Alameda staff outline redevelopment plan and preservation trade‑offs for Main Street Neighborhood North at Alameda Point

City staff presented a study-session update June 4 to the Alameda Historical Advisory Board on planning for Main Street Neighborhood North at Alameda Point, saying the next steps will weigh historic‑preservation priorities against steep infrastructure and financing constraints before the city decides whether to issue a developer request for qualifications (RFQ) in 2027.

Nicole Franklin, a base‑reuse manager at Alameda Point, said the study area covers roughly 70 acres and that staff’s feasibility scenarios estimate between about 600 and 1,000 potential new units under varying development assumptions. Franklin said the project remains in a priority‑setting and public‑discussion phase and that staff anticipate a feasibility decision in late 2026 or early 2027, followed by an RFQ process in 2027 if the council endorses advancing the work.

Why it matters: staff told the board that major, costly off‑site improvements — most notably shoreline stabilization and a seawall to address sea‑level rise — are required for parts of the site and that those costs will likely exceed what a private developer could shoulder alone. "We will need external funding beyond what a developer would bear," Franklin said, pressing the point that trade‑offs will be necessary to make development feasible.

Infrastructure, financing and the Navy fee: staff and consultants (including a land‑use economics firm and civil engineers) described a tight feasibility picture. Townhomes were described as the most likely product to ‘pencil’; multifamily apartments showed a larger financing gap. A recurring complication is a conveyance agreement with the U.S. Navy that imposes a per‑unit fee for market‑rate units built above a historical baseline. Staff said current materials reflect a per‑unit figure of about $34,000 and that the original conveyance contemplated a $50,000‑per‑unit fee for units above the base baseline, with an escalation formula that staff have renegotiated to CPI. The presenters said the fee is typically paid by the developer and passed through by the city, but staff expect further negotiation with the Navy and noted a developer could seek a lump‑sum arrangement.

Historic resources and trade‑offs: preserving the Naval Air Station Historic District’s character emerged as a central tension. Staff reviewed three preservation trade‑off questions for the board: which elements are priorities for retention, whether limited in‑field infill (for example, accessory dwelling units, carriage houses or subdividing large lots) could be allowed around the so‑called "Big Whites," and whether selective demolition or alteration of some bungalow parcels or of Building 17 might be necessary to create the infrastructure‑scale economics the site requires.

Building 17 and school‑district ownership: staff described Building 17 — the former bachelor officers’ quarters owned by Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) — as vacant, deteriorated and insecure. Staff said boarding the building and related interventions cost the city in excess of $200,000 and that officers from police and housing services removed 17 people who had been living in the structure. City staff said they have discussed options with AUSD, which is "open‑minded," and suggested including Building 17 in a larger developer package could create economies of scale for an otherwise financially infeasible rehabilitation.

Utilities and East Bay MUD constraints: the board pressed staff on water capacity and fire‑suppression concerns. Staff said much of the area remains on an older Navy‑era water system the city maintains and that East Bay Municipal Utility District (East Bay MUD) requires new water lines before property sales occur on that system; that requirement limits the ability to sell land (and thus constrains financing for adaptive‑reuse projects) until new water infrastructure is in place.

Public engagement and next steps: staff said they intend targeted community engagement this summer, particularly with residents who would be displaced during redevelopment, and plan to draft a concise, two‑page RFQ statement outlining city priorities and acceptable trade‑offs for review by the Historical Advisory Board, the planning board and the City Council. If the council deems the concept feasible, staff expect to run an RFQ process in 2027.

Board reaction: members generally signaled support for moving the project forward but urged flexibility in the RFQ, recommended packaging preservation priorities and incentives (such as exploring historic tax credits and Mills Act options), and emphasized urgency given ongoing deterioration of several historic buildings. Several board members said they favored a "menu" approach that states preservation expectations and the information a developer must provide to justify alterations to contributing historic resources.

What was decided: the board did not take a formal vote on a development proposal. The only formal action recorded in the meeting was approval of the March 5, 2026 meeting minutes earlier in the agenda. Staff will return with draft RFQ language and continue outreach this summer.

Next steps: staff will prepare the two‑page statement of priorities for HAB review, follow up with East Bay MUD and the Navy on infrastructure and fee issues, pursue grant funding (including federal opportunities) for seawall and stabilization design, and continue informal market outreach to developers so the RFQ can reflect realistic financing and preservation approaches.