Fremont staff recommends new Centerville Depot operator; council delays decision after owners and patrons speak

City staff told the Fremont City Council they prefer a single operator to manage both the 840‑square‑foot café and 650‑square‑foot office/waiting space at the historic Centerville Train Depot and recommended awarding the lease to applicant Zabihullah Akrami, citing a business plan that included expanded hours, staffing commitments and proposed private investment.

The recommendation came on a request‑for‑proposals the city issued to update a lease that has been on month‑to‑month terms since 2015. Public Works Director Hans Larson said the RFP review panel — representing community development, economic development and public works — scored proposals on operator experience, business and staffing plans, proposed hours, tenant improvements and rent. He told council that three proposals were received and that the preferred proposer showed a higher level of private investment and a plan to activate the plaza around the station. Larson also noted the city has a separate $1.5 million grant from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program for exterior plaza improvements, which staff will lead, and said the city expects the grant‑funded design work to go through historic review this summer with construction anticipated in late 2027.

Longstanding operators and the depot owner urged the council to keep the incumbent team in place. Tim and Wendell Velila, who said they have run East Bay Cafe at the depot for 27 years, and property owner Dirk Lorenz described the space as a community hub and outlined decades of community events and services they’ve provided. “We have always paid our rent on time and we have hosted birthdays, funerals, community meetings and helped riders with updated transit information,” said Lisa Lorenz, speaking of the family’s long involvement with the site. Operators and many patrons said the cafe is more than a business and asked the council to consider continuity and local ties when deciding the lease.

The applicant that staff recommended said his short prior tenure operating the cafe demonstrated professionalism and that his proposal would invest in interior equipment, create a medium‑sized commercial kitchen (with required permits), expand hours to 5 a.m.–10 p.m. and add plaza programming. He and supporters repeatedly cited plans for as much as $200,000 of private investment in equipment, furnishings and activation of outdoor spaces.

Council members pressed staff and speakers on factual matters the hearing surfaced: whether subleasing is allowed (staff: not without the city’s written consent), why a prior transfer failed the county health inspection (staff: the new operator was not on the city lease, which prevented the county from completing inspection), what exactly private investment would fund (staff: interior fit‑out and furnishings; the city grant is for exterior hardscape/plaza improvements), and how the city would ensure an operator meets commitments (staff: lease terms with monitoring, required permits and follow‑up on complaints). Staff said ticket sales at the depot are very limited (an average of 4–7 paper tickets per day; ACE confirmed ticket‑on‑demand options) and argued that a single operator managing both spaces better supports activation and events than separating the spaces between two lessees.

After more than a dozen speakers and questions from council, a motion to accept staff’s recommendation failed to secure a second. Council members instead asked staff to return with additional information — including operator business plans and evidence of any wage or employment compliance concerns raised during the hearing, more detail on actual private investment made to date versus projected investment, customer counts and staffing plans, and an explanation of how the recommended operator would mitigate community concerns — before making a final lease award. The council left open the option to consider separate leases for the café and office space if that better meets city objectives.

Next steps: staff will gather the requested details and re‑agendize the item for a future council meeting so council can take a final vote with the additional information in hand.