The City of Pittsburg has announced that it has created a webpage on its website with information on the AVAIO data center which was approved back in November 2024.
The announcement of a webpage comes after the city announced the Data Center will return to the city council at a future date not yet announced, however, a 10-day notice will be provided. It also comes after more than 200 people were in attendance expressing displeasure of a data center — with concerns over transparency, environmental, and impacts to the overall city. The 300,000 square-foot data center is set to be located on the old Delta View Golf Course site which has been labeled a “technology center” after the golf course closed in 2018. Fast forward to November 2024, the council unanimously approved the data center.
Hello Pitttsburg community,
I want to thank the members of the public who attended and participated in the recent City Council meeting. Your engagement, questions, and feedback are valued and help shape Pittsburg’s future. We are also excited to celebrate the reopening of the updated Central Harbor Park, an improved community space for residents and families to enjoy. At the direction of the Mayor and City Council, a data center workshop will be placed on an upcoming regular City Council meeting agenda to allow for additional public engagement and discussion. The agenda will be posted publicly in advance, and the City will share meeting information on its social media platforms. I encourage the community to stay involved, remain informed, and continue participating in this process in a positive and respectful way. Updates are available at www.pittsburgca.gov/datacenter. The City of Pittsburg remains committed to transparency, accessibility, and meaningful public engagement.
Darin Gale
For more information: https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/perseus-data-centerIn an email from Jordan Davis, Director of Community and Economic Development, he aimed to address much misinformation out in the community:
Image by Aviaio
In an email from Jordan Davis, Director of Community and Economic Development, he aimed to address much misinformation out in the community in response to a member of the community:
Ms. Rock,
Thank you for writing, and for laying out your questions as clearly as you have. You raise a wide range of issues, and I want to work through them below. Where I can point you directly to the analysis, I will, and where a request calls for specific documents, I’ll tell you exactly how to get them.
To frame this a bit: the project was first introduced in 2018 and went through a full Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act, with community meetings held from 2018 through the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2024. That matters here because most of items 1 through 12 on your list – wildfire, high winds, smoke, emergency access, evacuation, hazardous materials, traffic, and cumulative impacts – are exactly the categories a CEQA review is required to study. The EIR analyzed them and concluded there were no significant and unavoidable impacts, meaning each identified impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level through required mitigation. Those mitigations are not optional, “nice-to-have-if-you-feel-like-it” measures; they are binding, legally required actions the project will have to take. To this end, the City Council adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), and the City, as Lead Agency, is legally obligated to verify that each measure is in place and operating.
We recently enhanced the webpages to make them easier to navigate to the issues folks are concerned about. Please visit www.pittsburgca.gov/datacenter. We also have responses to all the concerns we heard at the June 15, 2026, meeting on the FAQ page now.
I’m an open book and want to speak directly, so please don’t take anything below as flippant or unprofessional – I just think residents deserve real answers and honest scenarios that aren’t filled with jargon. Another note, when you read the EIR, there is a lot (I mean, A LOT) of background information that sets forth standards. So, if you come across concerning statements (e.g. “All 22.05 acres of Phase I of the Plan Area is located within a [Wildlife Urban Interface] WUI zone,” from page 3.15-6) it’s important to recognize the context of that statement, as it is setting baseline for what analysis and mitigations must address, not a conclusion of impact.
Apologies that this is a long email, but these are great questions/understandable concerns. There is also a lot of misinformation out there, so any chance we have to point to the facts is appreciated.
-
- Vegetation fires. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has been at the table during the entirety of this project, setting forth what they will require and educating themselves on best practices.
Wildfire risk in the area is analyzed in the EIR’s Wildfire section [EIR p.3.15-1, or page 467 of the PDF you can read here]. No portions of the Plan Area are categorized as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) by CalFire, and only a very small portion of the site in the southeast portion of the Plan Area (not Phase I) is located within a categorized a “high” FHSZ (page 3.15-2). From page 3.15-16, “Implementation of the Specific Plan policies listed in Impacts 3.15-1 and 3.15-2 above, combined with local and state regulations, as previously discussed, would ensure that wildland fire hazards would not be exacerbated by the installation of infrastructure. Furthermore, future development would not be required to implement any off-site fire protection infrastructure or fire breaks that could result in impacts to the environment. As such, implementation of the Specific Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks; therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.” This was a statement/finding reviewed by the County and ConFire, with no disagreement.
As I’ve mentioned to you previously, we see two potential scenarios that must be addressed: First is whether the data center would cause a fire impact (i.e., would the data center increase likelihood of fires that can spread); second, if a wildfire unassociated with the data center were to start, would it cause a concern that there is a nearby development that can become “fuel” for the fire.
In regard to the first concern: The project includes a comprehensive fire suppression system, and the facility sits more than 400 feet (more than a football field, end zones and all) from the nearest residential property line – not just the house, the property line which is obviously further away. Further, the backup generators (which I’m assuming is the cause for most concern) are on the other side of the building from the homes. The entire building will be fitted with an extensive fire suppression system that is designed by a licensed professional and reviewed by ConFire prior to building permits being issued. I’ll check to see if this is something we can share (we can’t always for propriety and safety reasons, but I’m sure if we redact certain things we can walk you through this).
Beyond that, additional measure have been taken to ensure fires are contained and don’t spread; for example, each generator comes in a self-contained unit that has individual fire suppression and is design to contain fires. Each of these units will then be inside a building that is further deigned to contain fires, and that building will be located in an area that is surrounded by defensible space that separates the building from dry grass and weeds, and that defensible space will be on property that AVAIO is required to maintain constantly, cutting weeds and dry grasses down. There will also be a separate and dedicated emergency vehicle access point from West Leland Road that allows ConFire direct access to the site. Projects of this magnitude also pay hefty assessments annually in property taxes – ConFire gets almost as much as the City does from your property taxes (14.25% vs 18.3%). Quick, round estimates: If this is a $1 billion project, it will pay $10,000,000 in property taxes; from that, 14.25% will go to ConFire ($1,425,000 annually) to pay for staff, equipment, stations, etc. Not to mention, one-time fees when they pull permits.
On the second issue: Think about everything I just said, but working backward. If a fire were to start on the hillside, as it approached the data center, there would be less “fuel” as AVAIO would have to ensure its property is maintained to ConFire standards. Then, if it still progressed, it would hit a parking area (not to mention the canal that separates the sites) where it wouldn’t have anything to burn. But let’s say it did, and all of this happens so fast the fire truck that is 2,000 feet away can get there. Then, the fire would hit a building that has been designed to California Building and Fire Code standards with inflammable materials and a massive fire suppression system. Again, a fire suppression system that rivals any industrial use that would have WAY more fire likelihood.
-
- High-wind events. Red-flag and wind-driven fire-spread conditions are addressed within the same wildfire and hazards analysis [EIR p.3.15-1]. I’m glad to walk you through the District’s review of those scenarios directly.
- Grid instability. This is where Pittsburg differs from most communities hosting data centers. I can’t stress this enough. The facility does not draw from the utility that serves your home. Full stop. Residents are PG&E customers; the data center is to be supplied by the Pittsburg Power Company, the City’s own municipal utility. Residential power will not be reduced or redirected to it during rolling outages or peak-load strain, and the tenant, not residents or ratepayers, pays for all energy used and all infrastructure upgrades. How can this be? It’s as simple as two separate businesses that are in competition and unable to share resources. “Unable” because they will be tied into two separate transmission lines, with no distribution line overlap.
Prior to undertaking this, PPC completed a full System Impact Study with PG&E, which basically looks at what updgrades must be completed to ensure grid stability. What came out of that was a list of upgrades the developer will fund, not the ratepayers. In fact, I;d go so far as to say PG&E makes out best in this scenario as they have a developer willing to pay for upgrades they would otherwise have to do to down the road, which you would be charged for.
-
- Emergency access. Beyond the fire emergency scenarios I’ve outlined above, emergency access and response during incidents was evaluated in the EIR’s “Hazards and Hazardous Materials” section [EIR p. 3.7-10] with enforceable access and circulation conditions. The entire County works together to formulate Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs). Developments we approve MUST be consistent with these plans. This one is.
I think you’d be very interested in reading the analyses to the questions about whether the project would, “create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment,” [p. 3.7-14], “impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan,” [p. 3.7-18], and, “Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.” [p. 3.7-18] In all cases, again, the answer is that impacts would be less than significant.
-
- Cumulative impacts, Concord Naval Weapons Station. CEQA requires analysis of cumulative impacts from other reasonably foreseeable projects, and the EIR’s cumulative analysis addresses regional redevelopment including Concord [p. 3.4-6]. Cumulative impacts for most issues are not quantifiable and are discussed in general, qualitative terms. That said, discussions of cumulative impacts for each environmental topic area analyzed in those EIR sections. I’d highly recommend taking a look at the Air Quality subsection of the Cumulative Impacts discussion [p. 4.0-5]. From this section: “Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air emissions within implementation of mitigation measures.” Further, under the “Greenhouse Gases and Energy” subsection, the EIR found, “[f]uture development accommodated by the proposed project, along with other cumulative projects would be required to adhere to BAAQMD plans and updated GHG thresholds, and therefore would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution relative to GHG emissions.” [p. 4.0-8]
- Heat events and AC load. Because the data center is served by the Pittsburg Power Company rather than PG&E, it does not compete with residents’ air conditioning for the same supply during a heat event. This is the opposite of the dynamic that has raised resident rates in places like Santa Clara. The project is also obligated to use 100% carbon-free electricity and/or buy renewable energy credits that fund development of more renewables, audited annually and published for the public to read. We already do this every year. Granted, it hasn’t been on the public’s radar in the past, so not many people know that, but it’s true, and we are committed to this. Again, not a nice-to-have – a requirement. In a maybe somewhat perverse way, this is a benefit to PPC and you, the residents that will experience the benefit of the revenue coming in from power sales, that the data center will have to buy more power, giving the City more funding for community projects.
- Smoke exposure. Air-quality impacts were analyzed in the EIR’s Air Quality section [EIR p. 3.2-1], and in the Air Quality Emissions Analysis (Appendix D to the EIR, found here). The one on-site combustion source, the backup generators, must carry aftertreatment scrubbers, and expected generator emissions of about 4,209 metric tons CO₂e fall well below the Bay Area Air District’s 10,000-metric-ton significance threshold. I’ll note that this estimate is based off of the assumption the generators will run 50 hours each year, a likely overestimate made to ensure we are planning for a worse scenario than is actually anticipated. Regional wildfire smoke is a separate, area-wide condition the project does not generate.
- Evacuation conflicts. Simultaneous-ignition and evacuation scenarios fall within the wildfire and emergency analyses reviewed with the Fire District. I can show you how those scenarios were treated. But as mentioned, very in-dpeth analyses were conducted to ensure the project would not conflict with any adopted EOP plans.
- Water demand in drought years. The facility uses an air-cooled, closed-loop system that can operate safely without any water at all. When water is used, it is in small amounts for supplemental cooling and humidification during hot weather, and it is recycled water from Delta Diablo, on a system entirely separate from the one serving homes and businesses (Note: this is objectively what was analyzed in the EIR. In actuality, AVAIO has stated they will not be spraying any equipment to cool it. I have made this statement to paint an honest picture to the public of what the EIR anticipated, but operation will be different, and better).
And the fact they are using recycled water matters here. Even in drought years, people don’t drink less water, wash fewer dishes, or take fewer showers. Unfortunately, we say we will, but the numbers don’t back that up. What gets sacrificed are pools, landscape irrigation, etc. This means the amount of water flowing to Delta Diablo changes little. But even if it does, Phase I’s demand for recycled water is estimated at about 0.058 million gallons, less than 1% of Delta Diablo’s daily recycled output. The Delta View Golf Course that previously occupied this site used roughly 0.27 million gallons, nearly five times more. The project has no connection to residents’ drinking water or water bills. See the EIR’s Water Supply Assessment here.
-
- Noise from emergency generators. The backup generators are expected to run a maximum of about 50 hours per year, with conditions of approval requiring acoustic louvers and insulated panels and the 400-plus-foot setback noted above. A legal settlement added further noise measures and established a $750,000 fund for local greenhouse-gas reduction projects. The noise analysis is in the EIR [EIR p. 3.10-1; Noise Technical Report here].
Also, recall where I mentioned, when discussing fire protection, that each generator would be in an individual enclosure, further enclosed in an insulated building, on the opposite side of a building that itself is insulated and 400+ feet from the nearest residence? Well these enclosures and buildings are also designed to address noise, and will.
Take a look at the EIR’s map of sensitive receptors for noise where sound impacts were modeled [p. 3.10-8]. The EIR accounts for all the surrounding neighborhoods and school and church. The little pink dots on the map are where the readings were taken. Again, we took readings closer to the building than most of the actual sensitive receptors of be very cautious about how we analyze impacts. If these pink dots checked out, anything beyond those should as well. This includes analysis of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise.
This is an EIR section where extensive mitigation measures were required. But the analysis shows that once these mitigations are incorporated, impacts are less than significant. Add to that that the Center for Biological Diversity asked for even further enhanced mitigation, and the result is a belts-and-suspenders approach to ensuring noise doesn’t impact neighbors.
-
- Hazardous materials risks during fire or grid failure. Hazardous materials handling and upset conditions are analyzed in the EIR’s Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, with the Fire District’s suppression review and enforceable conditions applying.
- Traffic impacts in emergency scenarios. Transportation and circulation, including emergency-response conditions, were studied in the EIR’s Transportation section [EIR p. 3.13-1]. As ongoing infrastructure, the facility places little daily traffic strain while paying very high one-time and ongoing impact costs. The lack of traffic also means that there won’t be an impact on emergency vehicles accessing the site.
- City loan to AVAIO. First, the word loan, even though we’ve used it just as much as anyone, is a bit misleading. We did not give AVAIO any money, so no tax dollars were spent. What we did was what is called a “seller-backed loan” whereby we sold AVAIO the property, but deferred payment (though we are charging interest while the deferment is in place that they will owe us no matter what the outcome.
Why did we do this? First, AVAIO has invested a lot of money to analyze the project and go through the entitlement process. Not that we have any sympathy for that, but we understood they needed some level of site control for this investment. The reason we didn’t make them pay up front was because this was well before the project was approved, and if for whatever reason it didn’t pass muster on the EIR or was denied for any reason, we wanted the land back – something that is an option per the documents. So, regarding default protections, there’s a big one – we get our land back. They also have to pay in full very soon if they want to complete the purchase and “pay back the loan,” there is no monthly payment that can all of the sudden stop. For them, this is a you-know-what-or-get-off-the-pot scenario for them. Another reason this was done is what’s called the Surplus Lands Act, which gave us a required date to complete the sale.
The $16.7 million figure (actually reduced to around $10.5 million) and the City’s financial agreements with the developer, including terms and any related due-diligence materials, are public records. I will work with the City Clerk and Finance to compile what’s responsive and get it to you – better yet, on the website so anyone can access it.
-
- Tribal lands and cultural-resource oversight. This is all in the cultural-resources analysis section of the EIR [EIR p. 3.4-1] and Final EIR (this is where the tribal consultation response letters are published).
- Property value impacts. You won’t find this in the EIR as this isn’t an environmental impact. That said, we did do a lot of research and analysis. We actually find more documentation that points to the opposite – home values increase. A recent study by George Mason University found that homes closer to data centers tended to sell for more. To quote the study, “[it] may sound counterintuitive, but it makes sense. Data centers tend to be built in areas with strong infrastructure—good roads, reliable utilities, and proximity to jobs and airports. Those same features also make surrounding neighborhoods more attractive to homebuyers.” I’d add to that data center can bring jobs to the community, not just from the data center and construction, but secondary and tertiary job opportunities that come from companies seeking to locate proximate to data centers, which are really just infrastructure. If more, high paying jobs are available locally, home prices will rise. Development generally reduces fire risk, so when fire maps are revisited by CalFire, it wouldn’t be farfetched to guess that surrounding properties have less fire risk.
I can appreciate that residents are concerned about long-term financial impacts, especially homeowners. That’s generally the largest investment of one’s life, and deserves to be protected. The data center will not raise your property taxes. If it does anything, it would stall some of the assessments homeowners face as agencies seek more revenue to provide public services because you’ll have a large, expensive development chipping in (no promises, many of those are not controlled by Pittsburg). As a side note, I’d be happy to chat about your property taxes increasing more than usual this year. That seems odd. It deserves an audit, which I am happy to help you with if you’re willing to share some info with me. Property taxes in California are usually pretty set due to Prop 13.
A couple things I want to end with: The City – Council, staff, even consultants that come here and fall in love with what have – shares with our community a vision and goal of improving the lives of our residents. When I look at the list of projects we have been seeking to bring to Pittsburg during my time here, what we constantly battle is a lack of funding. I could go into detail about the complex nature of how sales andproperty taxes get dispersed – and I’m happy to if it’s of interest – but I don’t want to make this email longer than it already is. The bottom line is that every City has its challenges and its opportunities; one major challenge Pittsburg has is that we do not generate sales and property taxes like other cities. We have made strides, but also experienced some major hits as companies have sought to locate outside of California. These strides have also sometimes meant that we are not as disadvantaged as we once were, making usless competitive for grants that target really struggling cities.
What I will reiterate is that this is California. The same environmental regulations that, frankly, played a role is pushing companies like US Steel and Corteva to close those operations in town are the same regulations that ensure that these project components like recycled water and noise mitigations aren’t empty promises, but unnegotiable mandates with required public reporting and monitoring.
This is an advantage for us. Not a burden like Keller Canyon; not something we have to shoulder for richer communities like detox centers. Rather, something that sets us apart, in a positive way. My goal here isn’t to convince you or your neighbors to do a 180 and support the data center; my goal is for you and the wider community to know that even in light of all of the potential benefits to our community we see with this project, we would not be entertaining it if it was determined there was any health and safety risk that could not be adequately addressed in the EIR. A couple weeks ago it was suggested to me we create a dashboard for residents to see stats on the ongoing operations of the data center once it’s built, and we think that’s a great idea, and are committed to sharing that information.
Thank you again for your engagement. Please keep the questions coming, and I’m happy to answer every one of them. They are genuinely appreciated, and we are committed to continued transparency going forward. Please don’t hesitate to reach out, and I’m glad to meet in person if that would be useful.
Sincerely,
Jordan
Informational Background per the City of Pittsburg:
Water: The AVAIO Perseus Data Center uses a closed-loop, air-cooled system rather than traditional evaporative cooling. In a closed-loop design, the system is filled once and circulates through the cooling system continuously instead of being lost to evaporation, dramatically reducing ongoing water consumption. The facility will only be allowed to utilize recycled water rather, and not potable supplies. It is projected to use approximately one-fifth of the water that the former Delta View Golf Course consumed on the same site — a substantial reduction in demand on local water resources compared with the property’s prior use.
Electricity: Electrical service for the AVAIO Perseus Data Center is provided by the Pittsburg Power Company, the City’s municipal utility — not PG&E, which serves local homes and businesses. Because the data center draws from a separate power pool, residential power will not be reduced or redirected to serve the facility. The tenant — not residents or ratepayers — pays for all energy used and all infrastructure upgrades. The project is obligated to use 100% carbon-free electricity, a requirement the City audits annually. The developer is also fully funding approximately $100 million in upgrades to the electrical grid, improvements that PG&E customers will benefit from as well. The site sits along existing electrical infrastructure, adjacent to multiple 230 kV transmission lines, which makes it well suited to serve the project’s power needs without extending into undeveloped areas.
Backup Generation: The facility includes on-site backup generators that provide emergency power only during interruptions to the utility supply, which has not happened on the transmission line to which this project will interconnect in over 10 years. They are not a primary power source and are expected to operate no more than approximately 50 hours per year each. Every backup generator is required to be fitted with an aftertreatment system (“scrubber”) to reduce emissions, a condition of project approval. The generators are also subject to extensive noise and safety controls. Each is fully enclosed by both the manufacturer’s noise-buffering housing and a secondary external structure built to California Building Code standards, and the conditions of approval require acoustic louvers and insulated panels, with compliance verified through the City’s monitoring program. The backup generation system was reviewed by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and includes a comprehensive fire suppression system.
Noise: Noise was studied closely in the project’s Environmental Impact Report, which determined that the increase in sound would be imperceptible at all sensitive receptors, including the nearby school, homes, and church. Beyond meeting those requirements, the project incorporates additional measures that go above and beyond what is required. Through the settlement agreement, the facility will include acoustic louvers and insulated panels. The generators will be fully enclosed twice over, both within the manufacturer’s noise-buffering housing and again within a secondary external structure built to California Building Code standards, which are among the most stringent in the nation for addressing noise. The facility is also sited more than 400 feet from the nearest residence, and its closed-loop cooling system avoids the large evaporative cooling fans that drive much of the noise at conventional data centers. All of these noise measures are enforceable conditions of approval, verified through the City’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program with required public reporting.
Previous
- June 16, 2026 – Update: Pittsburg Data Center to Return to City Council Agenda
- June 16, 2026 – Residents Blast Pittsburg City Council Over Data Center Approval
- Dec 2024 – AVAIO Digital Partners Achieves Major Milestone for Pittsburg Technology Park “Perseus” Data Center Project
- June 7, 2018 – Council Agrees to Begin Process to Bring 100-Acre Technology Park to Pittsburg
- May 8, 2018 – Pittsburg City Council Opts to Permanently Close Delta View Golf Course in Favor of Economic Opportunities
