Board upholds denial of Bear Valley 5 MW solar project after residents raise environmental and neighborhood concerns

San Bernardino County supervisors on Wednesday upheld the Planning Commission's denial of a proposed 5 megawatt alternating‑current solar photovoltaic facility near Bear Valley, rejecting an appeal from the utility proposing the project.

The board voted 3–2 to deny the appeal and preserve the commission's earlier finding that the land‑use change and facility would be incompatible with the established rural residential character of the Irwin Ranch/Lakewood Drive neighborhood. Supervisors Armenderas and Hagman recorded the two dissenting votes; the motion carried with three in favor.

The applicant, Bear Valley Electric Service represented by EDF Renewables, argued the project was a community‑oriented renewable energy facility meant to strengthen power resilience in the valley and reduce reliance on transmission lines subject to public‑safety power shutoffs. "Every megawatt generated locally is a megawatt we don't have to import through vulnerable Edison transmission lines," Paul Maronei, president of Bear Valley Electric Service, told the board.

Supporters—including Bear Valley operators, hospital and resort officials, the Big Bear Chamber of Commerce and labor unions—said local generation would help protect residents who depend on electric medical devices, maintain business continuity during outages, and deliver local jobs during construction.

Opponents, primarily neighbors and local residents, pressed a different case: they said the site sits adjacent to existing homes, private wells and sensitive habitat and that the county's normal residential zoning should not be changed to accommodate an industrial‑scale array. "My family bought our home trusting the zoning that was in place," said a next‑door neighbor, who said the proposed project boundary would be less than 30 feet from at least one house. Other speakers emphasized possible impacts to an endangered stickleback fish habitat and the visual and safety effects of new overhead interconnection lines.

County planning staff reported a mitigated negative declaration and a suite of proposed conditions, including preconstruction biological surveys, reptile‑exclusion fencing and vegetative screening. The applicant said it had conducted additional protocol surveys in the peak flowering window and secured CPUC approvals relevant to the utility service requirements. EDF representatives also described drainage basins and road improvements as part of the plan.

But several supervisors said their primary concern was land‑use compatibility. "Residents relied on the rural residential zoning when they bought their homes," one supervisor said during deliberations. Others noted that the parcel could, under current zoning, support a denser residential subdivision without further discretionary approvals—an argument used by both sides to contrast likely alternatives.

The board did not adopt an alternative approval. The planning commission had concluded the general plan amendment and zone change would "alter the established residential ranch‑like neighborhood" and introduce a land use that would "detract from the beauty and tranquility" of Bear Valley. The board's vote leaves that finding in place and the project denied.

What happens next: The applicant may pursue legal remedies through administrative appeals or litigation or consider alternative sites or project designs. County staff noted the record includes the Planning Commission materials, the project environmental review and hundreds of public comments submitted during the public review period.

Provenance: The hearing opened with staff presentation on the appeal at SEG 2053 and concluded with the board's vote to uphold the denial at SEG 4906.