Title
Study Session on the Future Development of the Main Street Neighborhood North Area in Alameda Point. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this study session is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies)
Body
To: Historic Advisory Board
From: Abigail Thorne-Lyman, BRED Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Base Reuse and Economic Development is exploring the possibility of releasing a developer Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) in late 2026/early 2027 for the future redevelopment of the Main Street Neighborhood North (“MSNN”) area at Alameda Point. Staff is seeking feedback from the Historical Advisory Board (HAB), the Planning Board, and City Council to help establish clear development and preservation priorities that can be incorporated into a potential RFQ.
The purpose of this study session is to provide the Historical Advisory Board (“HAB”) with an update regarding preliminary development feasibility analysis for the MSNN area, which staff initially introduced during a December 6, 2025 joint workshop and walking tour with the City Council, Planning Board, and HAB, and to receive feedback regarding future planning priorities and historic preservation considerations. The PowerPoint presentation from the December 6, 2025 workshop and walking tour is attached to this staff report as Exhibit 1.
MSNN is generally bounded by Main Street to the north and east, West Midway Avenue to the south, and Pan Am Way to the west. Staff has also incorporated into the MSNN feasibility study area the area generally bounded by Main Street, Pan Am Way, Essex Drive, and Lexington Avenue, including the Chapel, Theater, and Albert H. DeWitt Officers’ Club (“O’Club”). This expanded study area also includes the “North Shore” area, located immediately west of the O’Club and generally bounded by Main Street, West Red Line Avenue, and Navy Way.
As part of the feasibility analysis, staff is also evaluating, and discussing with the Alameda Unified School District (“AUSD”), whether certain District-owned properties - including Building 17 and 101 and 102 West Red Line Avenue - should be included in the MSNN developer Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”). Buildings 101 and 102 West Red Line Avenue were previously approved for demolition in connection with the transfer of the properties from the U.S. Navy.
Since the December 2025 workshop, City staff and consultants have continued evaluating redevelopment feasibility, historic preservation considerations, infrastructure requirements, land use assumptions, and implementation challenges associated with the MSNN area. Initial findings suggest that redevelopment of the area will require the City to evaluate tradeoffs involving historic preservation priorities, housing production, open space assumptions, infrastructure costs, flood adaptation requirements, and overall project feasibility.
No formal policy decisions or project approvals are being requested at this time.
BACKGROUND
The Main Street Neighborhood North (“MSNN”) area encompasses roughly 31 acres generally bounded by West Midway Avenue to the south, Main Street to the north and east, and Pan Am Way to the west. The City originally envisioned residential development in this area through the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”), which focused on revitalization and redevelopment north of West Midway Avenue and generally west of Main Street. The Specific Plan is attached to this staff report as Exhibit 2.
Staff has also incorporated into the MSNN feasibility study area the area generally bounded by Main Street, Pan Am Way, Essex Drive, and Lexington Avenue, including the Chapel, Theater, and Albert H. DeWitt Officers’ Club (“O’Club”). As part of the feasibility analysis, staff is also evaluating and discussing with the Alameda Unified School District (“AUSD”) whether certain District-owned properties - including Building 17 and 101 and 102 West Red Line Avenue - should be included in a future development solicitation area.
Zoning
The Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan and Alameda Point-Main Street (“AP-MS”) zoning regulations contemplate a mix of historic preservation, adaptive reuse, infill development, residential uses, and limited neighborhood-serving commercial and community-serving uses within the MSNN area, with a variety of housing types and building heights generally ranging from two to four stories. The Specific Plan also contemplates a walkable neighborhood pattern that includes parks, open space, shoreline access, neighborhood-serving uses, and multimodal connections to surrounding Alameda Point neighborhoods, the waterfront, and future transit connections, including the Main Street Ferry Terminal.
The “North Shore” area and properties west of Pan Am Way, including the O’Club, Chapel, Theater, and certain AUSD properties, are outside the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan area and are instead governed by the Alameda Point-Adaptive Reuse (“AP-AR”) zoning regulations. Existing AP-AR zoning generally allows adaptive reuse, commercial, institutional, assembly, waterfront, and community-serving uses, but does not currently allow new residential development, except potentially through adaptive reuse of Building 17, the former Bachelor Officers’ Quarters (“BOQ”). Future redevelopment of portions of these areas may require rezoning or other land use modifications.
Historic District Overlay
The MSNN area and adjacent areas being evaluated as part of the broader feasibility analysis include portions of the former Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District and contain both contributing and non-contributing historic resources. Additional information regarding the NAS Alameda Historic District, including district maps, preservation guidance documents, historic surveys, National Register nomination materials, and related historic preservation reference documents, is available on the City’s webpage via the following link:
https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building-and-Transportation/Planning-Division/Historic-Preservation#NAS <https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building-and-Transportation/Planning-Division/Historic-Preservation>
Key contributing historic resources within the study area include:
• The “Big Whites” homes, including the Admiral’s House, and associated historic curvilinear street pattern (“Beehive”) and neighborhood context
• The bungalow/NCO residential area
• Various landscaped areas within the MSNN area
• Building 17 (former BOQ; an AUSD-owned property)
• Potentially, the chapel and theater buildings on Saratoga Street (if a developer is asked to consider their rehabilitation as part of an RFQ)
If a future development proposal moves forward, staff would return to HAB for review and recommendations regarding specific project proposals affecting contributing historic resources, consistent with the Alameda Municipal Code, Alameda Point zoning regulations, applicable historic preservation standards, and environmental review requirements.
December 2025 Joint Study Session and Walking Tour
On December 6, 2025, the City Council, Historic Advisory Board (“HAB”), and Planning Board (“PB”) participated in a joint study session and walking tour regarding the MSNN area. Staff presented the broader redevelopment context at Alameda Point, existing site conditions, planning assumptions within the Specific Plan, historic preservation considerations, sea level rise and flooding concerns, redevelopment sequencing, and preliminary redevelopment opportunities and constraints.
Staff emphasized that redevelopment of the MSNN area would require additional analysis and planning before the City could consider selecting a development partner.
Technical and Implementation Challenges
Since the December 2025 workshop, staff and consultants have continued evaluating infrastructure requirements, rehabilitation costs, development scenarios, and overall site feasibility.
The City and its consultants have identified several significant technical and implementation challenges associated with redevelopment of the MSNN area, including:
• Rehabilitation costs associated with historic structures
• Flooding and sea level rise adaptation requirements
• Significant infrastructure replacement and upgrade needs
• Limited connectivity to the Main Street Ferry Terminal
• Tenant engagement and consideration of options for City-managed properties
• Complex development phasing requirements
• Affordable housing requirements and Navy payment obligations
• Development financing and market constraints
• A large regional queue of market-rate and affordable housing projects competing for labor, financing, and construction resources
Staff have completed additional analysis of these issues, which is discussed below.
DISCUSSION
Strategic Considerations for Selecting a Developer Now
Staff believes there are significant benefits to advancing redevelopment planning now, including:
• Allowing the City to proactively establish priorities before selecting development partner(s)
• Coordinating redevelopment sequencing with RESHAP and West Midway implementation, since the projects are interconnected
• Identifying infrastructure funding opportunities that may improve project feasibility and attract prospective development partners
• Positioning the City to begin discussions with development teams during the current market cycle, instead of selecting a developer at the height of the market.
• Finding solutions to the area’s complex problems in the context of an actual development proposal, rather than in an abstract exercise.
Feedback received during the December 2025 workshop generally reflected support for continuing to explore redevelopment opportunities in the MSNN area while balancing historic preservation, housing production, neighborhood character, and implementation realities.
Overall Redevelopment and Preservation Considerations
Based on preliminary feasibility analysis completed by staff and consultants, approximately 600 to 1,000 existing and new residential units could potentially be accommodated within the broader MSNN area under different redevelopment scenarios.
Redevelopment of the MSNN area presents several overarching planning and implementation challenges, including infrastructure replacement needs, flood adaptation requirements, shoreline improvements, development financing constraints, development phasing, and overall project feasibility. As the City evaluates potential redevelopment concepts, questions have also emerged regarding how to balance housing production objectives, infrastructure requirements, and historic preservation priorities within the NAS Alameda Historic District.
Historic Residential Areas and Infill Considerations
The “Big Whites” area presents additional complexity because future redevelopment concepts may require balancing historic preservation goals, potential infill development, lot subdivision concepts, housing density, and modernization of infrastructure within the historic “Beehive” street pattern. Several challenges have been identified to revitalizing homes in this neighborhood. Specifically:
• Infrastructure delivery: on face, it seems that restoring the Big Whites and bungalows and selling them could generate immediate revenue for a private developer which could support the project. However, under East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) regulations, properties cannot be sold until they are connected to new utilities rather than the Navy-era historic water system. Connecting this area to new infrastructure is a considerable up-front expense that may be prohibitive, even when weighed against the anticipated revenue from selling these large, valuable homes. One possibility is to extend only water lines, and replace the remaining wet and dry utilities later (as the City has done in the Monarch Street area), but this is inefficient as future contractors would need to work around these water lines when replacing the remaining utilities.
• Flooding: The Beehive neighborhood is currently prone to groundwater rise during major tidal events, and sits in a 100-year flood plan. If the cost of improvements exceeds 50 percent of the value of the structure, the homes must either be elevated or include other flood protection measures. These improvements could end up being cost prohibitive. One potential solution could be subdividing these properties further to allow for infill homes in the area to increase the revenue generation potential of this location, but this will have an impact on the historic character according to the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan and the Guidelines for Preserving the Historic Character of NAS Alameda, which would need to be considered by HAB.
Similarly, questions have emerged regarding the future role of the bungalow/non-commissioned officers (NCO) residential area and how rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, preservation, or potential redevelopment strategies may be evaluated over time. The phasing of new development in the MSNN area will be highly complex due to the adaptive reuse of historic units, the gradual relocation of Alameda Point Collaborative tenants into new, permanent supportive housing in the RESHAP project, and the need to install costly new backbone streets and associated underground wet and dry utilities in the area. Additional new, higher density housing in the bungalow/NCO area could be beneficial to offering developers a meaningful critical mass of units to be delivered in a key location, in order to facilitate construction of Orion Street as a backbone spine in the neighborhood. However, it would potentially require the removal of a portion of the bungalow/NCO units.
Community-Serving Historic Resources and Expanded Study Area
Additional questions have also emerged regarding the future role of the O’Club, Chapel, Theater, Building 17, and nearby AUSD properties within broader redevelopment concepts. The Chapel, Theater, and Building 17 have remained chronically vacant for many years, because of the challenges of addressing the deferred maintenance that has accumulated in some cases since NAS Alameda closed.
One potential redevelopment approach may involve pairing new development opportunity areas with preservation and adaptive reuse obligations for important historic and community-serving resources. As part of the feasibility analysis, staff are seeking feedback regarding how these historic resources should be prioritized and incorporated into future redevelopment concepts.
Study Session Questions and Next Steps
As noted above, staff believe it is appropriate to begin exploring a future developer solicitation process now because redevelopment of the MSNN area will require significant long-term planning, infrastructure coordination, historic preservation analysis, and financial evaluation. Experienced development teams often have the expertise, resources, industry relationships, and access to capital and funding sources necessary to help identify creative solutions for complex and challenging properties such as MSNN.
Staff are not proposing formal zoning amendments or demolition approvals at this time. Instead, staff are envisioning that a future development partner - in partnership with City staff - would bring forth a concrete preservation and redevelopment proposal with potential impacts on historic resource requiring HAB’s review and recommendation.
The purpose of this Study Session is to help identify City development priorities, articulate areas where the City may be willing to accommodate creative development solutions or future policy flexibility and identify areas where preservation priorities and policies are firmly established and are baseline requirements for any developer. Staff will collect feedback and create a position document for inclusion in the future RFQ. This document would be brought back for review by HAB in a subsequent study session later this year.
As part of this Study Session, staff are seeking HAB feedback on the following historic preservation and redevelopment considerations:
1. Which contributing historic features within MSNN are most critical to preserve, in order to maintain the overall historic integrity and character of the NAS Alameda Historic District?
2. Big Whites: Could infill development around certain existing residential lots within the “Big Whites” neighborhood be appropriate?
3. The Admiral’s House: The Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan specifically contemplates preservation of the Admiral’s House for community or City-serving uses. Is there a scenario where it would make sense to incorporate the Admiral’s House into a future redevelopment concept involving adaptive reuse, community-serving uses, or limited commercial activation, or should the property remain solely residential in character and use?
4. Bungalows/NCOS: Under what circumstances - if any - would removal or substantial alteration of some of the bungalow/NCO units be considered if it would support more rapid development by ensuring that developers can secure an adequate financial return to meet the numerous other cost obligations of the project?
5. The O’Club requires significant reinvestment, including improvements to accessibility and a new commercial kitchen. However the City lacks resources to complete these investments on its own, and a private developer could support this work. How should the O’Club and other community-serving historic resources be incorporated into future redevelopment concepts, including opportunities for reinvestment and adaptive private reuse of a portion or all of the facility?
6. The Theater/Chapel Complex: Is there a scenario where it makes sense to include these historic buildings in a development concept, where they are restored and managed by the developer and function as the “commercial” component of the project?
7. Building 17 (the BOQ), which is owned by AUSD, has proven challenging to redevelop. The City has shown the building to various developers who are interested but find the reinvestment cost prohibitive as the structure needs an entirely new utility system. If AUSD properties are incorporated into a future RFQ with the City, under what circumstances, if any, could redevelopment, substantial alteration, or demolition of Building 17 be considered?
a. What information, analysis, or findings would HAB expect before considering future demolition requests, major alterations, or redevelopment proposals involving Building 17 or other contributing historic resources?
As HAB reviews the Historic District requirements, Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan, and Alameda Point zoning regulations, additional policy considerations or redevelopment questions may emerge that should be discussed during this Study Session.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action is consistent with the Alameda Municipal Code. This action is subject to the Levine Act. Relevant documents include:
- NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan (1996)
- Alameda Point Zoning and Municipal Code Amendments and EIR (2014)
- Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) (2014)
- Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan (2014)
- Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (2019)
- MIP Amendment (2020)
- 2040 Citywide General Plan (2021)
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a study session to provide staff with feedback regarding development strategies, future planning priorities, and historic preservation considerations for the Main Street Neighborhood North Area of Alameda Point.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicole Franklin, Base Reuse Manager
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - December 2025 MSNN Presentation
Exhibit 2 - Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan