THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2024 Trona solar farms move forward
Supes deny neighbors’ appeals
A pair of long-debated solar farms was approved on Friday during an Inyo County Board of Supervisors special meeting to resolve appeal claims made against the projects in February.
Applicant Robbie Barker has proposed a 1.2-megawatt commercial solar facility on a 5-acre parcel in Trona, as well as a second commercial facility that will generate 3 megawatts of energy through 6,000 solar panels on 15 acres in the same community.
Barker said the solar fields will benefit the nearby communities, allowing Trona residents to subscribe to the renewable community energy system.
He added that construction of the facility will provide local jobs.
“Nothing has been built in this area in 30 years,” he said. “The good thing about these projects is we are replacing illegal junk yards in Inyo County to support these new projects and provide an economic benefit to the residents of Trona and the town of Trona. This is a win-win for the residents, it’s a win for the county. It would put you on the cutting edge front of renewable energy development that meets California standards and it’s a win for the employees that would be building and maintaining these projects.”
John Mays, who led the appeal against the 1.2-megawatt facility known as Trona 7 said the project is in the middle of a residential area and said assessments required for the project’s permitting — including noise and aesthetics evaluations — had not been done.
Mays added there were other locations for the project and that the land around him is used as a recreational area for horse riding and all-terrain vehicles.
“Regardless of your decision we will continue to fight this because it is so rampant,” said Mays. “This is my home and this is where I intend to live. I work away from there right now but I have kept this home. My son has been raised in this home and we intend to live here. This is the place we want to live because we love living here. We love Trona.”
Mays argued a recent tortoise sighting on the site was a prime example of potential impacts on the area that should be evaluated over the course of at least a year as wildlife comes and goes.
Patrick Soluri, an attorney representing Mays, said staff’s environmental impact report was ill-prepared, claiming the biologists who conducted the study on the area’s wildlife were not qualified.
Assistant County Counsel Christian Milovich said an initial study indicated no impacts, or less than significant impacts, were present, but encouraged the board to impose any mitigation measures it felt may be required.
“Keep in mind the permit is already conditioned on the need or requirement for a preconstruction survey,” said Milovich. “So before construction can occur on this parcel, Mr. Barker has to conduct another environmental survey. If that survey turns up another turtle or signs of another tortoise, then at that point operations would stop and he would probably have to do some greater CEQA analysis. But at this point, operations do not need to stall.”
The board voted 4-1 to approve the project, with supervisor Jennifer Roeser dissenting.
Tom Kidder led the opposition against Barker’s second project — known as Trona 4 — as he has proposed building a mobile home on an adjacent parcel and questioned whether the solar panels could be set back further from the rear of his residence.
Staff explained the setback could decrease because Barker has contracted a specific amount of panels with Southern California Edison.
Kidder further argued the project should not be approved because it would block an access road his family has used for years.
There is another access road to Kidder’s property available in the area, but he said it is not in great driving condition.
Barker agreed to make that road drivable.
The board unanimously denied Kidder’s appeal and approved the project.