Planning Board Workshop on Pacific Fusion Facility – May 12, 2025
Planning Board Workshop on Pacific Fusion Research & Development Facility – May 12, 2025
The Alameda Planning Board held a workshop to review a proposed Research & Development facility by Pacific Fusion at Alameda Point. The project includes a 225,500-square-foot building with office, lab, and demonstration space, aiming to advance fusion energy technology. No final approvals were made; the board focused on gathering input and directing next steps.
Consent Calendar
- Approved draft meeting minutes for April 14, 2025, and April 28, 2025. Board member Sue abstained from voting on the April 14 minutes.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Supporters: Jonathan DeLong (Reap Climate Center) expressed support for the project's jobs and climate benefits. David Mick (Power Engineering Construction) supported the proposal citing infrastructure investment and economic revitalization. Toby Thiely (student) noted that tritium use is comparable to hospital levels and supported the project. Josh Roden (Brookfield) supported it as complementary to nearby residential development. Brock Grunt (resident) supported, citing alignment with the city's economic plan.
- Opponents: James Evans (retired engineering professor) argued the facility is a nuclear reactor and should be at Livermore or Sandia labs, citing tritium leak risks. Kurt Peterson (resident) raised concerns about waste byproducts and groundwater contamination near the bay. Francisco Nafriya (resident) opposed due to radiological risks, proximity to homes and schools, and inadequate emergency response infrastructure. Sylvia Johnson (resident) worried about startup failure, lack of decommissioning plan, and absence of a business transition plan.
- City Staff: Abby Thorne Lyman (Base Reuse Director) clarified the city's dual role as landlord and regulator, and that the project includes off-site infrastructure improvements. She noted the Master Infrastructure Plan costs have risen above $700 million.
Discussion Items
- Project Presentation: Staff (Brian McGuire) introduced the workshop goals, noting Alameda is competing with Livermore for the project. The proposal is consistent with the 2014 EIR and zoning for the Enterprise District. Environmental review is underway but not yet complete.
- Applicant Presentation: Courtney Richardson (Pacific Fusion) explained the company's mission, plans for 250 jobs, over $1 billion in investment, and compliance with California Department of Public Health regulations. Teresa Goodwin (HPA Architects) presented the building design, which includes a 100-foot-tall pulsar section, office, lab, and utility areas. The design uses blue branding colors and vertical elements inspired by Alameda industrial buildings.
- Board Questions and Comments:
- Vice President Arisa asked about Skyhawk Street connection and circulation. Staff confirmed Skyhawk is not a dedicated right-of-way and may be removed in future phases; new streets (Orion, Pacific, Ticonderoga) will be built.
- Board member Sue asked about federal regulations, waste disposal, and water use. Applicant stated no federal oversight; state and local regulations apply. Waste is minimal, modeled after hospital protocols.
- Board member Sahiba asked about tank materials, bike parking, and site lighting. Architect noted tanks will be painted to blend with building; lighting will use building-mounted and pole fixtures.
- Board member Wang asked about circulation and street vacation. Staff confirmed Skyhawk and Oriskany may disappear; future Ticonderoga extension to Central Avenue is planned.
- Board Feedback: Members raised concerns about safety (especially regarding radioactive materials), building massing, and community outreach. There was discussion about the need for a decommissioning plan, interpretive programs highlighting clean tech, and ensuring the design fits the industrial character of Alameda Point.
- Subcommittee Appointment: The board appointed Vice President Arisa and will confirm one absent member via email to form a subcommittee for design refinements.
Key Outcomes
- No action on the development plan or design review was taken; the meeting was a workshop.
- The board directed staff and the applicant to address specific concerns: safety protocols, decommissioning plan, building massing, street frontage design, lighting, and pedestrian connections.
- A two-member subcommittee (Vice President Arisa and one absent member) was formed to work with staff on design iterations over the summer.
- Staff expects to return to the board for decisions on the development plan and design review just before or after the August recess. City Council will consider the land conveyance (purchase option) in June.
- The applicant will continue community engagement, including Family Fusion Day on May 31, 2025.
Meeting Transcript
Can you read us? Uh Lita, please. Thank you. I'd like to lead to the fly of the United States of America for which it says one nation under call individual. All right. Thank you. And we'll begin with roll call. Good evening. Board member Sue. Here. Board member Arisa. Present. Board Member Wang. Here. Board Member Sahaba. Present. And President Cisneros. Here. And so we have a quorum and two excused absences. Thank you. We'll move on to the next agenda item, which is any agenda changes. No. Okay, great. We'll move on to non-agenda public comments. Does anyone in the public, whether on Zoom or here in the room, have any comments that they would like to bring forth? You have up to three minutes for any items that are not on the agenda. Looks like we've got Kurt Peterson. Or non-agenda. Yeah. Okay. And it's basically my name is Kurt Peterson. I live over on the west end on the 200 blocks of Santa Clara. And I slightly concerned with the uh no right turn signs that are on Abbazata Way. Um at Main Street at everyone that goes across uh all the cross streets that go across Hapazotto Way between uh what uh Webster and Maine, including uh Maine. Uh you have these wonderful new signs that you put up that say uh no right turn on red. And I understand why it's there because there is a bike path that goes along there. The problem with it is uh that you can visibly see the bike path very clearly, both directions, so there's no problem as far as that. I just don't understand why they couldn't get a sign that just said beware of bikes. Something of that nature, because especially on the third street, which is where uh the learning center A L C L or whatever it is, the old Woodstock school. Um that right there during three o'clock when they're picking up students, and you can't turn right to get out of there is totally a mess. It's more of a detriment by far than you know the potential as far as any bicycle, you know, incident there. So I'm wondering other cities I go all around, have it listed as far as beware of bikes, you know, bikes have the right of way going across whatever you want to state. You can do that, but to say you can't turn on right can really make that a congestion problem big time. So I would like to see if someone could possibly you know look into who came up with that idea. Uh and is there other ways to remedy it and make it a lot better for everyone, both cars and bicycles and pedestrians. Thank you very much. Thank you for bringing up that concern. Are there any other uh non-agenda public comments? I have no other speakers, no hands raised. Okay, great.
openpublica.com