|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
An Alameda County Superior Court judge recently denied local citizen groups’ lawsuit challenging the county-approved Aramis Solar energy project planned for development in unincorporated Alameda County just north of Livermore.
Save North Livermore Valley (SNLV) was joined in its efforts by Friends of Open Space and Vineyards and the Ohlone Audubon Society to convince the court to overturn the county Board of Supervisors’ approval of the project — proposed by San Francisco-based Intersect Power — on the grounds that the development violates Measure D, which protects agricultural land and open space in eastern Alameda County.
SNLV’s lawsuit, which was originally filed in April of 2021, also argues that by approving the project, the Board of Supervisors violated a number of other provisions, including the California Environmental Quality Act and the Alameda County General Plan.
Judge Evelio Grillo issued his decision on May 31, denying the groups’ petition for writ of mandate and upholding the county’s decision to approve the project.
In his judgment, Grillo said that “The court finds that the County did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or without evidentiary basis in concluding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan generally and with the ECAP (East County Area Plan) specifically.”
SNLV spokesperson Chris O’Brien said he thinks Grillo may not have been completely up to speed on the intricacies of land use.
“I thought that the judge was a little out of his element in terms of understanding land use law,” O’Brien said. He added that the group plans to appeal the judge’s decision and that they believe they have “a very good case that the judge has misapplied the law.”
Attorney for the group Rob Selna told the Weekly that among many concerns he and his clients have, there are four areas that represent the “big picture” issues with the county’s approval of the project and subsequent court ruling.
“Measure D makes it clear that voters must decide whether utility scale solar should be allowed in east county and the county took away voters’ rights to decide when it decided for them and the court’s ruling supports the county’s decision to do that,” Selna said.
The second issue is that, “the court found that ground mounted solar development was ‘infrastructure’ and therefore allowed under Measure D. But we don’t believe that the county ever made any finding supported by evidence that the project is infrastructure in the way that Measure D defines it.”
In the third place, Selna and his clients believe the court “wrongly determined that the county Planning Commission’s previous determination that one solar project was permitted meant that solar could be permitted throughout east county.” Selna clarified that the one previous project he was referring to is the county’s 2008 approval of the Green Volts facility in the far east county near Mountain House.
Lastly, Selna said that one of the Aramis project components — a battery energy storage system — is a new usage for the land and in accordance with Measure D, should have gone to a ballot. “It’s undisputed that battery storage is a new use and therefore needed to go to voters,” he said.
He added, “The county’s claiming it’s just part of the project but no, it’s not just part of the project, it’s a five-acre separate piece that is a primary use for the project.”
Attempts to reach Supervisor David Haubert — who represents District 1 which includes the area of the project site — and Intersect Power for comment were unsuccessful as of Tuesday afternoon.
The Board of Supervisors initially approved the Aramis project on March 4, 2021 after nearly 10 hours of presentations, discussion and deliberations during a public hearing on the topic where they heard four appeals to the East County Board of Zoning Adjustments’ prior approval — three of which were presented by Livermore-area citizen groups and one by the project developer.
The facility is envisioned as a mixed-use renewable energy project capable of generating, storing and dispatching 100 megawatts of clean energy, which the company’s website says could power more than 25,000 homes and businesses throughout the Bay Area.
“I thought that the judge was a little out of his element in terms of understanding land use law.”
Chris O’Brien, Save North Livermore Valley spokesman
In the draft environmental impact report, the project was proposed for 410 acres of land. The project as finally approved is now at 347 acres. Following public comment, the county reduced the footprint to increase setbacks and to eliminate development within the portion of the project site designated as Resource Management by the General Plan because the county determined development in these areas was inconsistent with the General Plan.
The project footprint was further reduced when one of the property owners, Stanley Ranch, decided to withdraw its 63-acre property from the project, according to the court documents.
Selna said there is a 60-day window after the court’s ruling to file their appeal, which would bring them to an early August deadline.
