What started out as a simple plan to replace an old restroom at Shoreline Drive and Grand Street has turned into a fiasco. The stalled beach restroom project will likely end up in court.
[1]As previously reported [2] in the Alameda Post, in April 2023 a prefabricated restroom structure was ready for delivery to the prepared site, when it was discovered that the City of Alameda had recently installed bicycle curbs on the street that required a revised street encroachment permit. It was then that the City realized it had mistakenly told the East Bay Regional Park District that City building permits were not required for the site. The project did in fact require a City building permit, which includes a flood zone review.
These initial challenges created what the contractor, VNH Builders, called a “cascade effect” of delays and cost increases, according to public records obtained by the Alameda Post. Based on the flood zone requirements, the park district went back to the drawing board to raise the floor elevation of the bathroom, which at a minimum meant removing its newly installed concrete forms and adding stairs and an accessible ramp with handrails.
About 15 months later, in July 2024, the contractor received the park district’s revised architectural drawings and submitted them to the City for review. In late September 2024, the City responded that more than 50 missing code compliance details needed to be included in the drawings.
After corrections were made to the park district’s drawings, the City issued a building permit on April 2, 2025. It took another six months before the City issued a street encroachment permit that allowed a crane to move the prefabricated restroom to its planned location.
While these delays were happening, the contractor was left holding the bag for accruing expenses. The crane company that had been storing the restroom structure was charging the restroom manufacturer storage fees, and the restroom manufacturer was adding interest to its unpaid invoice.
The contractor spent months trying to recoup these incurred costs from the park district, asserting they were justifiable pass-through costs for project delays not caused by the contractor, but it was not successful. The park district claimed the contractor was responsible for storage fees and interest, since the contractor had ordered the restroom in the first place.
Caught in a bind, the contractor told the restroom manufacturer it was not its fault the project was delayed and that it was not going to pay the balance until the restroom was delivered to the job site, according to their agreement.
Work resumed in the summer of 2025 with the contractor tearing out the concrete form and rebar for the floor it had previously installed, modifying the plumbing pipes, and pouring new concrete foundation walls at the required height. But work came to a halt again when the restroom payment dispute came to a head.
On November 4, 2025, Bruno Vieira, the contractor’s representative, wrote to the park district after the restroom manufacturer had demanded almost $39,000 in interest and $9,600 in storage fees. The building “has been stored at their facility for 20 months due to project delays caused by the failure to provide approved plans in a timely manner,” wrote Vieira. “These delays were beyond VNH Builders’ control and resulted from: Initial project commencement without properly approved drawings; Extended plan review and approval processes; Administrative delays in permit approvals.”
Based on what Vieira characterized as the park district’s “refusal to address these legitimate costs and the mischaracterization of previous payments,” the contractor said it was ceasing work on the project and withdrawing as permit holder.
On November 21, 2025, the park district accused the contractor of breaching its contract. “A payment dispute between VNH and the District does not give VNH the right to refuse to perform work – the work must proceed as directed by the District, even if the District is directing a change in the work. VNH cannot hold the project hostage to its demands for additional compensation,” wrote Matthew Norton, a park district maintenance supervisor.
A few weeks later, on December 11, Vieira tried to seek a collaborative resolution by submitting a counteroffer and draft completion schedule as requested by the park district. Vieira included a chronology of events and noted that neither the park district nor the contractor had anticipated the unforeseen setbacks, delays, and cost escalations.
[3]“The District didn’t provide updated plans until July 22, 2024 – 638 days after the Notice to Proceed” in late 2022, wrote Vieira. “When we finally received plans and began work, we discovered critical errors and omissions requiring extensive RFI [requests for information] submissions.” He recounted that the plans were off by a fraction of an inch which would have meant the prefabricated restroom would be misaligned with the foundation when lowered into place. “Plans showed drain rock and perforated pipe but no outlet locations or connections. We waited 26 days for this critical information,” Vieira continued. There were also missing sections, foundation details, and code compliance issues – each requiring work stoppage while awaiting responses from the City, according to Vieira’s letter. “These weren’t minor clarifications – they were fundamental design elements necessary for construction,” Vieira explained.
The contractor’s counteroffer proposed a day-by-day completion schedule under which it would absorb the nearly $39,000 in interest charges sought by the restroom manufacturer, and the park district would pay $8,250 for 15 months of restroom storage. The contractor also requested a 140-calendar-day extension, with completion due within 90 working days after the restroom was delivered to the shoreline site. This would have meant a completion date on or about April 30, 2026.
The park district rejected the counteroffer and terminated their contract on December 18, 2025, sticking to its breach of contract argument, saying the terms and time schedule were unreasonable and unacceptable.
The next day, the park district tendered to the surety company that had issued the performance bond, American Contractors Indemnity Company (ACIC), a claim ensuring completion of the project.
The surety company initially balked, saying the restroom became a “new” project not covered by the existing bond when the original plan was changed. After five months of wrangling, the surety company relented and, on May 20, 2026, submitted to the park district a bid it had received from a different contractor to complete the project for $347,388.
A week later, the park district rejected the surety company’s proposal. “The tender agreement would waive the District’s rights against ACIC regarding, among other things, completion of the work and latent deficiencies,” wrote Elizabeth Mackenzie, the park district’s Assistant General Counsel. “The tender agreement does not compensate District for liquidated damages or other damages that have accrued, and will continue to accrue, through completion of the work.”
On June 4, 2026, the park district declared that the surety company was in default on its obligations under the bond. “Accordingly, the District will proceed to complete the underlying construction contract and will seek recovery from ACIC of all amounts to which the District is entitled under law and the Bond, including but not limited to liquidated damages, other damages, excess completion costs, and attorneys’ fees,” Mackenzie wrote.
Meanwhile, the crane company said it was tired of storing the restroom structure and wanted it off its property to “wash their hands of the project.”
[4]The original estimated cost for completing the project was $268,000. As of November 21, 2025, the cost had risen to $824,848, according to a park district document.
As for now, the beach restroom project site is surrounded by a chain link fence with concrete footings and plumbing pipes in place.
It is unclear when the new restroom will be installed and this fiasco will finally come to an end.
References
Compilation of Public Records requests [5] [PDF]
https://cityofalamedaca.nextrequest.com/documents/62135190 [6] [PDF]
https://cityofalamedaca.nextrequest.com/documents/60943053 [7] [PDF]
Contributing writer Irene Dieter’s articles are collected at alamedapost.com/Irene-Dieter [8], and she posts stories and photos about Alameda to her site, I on Alameda [9].