Historic Advisory Board urges flexible RFQ and aims to resolve Navy fee, water constraints for Alameda Point

The Historic Advisory Board (HAB) reviewed a phase‑two feasibility study for Alameda Point that recommends a flexible, developer-led approach to advance housing while protecting character‑defining historic resources.

Project staff told the board they had commissioned land‑use economics, civil engineering, architecture and historic‑preservation consultants to test density scenarios and infrastructure costs, and concluded that townhomes are the likeliest product to 'pencil' while multifamily/apartments face about a "40% gap," making large‑scale apartment construction financially challenging. The Project manager said the team is preparing a short statement of city priorities to include in a future RFQ so developers understand tradeoffs and the information the board expects to see.

Director-level staff highlighted two major constraints. First, a Navy conveyance agreement requires a payment to the Navy for market‑rate units built above an initial baseline; staff said the per‑unit fee, previously set at $50,000 and indexed to housing prices, was renegotiated last year to use the CPI and currently works out to roughly $34,000 per unit. "For every unit exceeding that amount ... we would have to pay a fee," the Director said, and staff noted the city and a developer could seek to renegotiate the fee or offer a lump‑sum payment to the Navy.

Second, the city cannot sell many parcels until new water lines connect to East Bay MUD infrastructure. Staff said East Bay MUD will not assume responsibility for the Navy's aging water system and has indicated parcels cannot be transferred until new connections are completed, which prevents buyers from using land as collateral and constrains financing for adaptive reuse projects.

Those two constraints inform choices about preserving or removing existing bungalow clusters. Board members and staff discussed a "density conundrum": removing bungalows could create enough contiguous land to build the townhome critical mass needed to justify new streets and infrastructure, but adding units increases the Navy fee burden and can reduce feasibility. The Director said townhomes 'almost pencil' while the historic bungalows often remain financially competitive when retention is considered.

Building 17, a large former officers' quarters currently owned by the school district, drew particular attention. Staff said boarding and emergency work on Building 17 cost the city more than $200,000 and required the removal of 17 occupants during a recent operation; the city has raised the issue with the school district and is exploring property‑management and possible land‑exchange options.

The board supported the idea of drafting a concise, two‑page executive statement to include in an RFQ and to vet publicly before council action. Members urged the city to pursue tax‑credit strategies (historic tax credits, Mills Act) and federal/state grants to support seawall and soil‑stabilization design, and recommended early, developer-led community engagement targeted to vulnerable nearby residents.

Next steps: staff said they expect summer engagement work, will continue discussions with East Bay MUD and the Navy, and plan to prepare RFQ materials that present a menu of options for developers. The board signaled strong support for advancing the work while seeking clear frameworks for any proposed alterations to the historic district.