Livermore: County supervisors approve Aramis solar project after marathon appeal hearing

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the contentious Aramis solar energy project planned for north Livermore after nearly 10 hours of presentations, discussion and deliberations last week.

The marathon meeting on March 4 saw the supervisors hear all four appeals filed over the project — three by Livermore-area citizen groups and one by the project developer, Intersect Power — before ultimately voting to deny all appeals and uphold the East County Board of Zoning Adjustments’ approval of the 410-acre project north of the city limits.

“It seems that the need for climate change trumps the need for open space in terms of the balancing of the equities,” said Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, whose District 4 includes Pleasanton. “I’m always looking at how to balance the equities, and in this case it looks like climate change wins out,” he continued, adding that both proponents and opponents of the project argued their points “very convincingly.”

Supervisor Richard Valle echoed similar sentiments. “It’s a very contentious issue — I understand that — open space vs. the future of our planet but for me it’s the future of the planet and the future of my grandchildren and their children that’s paramount and that’s the primary reason why I think we need to move this forward.”

During last week’s meeting, the three community advocacy groups that filed appeals opposing the project — Save North Livermore Valley, Friends of Livermore and Friends of Open Space & Vineyards — were each given 20 minutes to share presentations detailing the grounds for their appeals.

The developer, San Francisco-based Intersect Power, was given 10 minutes to present its appeal related to multiple conditions of approval imposed by the zoning board in November.

Following the presentations and after hearing from more than 50 speakers during public comment, the board decided to follow county staff’s recommendation to deny the three community group appeals and they voted to deny all of the components of the appeal from Intersect Power.

Supervisor David Haubert, who represents District 1 which includes the area of the project site, said that this was a “tough decision” for him in balancing open space, the environment and the need for clean energy.

“As mayor (of Dublin), I voted many times to preserve thousands of acres of open space,” said Haubert, facing one of his first major local decisions since joining the board in January. “I have voted and held developers accountable to mitigate the impacts of wildlife. There’s no denying what this project will do from an environmental perspective. I would also like to echo, however, the amazing public comments very well articulated by members of the public on both sides, by applicants and appellants on both sides.”

The board imposed some conditions of approval of their own, including a condition to work with the county agricultural commissioner to modify language in the project’s agriculture management plan as well as implementing an easement of land for a public hiking trail, among others.

The decision on the evening of March 4 was met with enthusiasm from developer Intersect Power, while appellant Save North Livermore Valley vowed to challenge the approval in court.

“We are incredibly grateful for the many years of collaboration with county planning staff, East Bay Community Energy, local environmental and agricultural experts and the active members of the community that has allowed for the development of a solar and energy storage project that truly goes above and beyond,” said Marisa Mitchell, head of environmental and permitting with Intersect Power, in an email to the Weekly.

“The Aramis Renewable Energy Project will benefit East Bay citizens through employment, environmental justice, recreation, education, habitat, pollution reduction, regenerative agriculture, and by enhancing local electrical reliability. Its approval demonstrates Alameda County’s commitment to addressing the climate crisis by acting locally.”

Chris O’Brien of Save North Livermore Valley said that the group was “very disappointed in the outcome” of the hearing.

He said the group plans to continue the fight against the project by moving forward with a lawsuit on the grounds that the board’s decision violates the county’s own zoning code and General Plan as well as state law as it relates to Measure D, which was passed by voters in 2000 and aims to preserve agricultural land and open space in eastern Alameda County.

For his part, Haubert argued Measure D as it is written is problematic.

“It’s prohibitive, it’s caused consternation, it’s not clear on this issue,” Haubert said of the legislation. “We have some that say this project complies, some that say it doesn’t. I have to say that I rely and appreciate and trust our staff to do the very best that they can do, the very best that can be done.”

“And so, when they say that this project is eligible for making overriding considerations and when they say that this project meets the legality of Measure D — and reliant upon my colleagues here, again — it’s clear support for this project and I respect each and every one of you and am willing to support as well,” he added.

County staff recommended denying the three resident group appeals in their report because “the project has been under review for more than two years and given the goals of the project, the EIR has appropriately determined that — except for the scenic resources — the project can mitigate any impact to less than significant level.”

Staff also contended the use of the land for a solar energy farm can be permitted with a conditional use permit, and overall, the appellants “did not provide any additional information or persuasive arguments in their appeal letters that would lead to reconsideration of the staff conclusions.”

In regard to Intersect Power’s appeal, staff recommended that all of the zoning board conditions be maintained; however, they agreed to sustain one aspect of the developer’s appeal that argued plantings along the western boundary of the site wouldn’t be necessary as it is not visible from any public roads.

In their recommendation, they included the condition for Intersect Power to work with the O’Brien family, who own the residential property along the western border, to determine the best screening measures.

After hearing staff’s presentation and subsequent recommendations, Valle expressed concern that the project did not go to the Planning Commission before going to the Board of Supervisors. “I want to make sure that we’re thorough and that we do our due diligence,” he said.

He later moved to defer the issue to the Planning Commission to which Mitchell, on behalf of Intersect Power, strongly objected due to the length of time the process would take. “A delay of 90 days or more would absolutely kill this project,” she said. “We have a number of contractual obligations that are becoming due in the next 15 days,” she added.

A number of speakers on both sides weighed in with comments about whether the project should be sent backward to the Planning Commission, but ultimately, Valle withdrew his motion. “One of the statements that I made at the very beginning of the motion was that I did not want this to kill the project,” he said.

Once discussion on the motion concluded, the board heard presentations from all four appellants followed by additional public comment from speakers on both sides of the issue.

Many opponents of the project maintained that they are not against solar energy, but they have serious concerns about this project mostly related to perceived environmental impacts at the chosen site — located partly at 1815 Manning Road and 4400 N. Livermore Ave., both south of Manning Road and west of North Livermore Avenue, and partly on two other parcels without street addresses north of Manning Road at its intersection with North Livermore Avenue.

The three local resident groups that filed appeals against the project expressed concern about the solar energy plant potentially causing harm to wildlife in the area.

As an additional step to protect biodiversity at the site, Intersect Power announced a new habitat conservation plan days before the hearing that would include pursuing voluntary incidental take permit coverage from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as establishing a conservation easement in an offsite location to make up for possible short-term loss of marginal habitat during construction.

The size of the project was also an issue raised by residents who question the need for utility-scale solar in the proposed area. Currently, there is no policy in place that specifically addresses projects of this nature and some opponents believe one should have been implemented before officials moved forward with Aramis.

“I’m a supporter of solar power but I urge you today to not approve this project,” Livermore resident Priya Basu told the supervisors. “I can’t add or take away from any of the legal or scientific arguments that have been made but instead I urge you to look at this project from the perspective of 50 years from now — from an environmental and a cultural perspective.”

“The area that we are talking about industrializing is a majestic, open space range of lands that are functioning ecosystems and they are a dwindling natural resource in the Bay Area. With this solar project, we are justifying the 19th century’s practice of colonialism to steal from the land its viability under the well-intentioned but misused 20th century doctrine of anything that saves the planet must be good,” Basu added, continuing:

“I think we’re smarter than this. Let’s take this back to the drawing board and develop and apply a 21st century fair-minded, holistic solution that takes into account that this open space is already part of the solution to climate change and preserving the environment.”

Despite the issues raised by opponents, the project has amassed a large backing of supporters as well, including Livermore residents and environmental organizations.

“I moved to Livermore in 1987, raised two kids here and will be here for the rest of my life,” David Nelson said. “I love this valley and I’m also a resident of the North Livermore area. I am in support of the Aramis project.”

“It seems to me they have shown that they would work with the community. I specifically like the language of local hire and the use of apprentices from a certified apprenticeship program. It’s time to stop saying ‘not in my backyard,’ this is in my backyard and I support this project,” he added.

Following the board’s approval, the Sierra Club issued a statement celebrating the decision.

“We applaud Alameda County for its unanimous approval of Aramis,” Sierra Club senior campaign representative Luis Amezcua said in the statement. “As one of the largest solar projects in Northern California, Aramis is well-sited and will be critical to aiding the local economy and achieving California’s clean air and energy goals. We look forward to continuing our work with Alameda County and other stakeholders in building local clean energy that is consistent with our support for Measure D and will create good, union jobs.”