Orange County planning commission recommends denial of Sunfish Solar special-use permit

The Orange County Planning Commission on June 20 voted to recommend denial of Sunfish Solar’s special-use permit application (SUP 23-10), concluding the 80-megawatt utility-scale project is too large for the site and poses unresolved long-term risks to the county’s rural character and historic landscape.

Chairman Powell said the project’s scale and visibility were decisive factors. “It’s just too big. It can’t be hidden,” he said during discussion, summarizing a recurring theme among commissioners.

Planning staff presented the application by BayWa Renewable Energy and noted the project footprint covers roughly 932 acres, with about 404 acres proposed under panels and an estimated 575 acres of disturbance. Staff listed 20 recommended conditions — including a road maintenance bond, vehicle wash stations, riparian buffers and afforestation measures — but said it could not reach an overall recommendation and urged the commission to weigh the full set of pros and cons.

BayWa representatives said the project would deliver local benefits, including a siting agreement they said would provide more than $12,000,000 in discretionary payments to Orange County over the life of the project and roughly $1.2 million in property taxes on capital improvements. “We just heard the question of a siting agreement. That is in the works,” BayWa community engagement coordinator Will Callaway told the commission. “That is in the works. We have engaged an outside party… that would provide an excess of $12,000,000 over the life of the project.”

Applicant presentations described changes made since the initial submittal — larger vegetative buffers, lower panel heights, fewer construction entrances, reduced limit of disturbance and commitments to vegetation management such as sheep grazing and a pollinator program. The applicant also outlined a decommissioning plan tied to a bonded estimate; project engineer John Crosby said the current decommissioning estimate in the submittal is $3,200,000 and the developer would update the amount every five years if required.

The bulk of the meeting was public comment. Dozens of residents urged denial, citing viewshed and tourism impacts, potential harm to farmland and local ecosystems, concerns about topsoil stockpiling and long-term decommissioning liabilities, and heavy construction traffic on narrow rural roads. Several speakers noted the site’s proximity to features of local historic and scenic value and questioned whether vegetative buffers can adequately screen panels for decades.

Experts and supporters also spoke. Peter Berthelsen of the Bee and Butterfly Habitat Fund described a vegetation management program that includes soil-health monitoring and seed mixes designed to persist over a project’s life. Engineers and consultants for the applicant said recycling markets are evolving and that materials recovery could be more viable in 20–30 years. Supporters pointed to tax revenue and local jobs during construction.

Commissioners repeatedly raised policy gaps: Orange County currently lacks a dedicated solar zoning district or detailed local standards for utility-scale projects, and several commissioners said that made comparison and evaluation difficult. Commissioner (speaker 5) moved to find the Sunfish project not in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan and to recommend denial of SUP 23-10 to the Board of Supervisors; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote. The roll call recorded votes to deny from Mr. de Pascual (aye), Mr. Capel (aye), Mr. Bryanton (aye), Mr. Marshall (aye) and Mr. Vanhoven (aye).

The commission’s action is a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; the Board will review the application and the commission’s findings at a later meeting. Planning staff reminded the commission that the siting agreement and some technical studies are being negotiated or finalized outside the planning commission’s process and said additional documentation will be submitted as it becomes available.

Next steps: The Board of Supervisors will receive the commission’s recommendation and the application package; any formal decision on permits or siting-agreement terms will be made by the Board.