremont Boulevard

8. provide a pedestrian link through the cemetery from Bond street to the Unified site

8. encourage future development at former used car lots and auto-related businesses

acknowledgements


acknowledgements

Fremont ci ty counci lmayor Bob wasserman

vice mayor Bob wieckowski

councilmember anu natarajan

councilmember Bill Harrison

councilmember suzanne lee chan

Fremont ci ty stafffred diaz city manager

melissa dile deputy city manager

Jill keimach community development director

Jeff schwob planning director

elisa tierney Housing & redevelopment agency director

norm Hughes city engineer

Jim pierson transportation and operations director

Josh Huber redevelopment project manager

Barbara szudy redevelopment project manager

dan schoenholz planning policy and special projects manager

kunle odumade transportation engineer

david Huynh transportation engineer

FieldPaol i archi tectsfrank fuller, faia, principal

dennis dornan, aia, leed ap, project architect

Jane lin, aia, leed ap, architect and Urban designer

kimley-Hornandassociateskevin thomas

robert paderna

Documents

centerville framework plan - Fremont