J.K. Dineen Nov. 30, 2020 Updated: Nov. 30, 2020 4 a.m.
The fight over the development of 400 acres of dry grazing fields in North Livermore Valley has all the hallmarks of a classic California land use battle.
Opponents say the project would gobble up protected agricultural land, decimate the valley’s rural character, and threaten important native species like the California tiger salamander and the burrowing owl. Project supporters counter that it would bring good union jobs, millions of dollars in investment and is a good public use for a piece of private land that is mostly used for grazing cattle and harvesting hay.
But what sets the Livermore Valley conflict apart is that the proposal isn’t for a sprawling office park or a vast housing subdivision. Rather the developer is a renewable energy company looking to construct the Bay Area’s largest solar farm and battery power storage facility, something it says is instrumental to meeting regional climate goals.
Last week, the East County Board of Zoning Adjustments approved the Aramis Solar Energy Generation and Storage Project, which would transform 410 acres of grassland — the size of 300 football fields — into a sea of 267,000 solar panels. The solar development, west of North Livermore Avenue at May School Road, would generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 25,000 homes and businesses.
The 2-0 vote to approve the project, which came after seven hours of public comment, will be appealed to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, said attorney Rob Selna, who is representing a group of ranchers and environmental groups opposed to the project.
The project has divided environmentalists, with some supporting it as infrastructure necessary to meet the state’s clean power goals and others arguing that it would harm the natural environment and ruin North Livermore Valley’s rural character. And with California committed to producing 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045, the sort of fight being played out in Livermore will likely could become more common, Selna said.
“The story illustrates a dynamic that the state will be confronted with going forward in trying to increase renewables,” Selna said. “To get utility-scale solar development you need undeveloped land. There will be increased conflict and increased clashes between renewable energy developers, and protecting and preserving natural environments.”
The core of the opponent’s argument is that the project violates both Measure D, the 1980 “Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative,” as well as the county’s general plan, which designates the stretch of North Livermore Avenue a “Scenic Rural-Recreation Route.”
Alameda County Measure D allows wind farms, like the one on Altamont Pass, but doesn’t specifically allow solar installations. County planning staff contends that two previous solar projects, one in 2008 in Mountain House and one along the Altamont Pass in 2011, established precedent allowing solar installations.
At the hearing, Livermore resident John Burke said the project would violate the will of the voters. “Twenty years ago, we voted that we didn’t want this place to be built over,” he said “We like our open space. We would like it to stay this way.”
In an interview, Chris O’Brien, who owns about 50 acres abutting the site, said that he moved to North Livermore in 2000 largely because of the assurance that Measure D would protect the valley from development. While he has cattle and horses on his property, he said he regularly sees spotted owls, salamanders, bald eagles, Peregrine falcons, bobcats, deer, coyotes and foxes on his land.
“It’s really a wildlife preserve, in a sense,” he said. “It’s the last valley in the Bay Area that is not developed with housing. And that is because of Measure D.”
If the project is built, O’Brien would be able to see the solar panels from his living room.
“It’s going to destroy the view from our house,” he said. “We are all for clean energy, we are all for union jobs — the question is, is this the right place? There are a lot of reasons to say it’s not.”
The developer, Intersect Power, dismissed the concerns as unfounded. Marisa Mitchell, a principal with the company, called the development “critical Bay Area infrastructure” that will “offset the need to run the natural gas-fired power plant in Hayward.
She said the farmland being sacrificed is of neither local nor statewide importance. And calling the land “open space” is misleading, she said, as it is not currently accessible to the public.
Her company, in contrast, proposes opening some of the property to the public by creating a public hiking trail along Cayetano Creek and dedicating an easement to the county or the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District.
A planted vegetation buffer, with native wildflowers, would separate the solar facility from North Livermore and Manning roads. Mitchell said “expert biologists” hired by her company found no evidence of endangered species, including the California tiger salamander. Karen Swaim, a biologist who opposes the development, disputed this claim, saying the property is close to multiple salamander breeding ponds. She said the developer surveyed the wrong location at the wrong time of year.
The project has the strong backing of construction unions, which have signed a labor agreement with Intersect Power. Livermore resident David Nelson of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said that beyond the 400 jobs and $22 million in investment the project would generate, recent wildfire seasons have demonstrated the desperate need for combating climate change with clean power.
“This valley has been filled with smoke more times than I can count,” he said. “It’s time we did our part.”
But some Livermore residents object to the fact that much of the power generated would not go to the East Bay but rather San Francisco. That’s because CleanPowerSF, a renewable energy aggregator administered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, has entered into a contract to purchase 75% of the energy generated. The Livermore City Council has also voted to oppose the project.
Livermore veterinarian Larry Gosselin said during the planning hearing that the project seems designed to “help the city of San Francisco meet its green energy obligations.”
“San Francisco is getting the benefits of green power production while it creates a burden on the landowners and residents of Alameda County,” he said.
Critics also took issue with the fact that the project is being approved before the county completes a long-awaited study of where large solar development should be located.
But several proponents of the project countered during the meeting that the Bay Area has to shoulder some of the solar infrastructure burden.
“It can’t just be in the Central Valley or somewhere in the desert,” resident Tim Mason said. “It needs to be in the local areas, including Alameda County. We need to have local clean energy.”
J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen
