Alameda County board approves contested 100‑MW Aramis solar and battery project with conditions

Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors on March 4 certified an environmental impact report and approved a conditional use permit for the Aramis Renewable Energy project, a 100‑megawatt solar facility with about 5 acres of battery storage near North Livermore, after extended presentations, technical Q&A and more than three hours of public comment.

The board’s action follows a lengthy planning‑staff presentation outlining the project’s evolution from an initial 410‑acre proposal to a 347‑acre configuration and the East Bay Board of Zoning Adjustments’ selection of a resource‑management avoidance alternative. Planning Director Albert Lopez told supervisors the EIR found one unavoidable impact — long‑range visual effects on a scenic corridor — but concluded other environmental effects could be mitigated. Lopez also summarized appeals from three local groups and an appeal from the applicant challenging several conditions imposed at the BZA hearing.

Why it mattered: Intersect Power’s Aramis project would add 100 megawatts of renewable generation and 100 megawatt‑hours of four‑hour battery storage intended to improve local grid reliability and reduce fossil‑fuel peaker generation. The company and labor unions said the project would create about 400 temporary construction jobs and provide ongoing benefits to local community groups. Opponents said the site sits in an agriculturally used, scenic and ecologically sensitive corridor and that the EIR understates risks to species, scenic resources and groundwater.

What the board approved: The resolution before supervisors certified the Aramis EIR and approved the conditional use permit referenced in the staff packet (application PLN2018117). It denies the appeals filed by Friends of Livermore, Save North Livermore Valley, and Friends of Open Space and Vineyards and denies most of the applicant’s appeal while approving the project subject to the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan in the record.

Added or clarified conditions: During deliberations the board directed several additional, explicit conditions. County counsel recommended and the board approved language that: - requires the applicant to contract with Tri Valley Conservancy for long‑term monitoring and peer review of biological and visual mitigation measures; - requires recording and offering a public‑hiking‑trail easement (the applicant offered a trail easement in its materials) first to the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and then to the East Bay Regional Park District if the first entity declines; - requires the applicant to notify East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) if power‑purchase or resource‑agreements change, giving EBCE a right of first refusal to the extent allowed by law; and - requires the water‑supply assessment in the record to be monitored during construction and operations and allows staff to require trucked water for construction if groundwater impacts are identified.

Technical tradeoffs: Planning staff and the applicant’s consultants described how earlier revisions removed about 63 acres from the earliest project footprint (a 21‑acre resource‑management removal and another 38‑acre parcel that left the current 347‑acre site). Staff and the applicant said the project is already tightly sited — Intersect told the board that further acreage loss or the reduced‑footprint alternative in the EIR would make the 100‑MW project economically infeasible and jeopardize power‑purchase agreements and financing. Lopez summarized CEQA findings: the EIR studies biology, hydrology, visual resources, and alternatives and lists mitigation measures; one visual impact was concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

Biology and permits: The EIR includes two years of biological surveys; county and applicant staff said protocol surveys did not document on‑site breeding for the focal species but acknowledged potential for upland use by species such as California red‑legged frog and California tiger salamander. After receipt of review letters from state and federal wildlife agencies, the applicant voluntarily agreed to apply for incidental‑take permits and to pursue off‑site compensatory mitigation. County planning staff and the applicant said the federal and state permitting processes provide additional regulatory oversight.

Public reaction and process: The hearing drew hundreds of callers. Labor, business and many environmental advocates supported the project for local jobs, procurement and grid‑reliability benefits; many residents and conservation groups urged delay, recommended remanding project conformity questions to the Planning Commission or requested a broader county solar siting policy before approving large utility projects in scenic/agricultural lands. Supervisor Valle briefly moved to remand the question of zoning conformance to the Planning Commission, but withdrew that motion after public comment. Several supervisors said they would press staff to finish a county solar policy in the coming months.

What happens next: The resolution includes the EIR certification and conditions of approval; it also requires the applicant to pursue the regulatory permits listed in the mitigation monitoring plan (including any take permits). The board’s action does not prevent judicial review; appellants had warned they may seek litigation. County staff said they will circulate any final mitigation monitoring reporting documents and coordinate the trail dedication and Tri Valley Conservancy monitoring contracts.

Why it matters locally: The vote illustrates the tradeoffs many jurisdictions are balancing as they site large utility‑scale renewables near population centers — weighing greenhouse‑gas reductions and local reliability against scenic, agricultural and ecological preservation. The board’s approval attaches new monitoring and public‑interest conditions meant to increase oversight while enabling the project to move forward under existing CEQA findings.

“I think we have to balance the equities,” Supervisor Miley said in deliberations. “We’re looking at a difficult choice — climate benefits versus scenic and ecological costs — and staff and the applicant have added commitments.”

The board approved the EIR certification and CUP on a roll call vote (Valle, Chan, Maile, Carson, Haubert: aye). Public notices and the final conditioned resolution will be posted in the county permit record.