The Twentynine Palms City Council meets at 6 pm this upcoming Tuesday, July 28, at City Hall for a regularly scheduled session. Attendees can likely anticipate a long meeting.

A packed agenda includes rescission of the zoning that was changed for the Ofland Resort development project, new permitting requirements for food establishments, proposed sewer regulations, and discussion of a potential million dollar grant opportunity with significant up-front application costs. For the sake of brevity, potentially significant discussion items are covered in this article.

The entire 301-page agenda packet for the meeting is linked here; coverage of the previous Council meeting is available here.

PUBLIC COMMENT

You can comment on agenda items and issues important to you at every City Council meeting. Comments on agenda items take place during discussion of that item, while comments on non-agenda items take place near the end of the meeting. The Brown Act prevents Council from commenting on non-agenda items. To comment, just pick up a form at the entry desk, fill it out, and hand it to the Clerk, who usually sits just in front of the Council dais toward the right.

Council email addresses and public comment information can be found on our resources page. Be sure to email prior to 2 pm on the day of the meeting so they have time to read your email prior to discussion. You can also copy the clerk at cvillescas@29palms.org and ask that your letter be made part of the public record.

Individuals can now comment remotely using the City’s WebEx system, a video conferencing application, with a unique meeting link at the top of each agenda. The City implemented this for the first time at its last council meeting, though there were some technical issues.

The unique WebEx link to participate in public comment remotely is available here.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The Consent Calendar consists of items usually approved with a single vote. The public can comment on these beforehand. Fill out a comment form at the meeting, or send an email in advance.

This meeting’s Consent Calendar includes a Warrant Register totaling $2,424,928.05. Noteworthy payments include a $1,677.78 City payment to San Bernardino County LAFCO, the Local Agency Formation Commission, $557,000 for law enforcement services, and a payment of $64,810.37 to Rutan & Tucker LLP, the City Attorney’s office.

Other consent calendar items include a routine Treasurer’s Report that summarizes the final quarter of the ‘25-26 fiscal year. The report states that the City currently has $22,118,033 total funds in the Treasurer’s custody, a well-diversified portfolio, and sufficient funds to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

Wrapping the consent calendar is an item confirming a $200,000 contribution from the Twentynine Palms Water District toward funding of a crucial U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on potential groundwater and nitrate contamination from septic discharges. The item notes that the City and Water District are:

collaborating to develop a Wastewater Management Plan that will provide a blueprint for a centralized sewer-collection system and wastewater treatment plant to replace aging septic systems.1

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by spreading the word!

Share The Desert Trumpet

PUBLIC HEARING

Intent to Levy Fees for Twentynine Palms Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District #1 for FY ‘26-’27

This is a routine agenda item Council addresses annually prior to the start of each fiscal year. Because it involves City finances, a public hearing must be conducted prior to the resolution’s approval.

Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District #1 covers the Historic Plaza and areas north of El Paseo Road, West of Encelia Avenue, south of Sunnyslope and east of Panorama Avenue. The new fiscal year started July 1. Per the resolution, the City engineer does not anticipate any fee increases for the continued landscaping, lighting, and irrigation upkeep for these areas. Though shops at Historic Plaza are privately owned, the plaza itself is owned by the City.

Coverage on this item from prior years and a map of the assessment district is linked here.

Vote to Rescind Special Zoning Created for Ofland

The council will hold a public hearing and vote on whether to reverse the entitlements given to the Ofland Resort development project and return the area back to residential zoning. As reported by Desert Trumpet, in a public court hearing on April 29, 2026, Ofland’s lawyers requested a temporary stay of litigation in response to a lawsuit filed in August of 2025 by the Center for Biological Diversity and Indian Cove Neighbors. The suit followed the City Council’s approval of the project in July 2025 of the resort without a full environmental review and despite strong public opposition.

The luxury resort project, which was proposed on an undeveloped 152-acre parcel in Indian Cove, would have consisted of multiple new structures including 100 freestanding guest cabins, 25 staff housing units, a restaurant, event space, and wastewater treatment facility. The property was taken off the market on November 19, 2025, and is not currently listed for sale.

To comply with the stay, and as requested by the developer, the City of Twentynine Palms must rescind all project entitlements within 90 days of the stay, or July 28, 2026. The City must certify they have done so in the public record, for example a consent item or a vote at a meeting, by August 31, 2026. These rescissions include:

• The amendment to the City General Plan Amendment to create a new zoning type for City land use, Open Space Conservation (OS-C), and corresponding development standards .

• The conversion of the 152-acre parcel from Single Family Residential - Estate (RS-E) to Commercial Tourist (CT) and the new OS-C zoning.

• Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which contained mitigation measures that must be met before development started to curtail significant environmental, traffic, noise pollution, light pollution, and archaeological impacts.

• A Conditional Use Permit to grant Ofland permission for the project in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A follow-up hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for August 27, 2026. If the City votes to rescind the entitlements the lawsuit may be dismissed. However, if they are not rescinded, the lawsuit may continue. A notice for this public hearing was mailed to area residents and a notice was printed in the Hi-Desert Star. You can read previous reporting on the Ofland project here.

Ordinance for Sewer Regulations, Establishing a FOG Program, and Related Topics.

While the USGS survey on water quality and septic seepage bought Twentynine Palms more time on the citywide sewer question, the never-ending sewer saga continues.

Desert Trumpet took a deep-dive on sewers back in 2022- The WHO, WHAT, HOW and WHY of Sewer In Twentynine Palms.

In October 2021, the City received a $1,675,680 federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) to build the package wastewater treatment plant within the Project Phoenix/Freedom Plaza footprint.

This new ordinance proposes a number of regulations aimed at protecting the Project Phoenix package treatment plant from damage and also seeks to incorporate State of California requirements for sewage/wastewater. Though the ordinance is currently aimed at Project Phoenix, it proposes far-reaching policy implementations with potential of a Citywide sewer system in mind. Some of those changes include:

• Mandatory sewer connection for all new developments within 200 feet of the downtown wastewater line

• A citywide FOG (fats, oils, and grease) permitting and inspection program

• A citywide ban on industrial food waste grinders/liquefiers

• Any new residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional project must connect to a public sewer if located within 200 feet of it — no new septic is allowed in that zone.

Private septic systems will now have to comply with state requirements, governed through the use of the State Water Resources Control Board Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Policy (‘OWTS Policy’).

If passed, the ordinance would require food service establishments in Twentynine Palms, regardless of whether they are connected to septic, a private package plant, or a future city sewer, to obtain a FOG discharge permit, install grease interceptors, and submit to city inspections. The staff report does not list a specific cost for the proposed permits but suggests they would be valid for one year.

DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS

Community Resilience Center Grant

In 2024, Women of Color Global 29, a nonprofit organization, along with Councilmember Octavious Scott, brought a proposal to Council for a climate resilience center funded through a federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program. Their concept for a center and the grant was presented at an April 2024 Council meeting. The organization later withdrew from participating in the proposal, but the grant required partnership with a nonprofit.

Former City Manager Stone James then selected the Community Learning & Equipping Project (CLEP), a nonprofit associated with the Sanctuary Church, without issuing a formal request for proposals (RFP) and began the grant writing process without a formal Council approval of his choice.

In November of that year, with the federal grant application deadline fast approaching, a memorandum of understanding and a completed grant was presented to Council, who then formally voted to partner with CLEP. While the EPA grant program lost funding last year after Donald Trump became president, the idea of a resilience center for Twentynine Palms has remained.

This agenda item, introduced by Councilmember April Ramirez, revives that discussion with an opportunity for the City to pursue resilience center funding through a California Strategic Growth Council grant2 program. Per the staff report:

The Community Resilience Center Grant provides funding ranging from $1 million to $10 million for the development of a resilience center in Twentynine Palms. The grant does not require a local funding match, making it a highly competitive funding opportunity. Grant funds may only be used for the construction of a new facility or the renovation of an existing building.

While the grant itself may have changed, many of the key players involved are still present. On their IRS 990N form below, CLEP has listed “Hope Project 29 Palms, Inc” as the organization’s website URL. Per the 37-page staff report:

The Hope Center has expressed interest in partnering with the City and utilizing its recently acquired property, the former Rite Aid building, as the proposed Resilience Center. It should be noted that the partnership with nonprofit organizations, such as the Hope Center, are viewed favorably under the grant criteria and would likely strengthen the City’s application.

The staff report outlines grant details, city application requirements, and an optimistic timeline. The grant application deadline is September 25, 2026. Before the City can apply, the staff report says the following must be completed:

• Conducting community outreach and stakeholder engagement

• Evaluate site and land use considerations

• Complete the necessary environmental review

• Negotiate a long-term agreement with the Hope Center.

The City currently has $25,000 in its budget dedicated toward grant writing. The staff report estimates grant writing consultant costs for this fast-approaching deadline will be between $15,000 and $18,000. Though a request for proposals for qualified nonprofit partners was not listed on the City website prior to the agenda publication, the staff report specifically lists the Hope Center as a potential partner for this grant.

Despite what the staff report and Hope Center website claim, the Desert Trumpet is unable to verify whether the Hope Center (or Hope Project) is an independent 501c3 nonprofit — it is not listed in the California State DOJ Charitable Trust Registry or with the IRS. Whether the Hope Center has a nonprofit fiscal sponsor, such as CLEP, is not specified in the staff report.

A search of the IRS website for CLEP revealed the matrix of relationships surrounding the Hope Center, with Perry Ford, the Bishop of the Sanctuary Church listed as the Principal Officer of CLEP, “The Hope Project 29 Palms, Inc.”, listed as the website url (sic) and a PO Box for CLEP that appears to be shared with the Hope Center. The IRS allows organizations with less than $50,000 in revenue to file postcards, circumventing the more thorough financial transparency of a full 990 tax return.

The Hope Center, run by Executive Director Terrance Sandifer, provides a number of community services ranging from financial literacy, youth activities, to health and wellbeing. Per the Hope Center website:

Founded in December 2023, The Hope Center is a nonprofit organization recognized by the state of California. Our mission is to foster hope, connection, and inspiration within the community. We serve as a sanctuary where individuals can find support, discover their purpose, and reach their full potential. Through a variety of services and programs, we strive to address social, economic, and health challenges while building stronger community ties.

An expired DOJ registration shows “the Hope Project, The Hope Center” as a DBA of CLEP. However, the current registration has dropped that DBA.

The Desert Trumpet took a deep-dive into the City’s nonprofit partnerships in 2025, available here. Since then, Finance Director Abigail Hernandez-Conde and City staff have tightened requirements for organizations that seek City grant money, recently issuing termination letters that banned some nonprofits and individuals from future City funding for perceived flaws in required financial reports.

The policy requires that before nonprofits can meet eligibility requirements for grant funding, the City checks whether the recipient is in good standing with the state’s nonprofit requirements; if not, no funds are awarded. Yet it appears that no current policy exists regarding grant applications that the City applies for and who it chooses to partner with.

Other local nonprofits that participate in community resilience services include the Hi Desert Emergency Action Alliance and Morongo Basin Unity Home.

Though the City’s current grant budget is capped at $25,000, a future council initiated agenda item acknowledges a potential reallocation of homeless and housing funds to pursuit grants.

An ambitious September 25 deadline may prove to be the proposal's biggest obstacle, regardless of how the partnership question shakes out.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

1. Shade Structures around Freedom Plaza and a possible art fixture with “Freedom Plaza” announcing the location.

2. Discussion on the use of City funds for grants and the potential reallocation of housing and homeless funds to grants.

3. Discussion on the next steps of reallocating $1.3 million for housing.

4. Review and revision to Municipal Code 5.08 related to Cannabis uses to bring the City up to par with new legislation and State Law.

5. Discussion regarding a Moratorium on Data Centers.

6. Discussion on reallocating funds that were set aside for City Hall shade structures to grant writing.

The meeting takes place July 28, 6136 Adobe Road at 6pm. See you there!

NOTE: Desert Trumpet staff members Cindy Bernard, Kat Talley-Jones, and Heidi Heard live in the Indian Cove neighborhood, adjacent to this proposed development project, and are on the executive committees of Indian Cove Neighbors and Say No to Ofland.

Run for City Council! Districts 3 (Mintz), 4 (Scott), and 5 (Wright) are up for election. The nomination period for candidates began July 13, 2026 and ends on August 6, 2026. Contact City Clerk Cindy Villescas for details and check out our article on How to Run for City and Town Council for general guidelines.

Hi, new subscribers! The Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our County news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online or read them later if you change your mind.

Become a paid subscriber!

Subscribing to the Desert Trumpet will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Written with assistance from the Yucca Valley Resident Review Committee.

On a hot July evening, a rare summer audience turned out to educate the Yucca Valley Town Council about horses and rodeos, egged on by an equally heated Facebook thread.

The crowd did not come for the scheduled discussion items. The Council cleared its entire Consent Agenda in under fifteen minutes and moved through five department reports with little debate, but the rodeo that drew the crowd wasn’t up for a vote at all, and the Council was legally barred from acting on it or even responding. Of the roughly two hours and fifteen minutes the meeting ran, general public comment, always scheduled toward the end of business, took 50 minutes and the rodeo claimed most of it. Ten speakers urged Council to revive the Grubstake Days rodeo, while four were against.

Mayor Merl Abel was absent, excused; Mayor Pro Tem Jim Schooler chaired. The Yucca Room was half full; many of the folding seats taken, a few people standing at the back.

Relevant links:

• Meeting agenda

• Our agenda preview

• Video of the meeting

Presentations and Introductions

The meeting opened without an invocation. Instead, Staff introduced two new hires. Deputy Town Manager Frank Luckino introduced Faith Nicholson, the town’s new community engagement and homeless services coordinator. Nicholson is a Yucca Valley High School graduate and former town aquatics employee who has spent the past four years working in the community mental health field. She spoke briefly:

I am really honored to be able to serve my community, especially in this capacity. I’ve received a lot of support and a lot of really positive feedback. So I’m really excited to see where this goes, and I’m excited to see Yucca moving in this direction. I’m excited that I get to be the one to do it.

Deputy Town Manager Shane Stueckle introduced Michaela Crippen, a new part-time kennel technician at the Yucca Valley Animal Shelter.

Consent Agenda

The Council approved the Consent Agenda — items 2 through 13 — by a single 4-0-1 (absence) vote, with one item pulled for discussion. The routine items included the June 16 minutes, three Cal/OSHA safety programs, a Section 125 benefit plan update, the fourth-quarter treasurer’s report, the annual Measure I five-year road plan, June payroll and a warrant register of about $6.73 million, an on-call concrete repair contract, a county road cost-share agreement, and the Hi-Desert Nature Museum re-plumbing project. Our agenda preview covered these in detail.

Item 5 — Tort-liability coalition

The one item pulled from consent was the request that the Town join a statewide coalition seeking to limit local-government liability in lawsuits and lend the Town’s logo to the campaign. Resident Erin Gatlin asked that it not pass on consent, arguing the tradeoffs deserved a presentation and discussion before a single vote. She also questioned why Yucca Valley would sign onto the coalition at all:

I oppose approval of this particular item…I think we should allow for a presentation and opportunity for discussion before it is considered by a single vote, because there are trade-offs for both the community and residents. I’m also not clear why Yucca Valley would sign on to support this coalition when the Town insurer is in a completely different risk pool. So, whatever this vote, however this vote is resolved, it doesn’t actually affect us at all.

That is the same point the Desert Trumpet raised in its preview: the coalition is a California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA) effort, while the Town’s insurer is the California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA), a separate pool. Council Member Robert Lombardo responded that liability costs affect the town regardless, that litigation awards have grown to the point of harming municipalities, and that reasonable limits were worth pursuing. The Council approved participation 4-0-1 (Abel absent).

Department Reports

Item 14 — Aquatics center quarterly update

Jen Wagner, the Project Manager from Dahlin, gave the eighth quarterly update on the Yucca Valley Aquatics and Recreation Center (YV ARC). The project is 89% complete with 78 calendar days remaining, but a deck-slope issue at the natatorium pool “may extend project completion.” An opening in early 2027 was projected once inspections, commissioning, and staffing are complete.

Resident Diane Hartl spoke to concerns over lighting, citing she is a “MDLT girl” referring to the Mojave Desert Land Trust, and a “night sky girl” and that the facility “will shine its lumens down and not up.” Staff responded that the YV ARC is compliant with the Yucca Valley night sky ordinance.

A notable moment came later, during staff comments, when Deputy Town Manager Shane Stueckle offered an extended defense of the schedule on what he called the largest project the town has ever built, at a roughly $50 million total investment. He attributed delays to a Western Joshua Tree permitting requirement that fell on the Town (not the contractor) and required Fish and Wildlife permits, plus some design issues and construction-plan questions. He noted the contract carries liquidated damages of $3,000 per day for contractor-caused delays, and that the Town has already initiated those conversations with the contractor. Stueckle framed the project as close to its original schedule with a difference of roughly six months on a $50 million build — and still within budget.

Item 15 — Tripepi Smith communications contract

The Council approved a multi-year professional services agreement with communications firm Tripepi Smith through June 30, 2028, at an $8,550 monthly retainer, 4-0-1 (absence). The Town has used the firm since 2021. Account director Alexis Gillam presented the firm’s work, citing campaigns for the Town’s 35th anniversary, the Orchid Festival, the State of the Town video, and emergency communications, along with engagement metrics.

Two residents spoke. Diane Hartl asked whether the firm had drawn on the Morongo Basin Historical Society’s archives and pressed for more public fire-safety awareness. Cheryl Contopulos urged the Town to do more to publicize the animal shelter’s turnaround, noting the dog save rate had climbed from around 40% to nearly 90%:

…the dogs. There’s almost 100 as some of you might know…and they’re wonderful dogs. And I think celebrating the fact that the save rate for dogs was 40% before, and now it’s to 90%. We’re almost at no kill. Town needs to know that. The Morongo Basin needs to know that.

Council members praised the firm; Denison highlighted its responsiveness on public-safety and emergency messaging. As covered in our preview, the staff report’s budget figures don’t fully reconcile: the $120,000 cited for FY26-27 is about $7,600 short of the $102,600 annual retainer plus the firm’s recommended $25,000 as-needed budget.

Item 16 — Independence Day recap

Recreation staff recapped the July 3 Summer Music Festival and Fireworks Spectacular at Yucca Valley High School Stadium, co-sponsored by the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, whose financial support cut the Town’s fireworks cost by half. The date moved from July 4 to July 3 because the town's fireworks contractor, PyroSpectaculars, could not secure a pyrotechnician for July 4 — a consequence, Recreation Supervisor Clayton Rardon said, of a national pyrotechnician shortage1.

The staff report asked the Council to “provide direction regarding future Independence Day events.” The context: last year’s show, also run by PyroSpectaculars, was cut short by equipment problems, and the Town was given a credit as a result. Council members were uniformly positive and leaned toward keeping the July 3 date permanently, with next year’s event likely at the completed aquatics center. Councilmember Drozd floated a drone show for the Yucca Valley Aquatics Center opening. No formal action was taken.

Items 17 and 18 — Investment policy and voting delegate

Finance Manager Jordan Gumbish presented the biennial investment policy update, which consisted of clarifying language only, with no change to strategy, alongside a portfolio update from the town’s investment manager, Chandler Asset Management. The Council approved the policy 4-0-1 (absence).

With City Clerk Dudra confirming the Mayor’s intent to attend all three days of the League of California Cities annual conference in Anaheim this September, he was designated as the voting delegate in abstentions, with Councilmembers Lombardo and Denison offering to serve as alternates. Mayor Pro Tem Schooler indicated that he would be attending two of the three days of the conference.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by clicking the button below and receiving Desert Trumpet in your inbox!

Subscribe now

Future Agenda Items

Councilmember Lombardo raised the idea of a sister-city program, prompted by conversations with foreign visitors, suggesting a possible student or staff exchange. He asked to keep it “on the radar” without moving it forward, citing the Town’s current workload.

Public Comment: The rodeo arrives at Town Hall

The Grubstake Days rodeo dominated public comment at the June 16 meeting, when residents turned out to ask the Council to help revive the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association (PRCA) rodeo that was once the celebration’s headline attraction. However, an opposing side showed up for public comment at this meeting: two speakers asked the Council to ban rodeos in Yucca Valley outright. Audience sentiment still tilted heavily toward revival with ten speakers urging the Council to bring the rodeo back while four were against.

Because the item was not on the agenda, Mayor Pro Tem Schooler reminded the room that the Council could listen but could not act or comment. Nothing was decided.

How the crowd got here

By the time of the July 21 meeting, the rodeo had already been argued by advocates for both sides for three weeks in the opinion pages of the Hi-Desert Star and across local Facebook groups. The print exchange ran as a back-and-forth: a July 1 letter to the editor by Allie Irwin of Joshua Tree, Rodeos are not a tradition worth restoring, urged the Council to ban rodeos; it was answered by a July 8 guest column by revival organizer Missy Buchanan, Rodeo celebrates values that shaped Yucca Valley; which them prompted a July 15 letter by Melissa Spurr, also of Joshua Tree, Suffering is built into rodeo events.

The debate spilled onto social media the same week. On July 15, Gina Pasquini, who led the call for revival at the June 16 meeting, posted in the Facebook group “What’s Going On in the Morongo Basin,” urging supporters to attend the July 21 Town Council meeting, while also branding those opposed as “a certain group that opposes western sports” who “don’t even reside in the Morongo Basin.”; on July 18, Buchanan posted a campaign update in a second group, “What’s Really Going On In The Morongo Basin,” announcing that “the countdown to Memorial Weekend 2027 has begun.” Between the print and online threads, the exchange drew hundreds of reactions and comments and turned, at times, personal.

In fact, the most visible opponents are Morongo Basin residents: Irwin and Spurr both live in Joshua Tree, and other speakers against the rodeo revival identified as Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms residents. A speaker in favor mentioned being from Landers. Joshua Tree, Landers, Yucca Valley, and Twentynine Palms are all Morongo Basin communities. The “outsider” accusation draws a town-line boundary around an argument that appears to be Basin-wide on both sides.

In the meeting, Sandra Harkness’ characterization of the opposition was as extreme as she apparently believes the opposition to be:

…owning an animal, in their view, is slavery. This is the extreme people we’re dealing with. So when they get up here and talk, I’d like you to take them with a grain of salt because they’re based in emotion and not fact.

Mayor Pro Tem Schooler, in his role as acting Chair, eventually interrupted:

If we could refrain from disparaging any other speakers, everybody’s….

Harkness stopped Schooler, indicating she was speaking “in general.”

The revival case

In front of Council, Pasquini was upbeat, calling the rodeo effort “my brainchild…my baby.” She discussed working on rodeos elsewhere before returning to Yucca Valley where she was raised and asked that the Grubstakes rodeo be placed on a future agenda:

I miss Grubstakes Days. I saw Grubstakes Days in its grandeur. I was in the Grubstakes Days parade with my horse. I think by preserving our past, we strengthen our future. We can’t forget everything that we’ve done in our past, and I really do want to team with you guys. You represent the city. We’re the city. I want to work with you.

She was followed by longtime residents and a series of youth riders. The most detailed defense came from Kaylin Moon, 16, a former “Tiny Miss Grubstake Days Rodeo Queen” in 2017, whose Mom, “was a rodeo queen for Yucca Valley in 1996,” and aunt “was a rodeo princess in Yucca Valley in 1998.” A member of the California High School Rodeo Association, she argued the sport is closely regulated:

The PRCA has a rule book that is 250 pages long with extensive rules and regulations that protect the animals. I know from my own experiences that rodeo competitors and livestock contractors take amazing care of their animals. These animals are not only their livelihood and a huge investment, but are part of their family.

The youngest speaker, Lucy Olea, tied the sport to daily responsibility for the animals in her family’s care:

A rodeo is a competitive equestrian sport that displays the working skills of cowboys and cowgirls. Although I have never been a rancher. I do have 13 chickens, two guinea fowl, two turkeys, four dogs, one lizard, and three beautiful horses. I am responsible for feeding, mucking2, and exercising our horses…

I don’t play soccer. I don’t play pickleball. I ride horses.

The ban case

Allie Irwin asked the Council to do something concrete: sponsor a future agenda item to consider a municipal ordinance:

…what I’m asking is for the Council to put a consideration of a municipal ordinance prohibiting rodeo events in Yucca Valley on an upcoming agenda. I’d like you to address town sponsorship, use of town property, and the event permitting process. Fighting over whether to have a rodeo isn’t a dispute where reasonable people can agree to disagree, and I don’t expect the Council to settle that for me tonight. There are genuinely different beliefs in this room, but there is one group here with no voice and no vote.

Irwin added that taking this move aligns Yucca Valley:

with a documented trend among California municipalities, reduces the town’s exposure to liability, code enforcement, animal control demands, and takes into account the desires of a minority but a substantial number of community members who believe that animals are exploited in rodeos.

Brenda Calvillo of Twentynine Palms also called for a ban and noted that the past need not determine the future:

Communities evolve. We can honor our Western heritage without using animals in competitive events. Respecting tradition and showing compassion are not mutually exclusive. They can go hand in hand. Yucca Valley has the opportunity to create events that celebrate our unique community without putting animals at risk. Imagine a Western heritage festival with live country music, line dancing, cowboy poetry, historical reenactments, local artisans, blacksmith demonstrations, delicious food vendors and performances that focus incredible skills without involving animals.

Beyond the rodeo

Public comment ranged well past the rodeo, with wildfire a recurring worry. Janet MacKinnon, a licensed architect, and Norman Shertzman both raised the risk from invasive plants and tumbleweed on open land near the airport. MacKinnon framed it as a wildfire fuel problem:

We have an invasive plant invasion here in Yucca Valley. There are many invasive species: Sierra mustard, ragweed, tumbleweed, and goat heads, and several grasses that are visible as yellow grasses on the desert floor, driving east as you go to Copper Mountain College. If one continues east past the college, the sand color returns to the desert floor. These grasses – red brome, cheatgrass, and Mediterranean grass – are highly formidable and have plagued Joshua Tree National Park for years, resulting in a serious wildfire problem that wasn’t there before. The Yucca Valley Town Council may be a solution to this problem by leading the effort for removal and disposal of invasives to nip this invasion in the bud, so to speak.

She request the item be placed on a future agenda. MacKinnon echoed a basin-wide worry that these invasive grasses have reshaped the fire danger across the Morongo Basin and into the national park.

Bobbie Breckenridge asked the Council to take a stand on federal immigration enforcement, an unusual request in Yucca:

Almost every single one of us in this room has an immigrant story we are proud of… I am here today to make a powerful request to this council to protect the residents of Yucca Valley from the faithless and unlawful activities of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency… [beginning with] adopt a local sanctuary policy consistent with California's SB 54 that limits local cooperation with ICE, so we do not use our town resources, time, labor, funding to assist this agency. Number two, pass a resolution limiting use of town-owned property for ICE operations unless required by a court-issued judicial warrant. And number three, support and fund the dissemination of Know Your Rights materials.

Council and Staff Comments

Captain Steven Scovel of the Sheriff’s Department reported nothing noteworthy call-wise and praised new hire Faith Nicholson’s work on homeless encampments. Councilmembers welcomed the two new employees, praised the July 3 celebration and the aquatics center’s progress, and, as Lombardo put it, thanked the public for a “respectful exchange” of views. Schooler closed by echoing the sentiment.

The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 18, 2026.

Play Bingo and support nonprofit local journalism. Join us at the Red Dog Saloon on Monday, July 27 at 6:30pm for Desert Bingo — proceeds benefit the Desert Trumpet!

This report was produced with some AI assistance, reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by humans. Please see our AI policy.

Run for Town Council! Districts 1 (Schooler), 3 (Abel) and 5 (Denison) are up for election. The nomination period for candidates begins July 13, 2026 and ends on August 6, 2026. Contact Town Clerk Brooke Dudra for details and check out our article on How to Run for City and Town Council for general guidelines.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Support Desert Trumpet’s coverage of Yucca Valley Town Council — become a paid subscriber!

The Desert Trumpet’s reporting will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

This is going to be a long one, but it’s important, so grab a fresh cup of coffee and a cookie (preferably from Campbell Hill) and dig in! The article includes a report on a presentation given by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Mojave Desert Land Trust (MDLT), questions and answers that came up during the meeting, separate research from the Desert Trumpet, and a list of things the NPCA and MDLT suggest you can do if you want to push back against the Music Valley Mine.

A packed room of Morongo Basin residents turned out on July 15 to learn about Music Valley Mine, a proposed rare earth element mining project staked on public land just outside Joshua Tree National Park and just inside the boundaries of Twentynine Palms.

The town hall was hosted by the NPCA and the MDLT, two conservation groups that have been raising alarms about the project since early this year and which used the meeting to inform Hi-Desert residents about actions they can take.

NPCA’s California Desert Program leads, Mason Osgood and Chance Wilcox, ran the meeting alongside MDLT public policy staff Krystian Lahage and Dr. Michelle Benedum. All four made clear they are not against mining in general, but said this particular project run by this particular company does not belong so close to a national park and a fast-growing gateway community.

What’s at Stake in Music Valley

The Music Valley Mining Project will scrape lands for rare earth minerals within a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) that overlays most of the Pinto Mountains Wilderness. The wilderness was intended to protect lands adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park, and the areas of critical environmental concern protect “historical, cultural, and scenic values” and have been highlighted lately to safeguard Mojave desert tortoise habitat.

Dateline Resources, a mining company based in Sydney, Australia, has staked what the NPCA estimates at roughly 20,000 acres of claims1 within Music Valley mostly to search for heavy rare earth elements used in electronics, magnets, and military equipment. The claims stretch close enough to the park that, as Osgood put it, a person can stand at a claim stake and see the Joshua Tree North Entrance station. In June, new claims crossed the boundary of the City of Twentynine Palms itself.

No mine permit application has been filed for Music Valley and, by the agencies' own accounts, no government entity has been formally asked to review it. The BLM, which manages the land through its Barstow Field Office, told the Desert Trumpet it has "not received a plan of operations" for the project. San Bernardino County and the City of Twentynine Palms each say they have not been notified by the BLM or by the company.

So far the activity is limited to staking and exploration: Under the 1872 Mining Law, which has barely changed in over 150 years, anyone can stake a claim for about $200 and then begin exploration, including drilling and road-building, often with little public notice. And because the claims sit on federal land, most permitting would run through that federal process rather than local government (see the jurisdiction question below). Wilcox and Osgood said the road most likely to serve the mine, Gold Park Road, runs directly through the Twentynine Palms Hansen Tract neighborhood.

Video of mining claim off of Gold Park Road in the area marked “new claims” on the NPCA map, in the vicinity of Utah Trail. Video scans to Hansen Tract and Sky’s the Limit. (Anonymous reader).

The Company Behind the Claims

Much of the meeting focused on the company behind the claims: Dateline Resources, which Chance Wilcox called “a junior mining company” based in Australia. Wilcox walked the crowd through Dateline’s history at Colosseum Mine, an old gold mine inside Mojave National Preserve. The mine closed in 1993, but water at the site still shows high sulfate levels more than 30 years later.

When Dateline bought Colosseum in 2021, it began bulldozing and building new roads without a valid permit from the National Park Service (NPS), according to Wilcox. The NPS ordered the company to stop and demanded more than $200,000 in damages. Wilcox said that dispute quieted down after the 2024 election, and the NPS later withdrew its permit demands as the new administration pushed to fast-track mineral production. Bulldozing at Colosseum has continued since.

Wilcox also noted that Dateline is pursuing a strontium project inside Mojave Trails National Monument and is the subject of two ongoing lawsuits, one over how it acquired the Music Valley claims and one filed by NPCA against the Department of the Interior.

San Bernardino County Planning Commission Recommends Giving Up Local Permitting Over Mines on Federal Land

The Desert Trumpet reported on the July 9 San Bernardino Planning Commission hearing that recommended that the County Board of Supervisors adopt a full repeal and reenactment of the development code chapter that is the local rulebook for surface mining.

Its key change adds a new “Federal Lands” section stating that a County permit “shall not be required” for mining activity that already has federal approval, meaning a green light from the Bureau of Land Management would let a project skip County review entirely.2 Of the 32 people who spoke at that hearing, none supported the change; about a third specifically raised Music Valley. The commission voted to recommend the rewrite anyway, and it now heads to the Board of Supervisors.

Four conservation groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, the Sierra Club, and the National Parks Conservation Association — submitted a legal letter to the San Bernardino County Planning Commission urging denial, arguing the federal-lands carve-out illegally surrenders the County's state-law permitting and environmental-review duties. In a step groups typically take when preparing to sue, the groups remind the County to preserve its records. (The full letter is attached.)

Comments Re Sb Co Mining Ordinance Changes Agenda Item 3 7 8 26

367KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Desert Trumpet’s research also shows a wrinkle in the jurisdiction question. County staff told the Planning Commission that the Music Valley Mine is “located within Riverside County” and outside the County’s authority — but Dateline’s own June 2026 press release describes the project as spanning “Riverside and San Bernardino Counties,” and a map comparison by the Desert Trumpet suggests the newest claims fall inside the Twentynine Palms city limits. Community Development Director Keith Gardner concurs that the area appears to fall within City limits, which lie entirely in San Bernardino County — this is also supported by the NPCA map.

Location, though, doesn’t settle who would actually review the mine. Because the claims sit on federal BLM land, neither the County or the City is the lead permitting agency: the County’s proposed ordinance would waive the County permit for operations that already have federal approval, and the City says it would not be the lead agency for a mine on federal land within its boundary. So even if the claims sit inside San Bernardino County or Twentynine Palms, the mining itself would be authorized federally, leaving the County a role mainly in after-the-fact reclamation and the City with little formal say.

The County also faced criticism over how it publicized the hearing itself: legal notice ran once, in a valley-side newspaper roughly 90 miles from the affected desert communities, rather than in any of the Morongo Basin’s own papers. Some residents said they learned of the meeting only a day or two beforehand. A Wrightwood contingent of 13 speakers turned out at the same hearing over a separate project, the Lone Pine Canyon Road Quarry, but raised nearly identical complaints about rushed process and limited notice — suggesting the ordinance fight extends well beyond Music Valley.

In an interview with z107.7 FM on July 10, Supervisor Dawn Rowe conceded the lack of notice on the change in County code:

…shame on the County. We could have done a better job of saying this is coming and what it means to the basin… that didn’t happen.

What Organizers Are Asking Residents to Do

Because NPCA and MDLT see little chance of a fair hearing from the federal BLM under the current administration, they are urging residents to focus their energy locally. That means attending City Council meetings, pushing for a moratorium on mining traffic on City-controlled roads such as Baseline, Utah Trail, and Gold Park Road, and contacting water districts about mining's water demands. It also means showing up to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors meeting where the ordinance change will be considered and insisting that a form of local review, including public hearings, be called out in the proposed code revision. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 18. A petition addressed to the Board of Supervisors was circulating at the meeting.

• Attend the Twentynine Palms City Council meetings on July 28 and August 11 and 25 and speak against the Music Valley mine. Our preview of the July 14 Council meeting includes tips for commenting using the new remote system as well as the new guidelines for comment length.

• Attend or comment at the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors meetings on August 4 and August 18 at 10 a.m. at the Covington Chambers, 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., First Floor, San Bernardino. Residents can also comment remotely. Guidelines for public comment to the County are here.

• Sign the MDLT petition3

• Sign up for updates from the National Parks Conservation Association: mosgood@nspca.org

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by clicking the button below and receiving Desert Trumpet in your inbox!

Subscribe now

Audience Questions and Answers

Questions and answers have been edited and shortened for readability.

Q: Beth Sheffield: Is it true that the bulk of the mining claims are in Riverside County, not San Bernardino?

A: Chance Wilcox: Dan Walsh, the geologist for the county, said [at the July 9 San Bernardino County Planning Commission meeting], “Well, on a technicality, Music Valley Mine is not in San Bernardino County,” which is a half-truth. The patented claims, the claims that they own that they bought, are in Riverside County, but the bulk of all the new claims are all in San Bernardino County, which means that San Bernardino County has more to lose than Riverside County does.

Q. Beth Sheffield: So I think with the redistricting plan that they did recently for voting, does that mean that that area is actually going to be in Raul Ruiz’s district?

Yes, it is entirely in Representative Ruiz’s district [California District 25]4. Representative Jay Obernolte [California District 23] has taken a lot of photos with Dateline Resources and put them in his newsletter5…. Representative Ruiz has been particularly responsive when it comes to desert protections and understanding proper siting. We’ve had a great relationship with him, and he knows about the project.

Q: (Audience member): Are you putting any resources into legally challenging what the County would be doing if they adopt the proposal as it now has been recommended by the planning committee?

A: Wilcox: We are a national organization that’s subject to a lot of bureaucracy, and I can’t answer that question. But what I can say is that we always consider legal action when it comes to it. But right now, it just passed the Planning Commission and still has to go to the Board of Supervisors. So you all have a voice at that Board of Supervisors meeting, and we’ll see what happens there.

Q: Daniel Mintz (Mayor of Twentynine Palms): I have a couple of questions for 29 Palms specifically. The claim has to go through the City of Twentynine Palms, for the portion that’s in our City boundary. We have not heard from these folks at all, officially or unofficially. When you mentioned the claim for the portion that’s in the City of Twentynine Palms, will that claim have to come to us and not through the County?

A: Mason Osgood Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know exactly what your land use could say for projects like this, but if there are conditions in the City of Twentynine Palms land use code that a development project has to go to you guys and get some permits for road use and truck use, air quality use, then yes, they would go to you. Though if there’s not current land use codes under your jurisdiction…

Q. Daniel Mintz
We have mining codes.6

A: Mason Osgood
Then yes, you’re correct.

A: Chance Wilcox
The thing is that we don’t know because we’ve never seen this before. I think this also proves that this company in particular is very bold because we haven’t seen a mining company stake claims in a city. It just is not very common.

Q: Daniel Mintz
You were saying about the EIR [Environmental Impact Report] and CEQA, they would they would have to go through the federal government after the state CEQA and the state EIR.

A: Mason Osgood
So if they are moving toward the full mine process, they would have to go through the state of California CEQA process as well.

Q: Daniel Mintz
You know we turned down that solar farm in the city limits, but now that company took it back to the state, so we’re hoping we can beat them at that. So, do you guys hear any more about that? That’s going to be coming up. Make sure you use your voice for that too, because we turned that down.

A: Chance Wilcox
The City also owns the roads, and they need to use the roads. And the road goes through the Hansen Tract. If City does feel as though it’s in the best interest of the people for this, another action item is also to put a moratorium on the use of roads for mining activities within the City.

Q: Ruth Nolan: Is there information on possible pollution or air quality impacts? Could this become a Superfund site? Are they required to clean up? And what kind of pollution specifically?

A: Mason Osgood: There are certainly air impacts when it comes to large-scale mining, and we’re happy to provide some studies that have been done on other mines that operate in the Western United States. If this company does go through the full mine, they have to go through the whole Air Quality Control Act, Clean Air Act permitting, and that’s where they address a lot of those issues.

A: Chance Wilcox: With this federal administration right now, we’re seeing a lot of fast tracking of mining environmental impact statements as well. I’ve also heard that they are starting to use AI to write the environmental impact statements, so there’s also a big concern about accuracy right now with this administration.

With Colosseum, there is water pollution…after they closed in 1993, we’re still seeing high sulfate levels in water, and then with dust too, with all of the activity. This is not new. There are a lot of different mining projects throughout the desert that we’re still engaged on.

One project I point to is called Conglomerate Mesa, which is next to Lone Pine up in the Owens Valley. They have gone through pretty much this entire process for the last 10 years, if not more, at this point, and the BLM just made a decision.

When we talked to the coalition that worked on that project [Protect Conglomerate Mesa], they said, “The community has a voice. Talk to the counties. Talk to the City. Talk to everyone and prove that you do not want this.” Because at the end, no matter where this goes, it proves during the environmental impact statements and the assessments that the community had a voice, and that the community said, “Hey, we don’t want polluting.”

Q: Catherine Powell: Is it important for a large contingent to go to the next County Board of Supervisors meeting on August 18 or the central budget meeting on this issue? Have folks talked to the tribes? What documentation do you have about the rare earth mining site near the border of California?

A: Chance Wilcox: We are starting conversations with the tribe. First and foremost they’re always involved in everything we do, so we don’t have a specific statement from them yet or a specific stance. So I want to say that we are in conversation.

Mountain Pass does have good documentation. Mountain Pass is a weird situation. I only point to it as like an example of what this [Music Valley], could be. But it’s entirely on private property. They own all of that. They don’t have to go through any of the federal processes there besides pollution. But Mountain Pass does have documentation of pollution. That’s something that we can really point to as being a bad decision when it’s so close to people [ Music Valley] because Mountain Pass is not that close to people.

Q: (Wonder Valley resident): Are there access roads through Wonder Valley?

A: Chance Wilcox. One thing we didn’t mention because the main claims that they purchased are right here, which are accessed by Gold Park. Shelton Road is over here, so their new claims that they’ve staked are accessed by Shelton Road as well, which is concerning. If the City puts a moratorium on road usage for mining, it still leaves Shelton vulnerable, and that’s one thing that needs to be with the County in particular is that they may need to do the same thing as the City.

Q: (Audience member): Is there something we can do to get the Board of Supervisors’ attention — would petitions help?

A: Krystian Lahage. Yes — there’s a petition addressed to the Board of Supervisors on the ordinance. NPCA and MDLT are also hosting community and business mixers to build pressure. [See petition link above]

Q: Audience member: How can residents target Dateline’s investors to slow the project down?

A: Chance Wilcox: I think that you might hear from some people that they think that this is all a ploy for investment, that this company is seeking to throw all of its money into other projects like Colosseum.

But don’t get too comfortable with that idea. I think that making a fuss is important. That showing up and utilizing the media in the proper way is also important.

Thankfully, Twentynine Palms has a broad array of levels of media. You have so many different people in this room who can portray exactly what you’re thinking and feeling and acting as a community, and so showing up in numbers is going to be important and engaging media, and that’s also where we come in.

Dateline is very open on their investment page on their website. They say everything that they’re doing all the time. But there is one thing that they hide, and it is the location of their mining activity next to national parks. They have hidden it in all three of their projects in the California desert and so broadcasting that and their relationship to Joshua Tree and Mojave Preserve and Mojave Trails National Monument is very, very important. In your comments, point out the relationship to national parks because they know they’re hiding it.

Q: Octavious Scott (Mayor Pro Tem, Twentynine Palms) I actually represent District 4, which encompasses the Hansen Tract neighborhood, and I just wanted to take this time to answer some questions from concerned constituents and let them know I think it is very important that we agendize this for a City Council meeting. I’m not sure of that by August 11th, but I definitely intend on trying to put this on the agenda.

It’s inconsistent with the general plan of the City of Twentynine Palms. We rely on tourism. We rely on Joshua Tree National Park, and you know we’ve already seen some development that has hindered that vision of our City. So I think it’s important that we be a little bit proactive this time and ensure that we protect neighborhoods, especially the Hansen Tract, as it’s a gateway to Joshua Tree National Park. I want to thank you for all you guys coming — the National Park Conservation Association, Mojave Land Trust — out here. Thank you guys for putting this on. Your City is listening.

Play Bingo and support nonprofit local journalism. Join us at the Red Dog Saloon on Monday, July 27 at 6:30pm for Desert Bingo — proceeds benefit the Desert Trumpet!

References

Reporting & commentary

• Los Angeles Times, “Next to Joshua Tree National Park, a mining company is staking its claim for rare earth minerals,” March 30, 2026. [insert LAT URL]

• Cindy Bernard, “San Bernardino County Planning Commission Recommends Giving Up Local Permitting Over Mines on Federal Land,” Desert Trumpet, July 13, 2026.

• Kurt Schauppner, “Australian company plans rare earth mining near Joshua Tree National Park,” The Desert Trail (Hi-Desert Star), July 9, 2026.

• Peyton Daley, “Rare earths mining takes a heavy toll. Is it worth moving mountains for a domestic supply?” Stanford University, & the West, January 31, 2026.

• Friends of Jawbone, “Federal Court Orders OHV Route Closures in Mojave Desert,” February 4, 2026.

Interviews & podcasts

• 90 Miles from Needles, “Don’t Mine 29! Australian Company Threatens Joshua Tree,” podcast.

• Z107.7 FM, “Will there be a mining operation in the Pinto Mountains outside Twentynine Palms?”

• Z107.7 FM (Gary Daigneault), “Up Close with Dawn Rowe,” interview with Supervisor Dawn Rowe. [insert URL]

Company documents

• Dateline Resources Limited (company website).

• Dateline Resources Limited, “Dateline Expands Music Valley HREE Project,” ACCESS Newswire, June 22, 2026.

• Dateline Resources Limited, “Dateline Returns Widespread REE Mineralisation at Music Valley,” via Yahoo Finance, July 15, 2026. [insert correct URL]

Government records & primary documents

• San Bernardino County Planning Commission, “Agenda and Staff Report, Item 3 (PMISC-2026-00029),” July 9, 2026.

• City of Twentynine Palms, Development Code, Chapter 19.58 (Surface Mining and Land Reclamation Permit) and §§ 19.20.030, 19.18.020, via Municode.

• Bureau of Land Management, Pinto Mountains Wilderness.

• Bureau of Land Management, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (program overview).

• Bureau of Land Management, “BLM CA Areas of Critical Environmental Concern” data layer (Pinto Mountains ACEC).

• Bureau of Land Management, West Mojave Route Network Project.

• Bureau of Land Management, Mineral & Land Records System (MLRS).

• Desert tortoise WEMO remand-and-remedy court order, “Order,” January 23, 2026.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mojave desert tortoise (ESA-listed threatened) and designated critical habitat.

• The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Immediate Action to Increase American Mineral Production,” March 2025.

• Osbourne Minerals Inc., Notice of Location, “JT1057” Lode Mining Claim, June 29, 2026, San Bernardino County (field photograph).

• Correspondence with San Bernardino County Land Use Services, the City of Twentynine Palms Community Development Department, and the Bureau of Land Management (Barstow and Palm Springs–South Coast field offices), July 2026.

Legal references

• General Mining Law of 1872; BLM surface-management regulations, 43 CFR Part 3809.

• Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), California Public Resources Code § 2710 et seq.; CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).

• California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987).

NOTE: Desert Trumpet staff members Cindy Bernard, Kat Talley-Jones, and Heidi Heard are on the organizing committee of Indian Cove Neighbors, which filed a lawsuit on the Ofland Resort with co-litigants the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) who are mentioned in this article.

This report was produced with some AI assistance, reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by humans. Please see our AI policy.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Support Desert Trumpet’s coverage of the Music Valley Mine — become a paid subscriber!

The Desert Trumpet’s reporting will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

  Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

By the Yucca Valley Resident Review Committee

The Council returns on Tuesday, July 21, at 5:00 p.m. in the Yucca Room of the Community Center, with eighteen items and no public hearings. Twelve of the items sit on the Consent Agenda, meaning they’re set to pass in a single vote unless a Council member or resident pulls one for discussion. We flag six worth a closer look, among them a tort-reform coalition sign-on, a sole-bidder contract, and a claim rejection where the public record is silent on what the claim is actually about.

Three of the five Department Reports are worth previewing: a quarterly update on the aquatics center (still delayed), a renewed communications contract with Tripepi Smith, and a recap of the July 3 fireworks that asks the Council to discuss the event's future.

Relevant documents:

• Meeting agenda

• Recap of the June 16 meeting

INVOCATION

The agenda does not list an invocation speaker for this meeting. The previous two meetings named speakers, but that’s the exception rather than the rule — historically the Town lists them only occasionally. Under Resolution 13-02, invocation speakers are drawn from a Congregations List maintained by the Town Clerk, and the Council and Clerk are barred from reviewing prayer content in advance.

PUBLIC COMMENT

You can comment on agenda items and issues important to you at every Town Council meeting. Comments on agenda items take place during discussion of that item, while comments on non-agenda items take place near the end of the meeting. The Brown Act prevents Council from discussing non-agenda items. To comment, just pick up a form at the desk to the left of the mic, fill it out, and hand it to the Clerk, who sits at a table, also to the left of the mic.

Here’s the list of Council email addresses to write if you can’t get to the meeting — be sure to email them prior to 2 pm on the date of the meeting so they have time to read your comment prior to the meeting. You can check the Town’s district map to find your representative.

• Mayor Pro Tem Jim Schooler (District 1) jschooler@yucca-valley.org

• Council Member Jeff Drozd (District 2) jdrozd@yucca-valley.org

• Mayor Merl Abel (District 3) mabel@yucca-valley.org

• Council Member Robert Lombardo (District 4) rlombardo@yucca-valley.org

• Council Member Rick Denison (District 5) rdenison@yucca-valley.org

You can also copy the clerk at townclerk@yucca-valley.org and ask that your letter be made part of the public record.

The meeting offers remote participation two ways, by Zoom and by phone, with comment time limited to three minutes:

• By Zoom: join at https://zoom.us/j/98109341005 (Meeting ID: 981 0934 1005, Passcode: 389056)

• By Phone: the agenda lists the dial-in as “(669) 0934-1005”, but that number won’t connect as printed. Phone participation is new this month, and the details are still being sorted out. We’ve asked the Town Clerk for the correct number and will update when we hear back. In the meantime, the Zoom link above also works for audio-only participation. (Note 7/21/26: the correct number is (669) 900-6833.)

Participants are muted on entry and can “raise their hand” or notify the moderator to comment. Phone participants press *9 to raise a hand and *6 to unmute when called on, with further instructions given during the meeting.

PRESENTATIONS, INTRODUCTIONS, RECOGNITIONS

The agenda does not list any presentations, introductions, or recognitions for this meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA (CA)

The Consent Agenda consists of items usually approved with a single vote. The public is given a chance to make public comment on these items prior to the Council motion. Fill out a comment form specifying the item you wish to address and submit it in person, or send an email in advance regarding any of the items on this meeting’s Consent Agenda.

The Consent Agenda runs from Item 2 (approval of the June 16 minutes) through Item 13. Item 8 approves June payroll registers totaling $686,603.42, a $2,855.17 payroll correction, and a warrant register of $6,732,811.86. The remaining routine items cover maintaining compliance with three Cal/OSHA safety programs (Item 4), an updated Section 125 employee benefit plan (Item 6), the fourth-quarter treasurer’s report (Item 12), and the annual Measure I five-year road plan (Item 9), which keeps the Town eligible for its roughly $900,000–$1,000,000 in annual Measure I revenue. Six items are worth a closer look.

CA3. Rejection of Claim

The Council is asked to reject a claim filed against the Town on May 18, 2026, by Mary Gonsalves, on the recommendation of staff, legal counsel, and the Town’s insurer, the California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA). Rejecting a claim is a routine procedural step, it preserves the Town’s position and starts the clock on any lawsuit. As is typical in California cities, the staff report gives only the claimant's name and filing date. Residents wanting the underlying facts would need to file a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request for the claim form.

CA5. Consideration of Participation in the Coalition to Reform California’s Tort Liability System

Buried in the Consent Agenda is a policy stance, not a housekeeping matter — and one that cuts two ways for nearly every resident. This item asks the Council to join a statewide advocacy coalition seeking to limit how much local governments pay when they're sued, and to authorize the Town Manager to lend the Town's logo to the campaign.

The reforms would affect residents in two opposing capacities. As taxpayers, residents have an interest in lowering the Town's liability exposure, since money spent on judgments and settlements is money unavailable for services. But as potential claimants — anyone injured by a Town sidewalk, vehicle, or facility — those same reforms would reduce what they could recover if the Town or another defendant caused them harm. California voters already eliminated joint-and-several liability for non-economic damages through Proposition 51 in 1986; this coalition seeks to extend that treatment to economic damages such as medical bills and lost wages, including in situations where a co-defendant is uninsured or unable to pay. That is the tradeoff residents may want to weigh before it passes in a single vote.

The staff report describes participation as “advocacy oriented,” with no fiscal impact. The request to participate is branded “Coalition to Protect Community Services,” an initiative of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (California JPIA) — though the staff report titles the item differently, as the “Coalition to Reform California’s Tort Liability System.” Worth noting: Yucca Valley’s insurer is a different risk pool, the California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA), so the Town is being asked to lend its logo to a coalition organized by a pool it doesn’t belong to.

The coalition’s June 12, 2026 letter to the Legislature cites a 370% rise in local-agency insurance premiums since 2016 (to $541 million in 2025) and public-entity liability exposure now exceeding $7 billion. Participating agencies include high-desert neighbors Barstow, Needles, and Apple Valley.

CA7. AB 1234 Council Travel Report – June 2026

A receive-and-file report on Council travel for June 2026. Council Member Rick Denison again logged the most activity — six meetings across four days, all San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) committee and board sessions:

• Council Member Rick Denison — six meetings:

  • June 3, SBCTA Board of Directors Meeting (San Bernardino)

  • June 4, SCAG Energy and Environment Committee Meeting (Los Angeles)

  • June 4, SCAG Regional Council Meeting (Los Angeles)

  • June 10, SBCTA General Policy Committee Meeting (San Bernardino)

  • June 10, SBCTA Legislative Policy Committee Meeting (San Bernardino)

  • June 11, SBCTA Transit Committee Meeting (San Bernardino)

• Mayor Merl Abel — June 18, League of California Cities Desert Mountain Division (DMD) meeting (Barstow)

• Council Member Robert Lombardo — June 18, League of California Cities DMD Meeting (Barstow)

• Mayor Pro Tem Jim Schooler — no reportable meetings

• Council Member Jeff Drozd — no reportable meetings

As with previous reports, the schedule lists dates, organizations, and locations, but not costs. The format tells you where council members went, not how much the Town paid to send them. Under Government Code §53232.3, the actual expenses are documented separately and are public records on request — a transparency gap Desert Trumpet raised in our June 16 preview.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by clicking the button below and receiving Desert Trumpet in your inbox!

Subscribe now

CA10. On-Call Concrete Repair and Replacement Maintenance Services – Award of Maintenance Services Contract

The Council is asked to award a two-year contract, extendable to five, to MD Concrete of Yucca Valley for on-call sidewalk, curb, gutter, and ADA-ramp repairs, at up to $200,000 a year. The Town received only one proposal to its June 2 RFP; the staff report calls MD Concrete “the lowest responsible and responsive bidder” — a distinction that's easier to win when no one else shows up.

CA11. Cooperative Agreement with San Bernardino County to Conduct Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation on Various Roads in the Yucca Valley Area

The Council would approve a cost-share agreement with San Bernardino County to chip-seal and rehabilitate roads at the Town’s edges, including two Town streets, Aberdeen Drive and Avalon Avenue. The County covers roughly $3,169,000 of the $3,217,000 project; the Town’s share is $48,000 plus a $5,000 contingency, drawn from its annual Measure Y street-maintenance budget. For that $48,000 buy-in, the Town gets its bordering streets repaved as part of a much larger County job.

CA13. Hi-Desert Nature Museum Re-Plumbing Project – Town Project No. 8067

The Council is asked to award a $36,320 construction contract to Haus ADU LLC of Orangevale, with an $8,680 contingency (total authorization $50,000), to replace the museum’s corroded galvanized pipes with copper. The staff report makes the case for acting now:

In a facility dedicated to preserving exhibits and serving the public, the potential for water damage or service disruption presents a major concern.

Unlike the sole-bid concrete contract, this one drew three bids, with Haus ADU LLC the lowest. Work is set for September 14 to October 4, 2026, timed to the museum’s planned closure. The Council allocated $60,000 from Measure Y for the project on June 2; this $50,000 award comes in well under that.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

14. YV ARC Quarterly Project Update

The eighth quarterly update on the Yucca Valley Aquatics and Recreation Center is a receive-and-file item with no vote. The report notes construction continued through the quarter despite delays tied to the natatorium deck slope, “which may extend project completion.” That slippage is worth noting because it’s the same project whose consultant contracts the Council voted June 16 to extend at a combined $114,000 per month. The longer the schedule runs, the longer those charges accrue.

15. Tripepi Smith Communication Services - Professional Services Agreement

Staff asks the Council to approve a multi-year contract with communications firm Tripepi Smith through June 30, 2028, at an $8,550 monthly retainer, and to authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement. The Town has used the firm since October 2021.

Behind the general label, the retainer buys a defined set of recurring deliverables each month, per the contract’s scope:

• Social media — up to seven posts per week, with graphics, across Facebook, Instagram, X, and Nextdoor, plus up to 18 posts a year on SB 1383 (organic-waste recycling) outreach

• Press releases and public statements — two per month, up to 500 words each, including drafting and distribution

• E-newsletter — one every other month, plus a quarterly SB 1383 article

• Website — up to two hours of content updates monthly, plus one annual staff training session

• Monthly metrics reporting — social media and digital performance indicators

• Strategy — bi-weekly check-in calls and quarterly planning sessions with Town leadership

Anything outside that list is billed separately as “as-needed” work. The staff report and proposal cite examples including State of the Town video production, Gubler Orchid Festival outreach, branding, and photography, and the firm recommends the Town set aside an additional $25,000 for such projects.

The staff report credits the firm as “instrumental in assisting with crisis communications during Hurricane Hilary” and for supporting the Town’s 35th Anniversary celebration.

On the numbers, the staff report doesn’t fully add up. It budgets the contract at $120,000 for FY26-27, drawn from the General Fund, Measure Z, and Measure Y. But the $8,550 monthly retainer works out to $102,600 a year, and the firm’s own proposal recommends a separate $25,000 as-needed budget on top of that — a total of $127,600, roughly $7,600 more than the $120,000 the report cites. The report doesn’t explain the gap.

16. Independence Day Event Recap

A recap of the July 3 Summer Music Festival and Fireworks Spectacular at Yucca Valley High School Stadium, co-sponsored with the Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians. The staff report describes a well-attended celebration, with a performance by Those Guys, a variety of food vendors, and a 20-minute fireworks display synchronized to music broadcast by Z107.7 FM.

But the staff report goes beyond praise to put a decision on the table: Council is to “provide direction regarding future Independence Day events.” Given the recent history, that’s no formality. Last year’s show, run by the same contractor (Pyro Spectaculars), was delayed and significantly shortened due to equipment malfunctions, leaving the Town and residents frustrated and disappointed. This year’s event moved from July 4 to July 3 due to a national pyrotechnician shortage. The staff report offers no recommendation, so the discussion will be genuinely open-ended.

17. Investment Policy for FY2026-28 & 18. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates

The remaining department reports are routine. Item 17 asks the Council to approve the biennial investment policy update, which carries only clarifying language and no changes to the Town’s investment strategy. The Council will also receive a portfolio update from the Town’s investment manager, Chandler Asset Management. Item 18 asks the Council to designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates for the League of California Cities annual conference in Anaheim this September, an action required by Cal Cities bylaws, with a September 1, 2026 deadline.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Council members may request topics for future meetings here.

The next regular Town Council meeting is listed as Tuesday, August 18, 2026.

This report is produced with AI assistance. Please see our Yucca Valley Town Hall reporting policy and our AI policy.

Run for Town Council! Districts 1 (Schooler), 3 (Abel) and 5 (Denison) are up for election. The nomination period for candidates begins July 13, 2026 and ends on August 6, 2026. Contact Town Clerk Brooke Dudra for details and check out our article on How to Run for City and Town Council for general guidelines.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Help us cover Yucca Valley Town Hall — Become a paid subscriber!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets

  Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

To the Editors of the Desert Trumpet,

Beneath every solar controversy in the Basin — the County’s approval of the 2025 Lear solar project, now under construction beside a solar farm built off Lear Avenue in 2012, the City’s rejection a few months ago of the Geneva1 solar proposal; the arguments over spheres of influence and staff findings — sits a single piece of law that almost never gets examined directly: the City of Twentynine Palms’ 2012 ban on utility-scale solar. It is the operative instrument in all of these fights. It is one of the factors that the City applied last March to reject the Geneva solar proposal and what critics of the 2025 Lear solar approval say the County should have imported through a consistency finding.

Fourteen years on, the city’s solar ban deserves a hearing of its own. Spoiler alert: It cannot survive one.

The World the Ban Was Written For Is Gone

Twentynine’s 2012 solar ban was a reaction to that first generation of local arrays, which were the 2012 Highlander project and the 2012 Lear farm: bare, daytime-only panels, built when utility solar was genuinely expensive and grid batteries barely existed. As a land-use judgment about that technology at that moment, it was at least defensible. But every premise underneath it has since collapsed. Utility solar’s cost has fallen roughly 80 percent, making it the cheapest new-build electricity in the country. Storage has gone from laboratory curiosity to commonplace, and storage answers the single best objection to solar in 2012, that it generates only when the sun is up. A solar-plus-battery project can serve the evening peak. The thing the ordinance prohibits no longer exists in the form it was written to stop.

The law changed as much as the technology. California’s 100-percent-clean mandate, its interim targets,2 and its new state permitting pathway were all enacted after 2012. The Energy Commission’s own modeling says meeting those targets demands building at record-setting rates, and that modeling already assumes aggressive rooftop deployment on top of utility-scale construction. “Put it on rooftops instead” is not an alternative plan; the state’s math requires both, rooftop power costs considerably more per kilowatt-hour, and fourteen years of rooftop-first rhetoric in the Morongo Basin has yet to produce a rooftop program. A preference that only ever functions as opposition is opposition.

A Blanket Ban Can’t Tell Good Projects from Bad Ones

A categorical prohibition is a defensible shortcut when nearly everything in the category is a bad deal for your community, which was arguably true here in 2012. But the shortcut breaks when the technology improves and differentiates, because a ban cannot distinguish a 9.9-megawatt array paired with storage beside an existing substation from a thousand-acre sprawl across intact desert. It treats them identically because it predates the difference.

Notice that the strongest objection to desert solar cuts the same way. Fragile soils, tortoise habitat, and ground disturbance that never heals are real; in fact, these genuine concerns are among the best arguments for replacing the ban with siting standards. Distinguishing a degraded parcel next to existing infrastructure from intact creosote scrub requires a rule that can make distinctions a blanket ban cannot. It protects pristine habitat exactly as much as it protects a disturbed lot beside a substation, which is to say it exercises no ecological judgment at all.

The 2025 Lear project, just outside the city limits, is close to the textbook good site: small, sited beside the 2012 Lear arrays that have run for over a decade, permitted as community-oriented generation meant to serve local load, paired with the batteries the grid actually needs as gas plants retire. It is the near-load, modest-footprint project that critics of remote desert mega-solar claim to prefer, and would have had to clear the ban just the same if it were located in Twentynine Palms. The honest 2026 policy is not “ban everything” or “approve everything.” It is siting standards that say yes to good cases and no to bad ones. The ordinance forecloses that judgment by fiat.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by clicking the button below and receiving Desert Trumpet in your inbox !

Subscribe now

Replace It, or Sacramento Decides Without You

Here is the structural fact that should concentrate minds at City Hall. Since 2022, state law has let developers of projects of 50 megawatts of solar or more, or 200 megawatt-hours of storage,3 bypass local permitting entirely and seek certification from the California Energy Commission, whose approval overrides local zoning. In 2025 the Legislature widened that path further. The developer behind the 2026 Geneva rejection has publicly committed to seeking state certification, and the Energy Commission has already asserted its jurisdiction in writing.4

Which means the ban no longer does what its defenders think it does. It cannot stop the large projects, which route around it through Sacramento. It reliably stops only the small, local kind. The 2025 Lear project shows how. The parcel sits inside the City’s sphere of influence, and the County’s own rules required two things before approval: check the project against the City’s zoning, including the ban, and notify the City. The County did neither.5 Whether the City would have said yes or no, it was never asked. An identical proposal a mile east, inside city limits, would have faced the ban directly.

Worse, the ban actively manufactures the big projects its supporters fear most: a developer facing a guaranteed local “no” has every incentive to size up past the state threshold and file in Sacramento rather than size down into local compatibility. The 2026 Geneva case is the live test. The ban did not end that project. It moved the decision from a Council chamber, where the City writes the conditions, to a Sacramento docket, where the City files comments. The City keeps a role there — but a role is not a permit, and the required community-benefits agreement can be signed with a union, tribe, or nonprofit of the developer’s choosing. The City need not be at the table at all.

Some will answer that even state-certified projects must deliver local benefits, and that is true as far as it goes: the Energy Commission must find a net economic benefit to the jurisdiction that lost permitting authority. But a developer who opted into state review specifically to get around City Hall is not going to invite City Hall to the negotiation. Under that pathway, benefits still flow to the community, with the state verifying that the package meets the statutory minimum. But which organizations sit at the table, and what the package contains, is settled in a negotiation the City may not be invited to join. A city with its own permitting process negotiates for itself. A city with a ban inherits someone else’s bargain. And a community that distrusts its council gains nothing from that trade; it just swaps an elected chooser for an unelected one.6

A city with clear, objective siting standards such as setbacks, screening, decommissioning bonds and corridor protections negotiates for itself and sets enforceable conditions. A city whose only word is “no” watches those decisions made by developers who increasingly do not need its permission. The choice in front of Twentynine Palms is not solar or no solar. It is whether the City shapes the buildout or watches it.

The Ask

The remedy is not a free-for-all. It is repeal-and-replace: retire the 2012 prohibition and adopt a modern siting ordinance in its place, so that the next solar project, like the 2025 Lear project, gets measured against clear standards and the next bad project gets a “no” that actually sticks. Nor is revisiting the ordinance any affront to the people who enacted it. A decision that cannot survive re-examination on current facts was never a settled consensus; it was a snapshot, taken of a world that no longer exists.

A “no” here doesn’t make the need vanish. It exports the project to worse ground, or to a gas turbine, and sends the bill to ratepayers across Southern California. The Council should put the 2012 ordinance on an agenda, in daylight, and ask whether anyone can still defend it on 2026 facts. The argument should be about the law that actually governs these decisions, not the procedural skirmishes it keeps generating downstream.

Respectfully,

Jonathan Hume
Desert Heights, San Bernardino County

Jonathan Hume is a Board member of Morongo Basin Projects, the 501c3 nonprofit which publishes The Desert Trumpet.

Hi, new subscribers! The Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our County news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online or read them later if you change your mind.

Become a paid subscriber!

Subscribing to the Desert Trumpet will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

  Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Attendees of Tuesday’s meeting walked into Council chambers and were greeted with the sight of a command center for the City’s new remote-participation technology. Director of Information Services Elijah Marshall provided trouble-shooting for the system. That there were a few glitches is to be expected from a new system.

The meeting saw a moving tribute to organizations and individuals who provide services for domestic abuse survivors, adoption of the new remote-comment policy, a wave of Councilmembers confirming reelection bids, and some very pointed public comments.

Useful links:

• Meeting agenda

• Desert Trumpet agenda preview

• Video of the meeting

ANNOUCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, AND THE CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

The meeting opened with Councilmember April Ramirez presenting a community leadership award recognizing a coalition that pushed back against a proposed 43% cut to California’s Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding.

Through relentless advocacy, bipartisan collaboration, and unwavering commitment to survivors, you turned a 43% cut turned into a $25 million one-time investment, and ultimately we finalized at a $50 million investment in the California state budget signed by the governor’s office, preserving critical services for victims and their families across our state. This remarkable achievement is a testament to the power of partnership and the belief that every victim deserves access to justice, healing, and hope.

Honored were San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe’s office, the County’s Bureau of Victim Services, youth advocate Addison Bradshaw, and representatives of Partners Against Violence and Morongo Basin Unity Home for Domestic Violence Services, along with state senators Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Suzette Martinez Valladares. Partners Against Violence’s Gena Pliss told the Council

When we lose VOCA funding, we lose survivor services, and for a lot of people, those survivor services are life-saving. More than 13% of people who are sexually assaulted will think about suicide. We have a high rate of good things happening in our community with all of the VOCA funding, but when we lose that for our agency in particular, we take the chance of losing staff….When we lose staff, now somebody doesn’t have anyone to go to court with them, doesn’t have them to do counseling, doesn’t have them for those services that help them get back up on their feet.

Testing 1-2-3, Testing 1-2-3

City Manager Kevin Cole introduced the new WebEx call-in option that rolled out at this meeting, an option required by SB 707, a new state law requiring remote participation.

You may or may not know that at one time this building housed a jail, so running stuff through the ceiling sometimes is not so easy when you have to contend with some steel plates and some brick wall. And they managed to tear it all apart and put it back together with this new technology. We’ve been testing it the last couple of days. We think we got it pretty dialed in.

The system had early problems. Some remote speakers couldn’t connect, and one public commenter opposing the sales tax measure got disconnected before he could speak. The meeting paused while staff tried to fix it.

Later in the meeting, the Council formally adopted its policy implementing SB 707, which governs what happens if remote-meeting technology fails and sets rules for public speaking time.

In public comment Kimberly Zzyzx and Desert Trumpet Editor Cindy Bernard raised concerns that the policy’s time limits were ambiguous. Bernard said the policy doesn’t specify whether speaker-time limits apply per agenda item or to the entire meeting, warning that on a dense agenda the ambiguity “could read as an intentional effort to suppress public comment,” even if that isn’t the Council’s aim.

The time limit section of the policy as currently written could use improvement. Council used to complain of crickets in chambers, and now there appears to be a concern that the public is too engaged….I think that these limits need some clarification….While I understand the need to keep meeting lengths reasonable, the policy also reads as though the public is being penalized for engaging with Council during meetings through public comment.

The primary issue with the time limits is the policy fails to specify whether the number of speakers registered are per meeting, i.e. all items plus general public comment, per agenda item, or specific to general public comment. And it would be great to add clarifications to what we’re talking about when we’re talking about the number of speakers and the time limit. The policy also fails to take agenda length into account.

Zzyzx urged the Council to preserve longer speaking windows:

In the 10 years I’ve lived here, my civic engagement has bloomed. This is in part due to issues like our needs in education or California Environmental Quality Act…a number of recent developments that have had a lot of problems with how they interface with the environment that we all benefit from and have a duty to protect. When these occasions have come up where I wanted to use my civic rights and come speak on behalf of those things, I have done so much research and talked to people and really tried to put those thoughts together… And two minutes is a very short amount of time. So, with respect to the fact that I know there are issues where a great mass of people will come out to speak on behalf of something, I just wanted to throw my two cents in to say that the more time we allow people to speak on behalf of things they’re passionate about — that is important to me.

City Manager Cole said staff would “take a look” at the wording, but the Council adopted the policy as written, 5-0, without changes.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by spreading the word!

Share The Desert Trumpet

Council Meetings Attended: All three incumbents up for re-election are running

All three council members whose seats are up this fall used their comments to make it official:

• Mayor Daniel Mintz (District 3)

• Mayor Pro Tem Octavious Scott (District 4)

• Councilmember McArthur Wright (District 5)

Check out our recent article on for how to run for City Council and other offices. Nomination papers are due August 6.

Beyond campaign news, Council comments were dominated by the Flock camera roundtable Mayor Pro Tem Scott hosted, which Councilmembers Bilderain and Ramirez attended. Scott called the discussion “contentious at times, but fruitful,” and said it “needed to happen.” Our reporting about the roundtable is here.

Councilmember Bilderain also thanked staff for the chambers remodel and Parks and Rec for the Fourth of July celebration at Knott’s Sky Park. Councilmember Ramirez reported attending a California Public Utilities webinar and meetings with tribal leaders on ecotourism and with Morongo Unified School District. Mayor Mintz cited a busy stretch of events including the Base YMCA Marine Recognition Luncheon, the Hope Center ribbon-cutting, and the Great Race vintage car rally celebrating Route 66’s centennial passing through town on its way from Chicago to Santa Monica.

City Manager’s report: cooling center threshold drops, EV chargers still down

City Manager Cole lowered the bar for opening the city’s public cooling center this year from a heat index of 115 to 110 and said the senior center will open to the general public, not just seniors, once the National Weather Service heat index hits that mark. He did not indicate how word would spread that the cooling center would be open.

Cole also gave an update on the Freedom Plaza EV chargers: two of three fast chargers and both slow chargers are working, but the third fast charger needs a roughly $12,000 repair the City is still trying to budget for, and a separate charger at Bucklin Park has been offline for about two years. Cole cited the lack of any local repair technicians as a recurring obstacle.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS

After the consent calendar passed 5-0 with no items pulled and no public comment, the Council designated Councilmember Ramirez as its delegate to the Cal Cities annual conference, with Mayor Mintz as alternate.

The 1% sales tax measure heads to voters

The Council voted 5-0 to send a 1% transaction and use (sales) tax measure to the November 3, 2026 ballot. One of two resolutions ordered the measure onto the ballot, the second set priorities for a ballot argument and directing the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis.

City Manager Cole read the ballot language into the record at resident Mary Alice Amsler’s request. As written, the measure would fund:

Services for the City of Twentynine Palms residents, including those required for maintaining 911 and emergency response times, police officers and patrols, repairing streets, sidewalks, responding to floods and natural disasters, maintaining clean and safe public parks, and upgrading the animal shelter.

This would be via a 1% transaction and use tax generating roughly $2 million annually “until ended by voters,” with required audits and public spending disclosures and a local-use requirement.

Amsler, who said she had raised the same concern at a prior meeting, argued the measure’s language remains too vague, allowing money to be spent on unlisted priorities down the line. Kimberly Zzyzx spoke in support, describing years of positive experience with city staff, including help navigating permitting and licensing for a home-based childcare program, as evidence the city’s request for new revenue is “reasonable and overdue.”

Mayor Mintz emphasized that passage of the measure would not hand the Council a blank check: any revenue would still flow through the city’s standard annual budget process, including public hearings, the same as General Fund dollars have for years. Councilmember Ramirez added that the vote wasn’t really about raising taxes so much as “giving the people... an opportunity to vote on what kind of future you want.”

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

A data center moratorium and an opportunity zone

Mayor Pro Tem Scott requested a future discussion on a moratorium on data centers in the city, seconded by Mayor Mintz. Councilmember Ramirez requested two items: a discussion of the city pursuing federal Opportunity Zone designation, and a discussion of reallocating funds that had been set aside for a shade structure outside City Hall, a project she said has been “sitting in limbo,” specifically to explore grant-writing options.

What is an Opportunity Zone? And what would it mean for Twentynine Palms?

Opportunity Zones are low-income areas where investors get federal tax breaks for putting money into local projects, such as housing or businesses. If Twentynine Palms were to receive this designation from the IRS, it could make census tracts within the City more attractive to outside investors.

The Treasury Department recently opened a new recommendation window, which closes on September 28, 2026. Zones have to be nominated by state governors, and the deadline for that nomination is July 20. Unless it is extended, it is unlikely that Twentynine Palms will receive a designation this year.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mining for data with Flock cameras and mining for rare earth minerals in Music Valley

Beth Sheffield thanked Mayor Pro Tem Scott for the Flock roundtable which she said drew roughly 80 attendees, "most opposed" to the surveillance system. Sheffield explained Flock's "pattern of life" feature, which compiles a vehicle's camera hits over a chosen time window, from two weeks to a month or longer, into a heat map of where it spends the most time:

Of note, Flock did not invent the phrase "pattern of life.” It's a counterterrorism and military intelligence term for building a behavioral template of a target by tracking their movements.

She also reported that the Los Angeles Police Department will not be renewing its contract with Flock because of its concerns about how the company stores its data.

Catherine Powell echoed the thanks to Scott and asked the Council to schedule a formal discussion on the record before the city’s Flock contract comes up for renewal and raised concerns that Flock’s contract terms grant the company a perpetual license to City data regardless of the City’s own retention rules. A written comment from Heather Huguenor, read into the record by Mayor Mintz, reiterated opposition to the cameras.1

Audrey Philpott, a Hanson tract homeowner, asked the Council to place a future discussion of mining activity in the city on a future agenda, saying the issue "can substantially change the character of our city." We cover the mining issue here.

Cindy Bernard commented on the Lear Solar Project (which she recently reported on in depth), saying that it appears to violate a county ordinance requiring development in the sphere of influence to follow City zoning. Bernard said the water district was never notified prior to construction, and that the project's staff report contained factual errors, including understating the site's distance to Joshua Tree National Park.

The County knows they screwed up. They owe us. Here are a few suggestions for compensating 29 Palms residents for this violation of our sphere of influence and county ordinances. They could reopen the Lear fire station. They could provide us with the sheriff's service officer that we desperately need. It's a community solar farm that could provide credits to Joshua Tree and 29 Palms residents — perhaps we should ask those credits go to 29 only. We can insist on a community benefits package from the developer, and perhaps you have ideas as well. But we should get something for this.

Lynette Ramirez did not name names, but suggested that City Councilmembers behave with the same decorum expected of the public when it speaks before the Council.

I was recently contacted by a group that advocates for the homeless, and they were distraught after the recent raid on encampments. Two things specifically bothered them. First, certain members made a video showing the individuals’ personal items and labeling them with them as trash…. to those homeless people, that was their home or the last outfit that maybe gave them some dignity, and we’ve got to show some respect.

Ms. Ramirez also objected to the music that accompanied the video.

Second is a song that was used in the video, “Sound of the Police.”2 It’s a song about slave catchers, dirty cops, and overseers. When I asked to remove the song, perhaps replacing it with “Lean on Me,” and take down the pictures of the individual’s property, the response was to laugh about it with another constituent.

While she did not recommend censure, she said:

I’ve watched Barstow, the Apple Valley School District, Atlanta, and Hesperia censor members who have done far less than what’s happening here, and these were recent censors. Again, I’m asking this Council to put a code of conduct and ethics with actual consequences in place. As long as one does not exist, every time this Council reminds citizens to conduct themselves professionally, remember this: you’re telling the public that the rules only apply to us, but not you. Thank you.

The next City Council meeting is Tuesday, July 28, at 6 pm. Based on notices already published in the Hi-Desert Star, it appears the agenda will be packed.

Hi, new subscribers! The Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our County news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online or read them later if you change your mind.

Become a paid subscriber!

Subscribing to the Desert Trumpet will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

There are a lot of good reasons to run for local office.

Maybe you want to fix problems you see around town, like a lack of youth services or ungraded roads that turn into streams during monsoon season. You might want to start a career in politics, building experience before running for higher office. You may feel that there isn’t enough representation for the way you identify, so you step up to speak for your people, your church, or the wildlife around you.

Other reasons include promoting a cause or industry, feeling a sense of duty when no one else runs, gaining status and connections, or pushing for reform. Local office offers an accessible entry point into public service and, for many, into a lasting political career.

You’d think citizens would be eager to run for office. You would be wrong. In 2024, 70% of local offices throughout the United States were uncontested. That means one person, often the incumbent, ran for the office with no one to oppose them.1

The state of California had fewer uncontested races in 2024 at 33%, but candidates for special-district seats (think water or health district) and judgeships often had no opponents.

Closer to home, Twentynine Palms saw contested elections in 2022 and 2024 for City Council. Candidates for Yucca Valley Town Council, however, were all incumbents in 2022 and 2024 and all ran unopposed. This shouldn’t be happening in a community with so many vital issues at stake.

CITY AND TOWN COUNCILS

We have already covered how to run for City Council in Twentynine Palms and Town Council in Yucca Valley, but we include an overview here so all the information is in one place.

City of Twentynine Palms, City Council, Districts 3, 4, and 5

Three seats on the Twentynine Palms City Council are on the ballot this year:

• District 3: currently held by Mayor Daniel Mintz

• District 4: held by Mayor Pro Tem Octavious Scott

• District 5: held by Councilmember McArthur Wright

All three announced at July 14th’s City Council meeting that they had pulled papers to run in the 2026 election. Twentynine Palms council members are currently paid $465 a month, with pay set to rise to $700 a month after the election, along with benefits and expense reimbursements. Term lengths are four years.

Contact Twentynine Palms City Clerk Cindy Villescas at (760) 367-6799 or cvillescas@29palms.org to make an appointment to file and get more information on completing nomination papers, collecting signatures, and filing your nomination.

Yucca Valley Town Council, Districts 1, 3, and 5

Three of the five seats on the Yucca Valley Town Council are up this year:

• District 1: Mayor Pro Tem Jim Schooler

• District 3: Mayor Merl Abel

• District 5: Councilmember Rick Denison

It has not yet been reported that any of these men plan to run in 2026. Candidates must file nomination papers with Yucca Valley Town Clerk Brooke Dudra at the town hall Monday through Thursday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., or reach her at (760) 369-7209 or townclerk@yucca-valley.org.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND DISTRICTS

How to File for the College or School Board

After determining what district you are in using the San Bernardino County Look-Up Tool, all the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters at (909) 387-8300 to arrange an appointment to file papers.

Copper Mountain Community College, Governing Board, Areas 4 and 5

Two seats on the Governing Board are on the ballot this year, both four-year terms, for districts 4 and 5. The incumbents are Graydon S. “Chuck” Uyeda (4) and Anna Stump (5).

Members represent specific areas, so be sure to check the map before you file or use the County District Look-Up tool. The compensation is $2,880 annually plus benefits, though we have not been able to verify whether that figure still holds for the current term.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by spreading the word!

Share The Desert Trumpet

Morongo Unified School District, Governing Board, Areas 1, 4, and 5

MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MEMBER, GOVERNING BOARD, AREAS 1, 4, AND 5

Three seats on the five-member board are up this year. The Area 1 seat is a two-year term; Areas 4 and 5 are four-year terms. The incumbents are Missy Bond (1), Christopher Clare (4), and Roberta Meyers (5).

The compensation was previously reported at $2,000 to $3,000 annually plus benefits, though we have not been able to verify the current figure. Use the County District Look-Up tool to determine your area.

A note on the County school board seat: The San Bernardino County Board of Education seat that covers the Morongo Basin (District E, currently held by board member Andrea De Leon) is not up for election in 2026. That seat’s term runs through the next cycle.

WATER AGENCIES AND DISTRICTS

How to File for Water Agencies or Districts

Call the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters at (909) 387-8300 to arrange an appointment to file papers.

Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency Board of Directors

Four positions are on the ballot this year: three four-year terms and one two-year term. Positions are “at large,” meaning there are no sub-districts, but candidates must be registered voters in the area the agency serves, which are parts of Landers, Johnson Valley, and Flamingo Heights.

Hi-Desert Water District Board of Directors, Divisions 1, 3, and 5

Three seats are up this cycle, each a four-year term. This water agency is a special district formed to meet the needs of Yucca Valley and neighboring unincorporated areas. Compensation was previously reported at $4,000 to $10,000 annually plus benefits, though we have not been able to verify the current figure. Directors are elected by division, so check the map or use the County District Look-Up tool to determine your division.

Joshua Basin Water District Board of Directors, Divisions 1 and 2

Two seats on the five-member board are up this year, both four-year terms. This water board elects directors by division throughout the Joshua Tree area, so check the map or use the County District Look-Up tool to determine your division. Compensation was previously reported at $9,000 annually.

Twentynine Palms Water District Board of Directors

Three at-large positions on the five-person board are up this year, each a four-year term. Candidates must live within the district’s 87-square-mile boundary in Twentynine Palms and Desert Heights. Directors previously earned a $150 stipend per meeting.

OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS

How to File for Special Districts

After determining what district you are in using the San Bernardino County Look-Up tool, call the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters at (909) 387-8300 to arrange an appointment to file papers.

Hi-Desert Memorial Health Care District Board of Directors, Divisions 4 and 5

Two seats are up this cycle, each a four-year term. This special district was formed to meet the healthcare needs of our rural community and covers the Morongo Basin including Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley, and the adjacent unincorporated areas. This is a volunteer board.

Yucca Valley Airport District Board of Directors

Four positions are open this year on this five-member board, which manages airport facilities and events: three four-year terms and one short two-year term. This is a volunteer board.

Morongo Valley Community Services District Board of Directors

Three seats on the board are up this year, each a four-year term. This special district is a local form of government for a geographically limited area and was created to provide important community services, including the Morongo Valley Fire Department, community events, and management of Covington Park. This is a volunteer board.

BASICS TO KNOW BEFORE YOU RUN

To run for city or town council or a special district, you must be:

• A U.S. citizen

• 18 years or older

• A registered voter in the city, town, or district you wish to represent

• A resident of the specific district in which you plan to run

Requirements for special district and school board seats are similar, though some, such as the water agency “at-large” seats, do not require you to live in a specific sub-district, only within the district’s overall service area.

Required Candidacy Materials (City and Town Council)

• Declaration of Candidacy: This document states which office you’re running for, how your name appears on the ballot, and whether you want a short, three-word description printed after your name.

• Nomination Papers: Candidates need signatures from about 20 to 30 registered voters who live in their district. Because some signatures are often deemed invalid, it’s best to collect more than the minimum. The first date to “pull papers” was Monday, July 13; papers with signatures are due Thursday, August 6 in Twentynine Palms and Friday, August 7 in Yucca Valley.

• Candidate Intention Statement (California Fair Political Practices [FPPC] Form 501): Must be filed before soliciting any contributions or spending any funds on your candidacy.

• Statement of Economic Interest (FPPC Form 700): Discloses investments, real property interests, and business positions to help guard against conflicts of interest.

• Candidate Statement Form and Candidate Statement: An optional written statement, 200 words or fewer, which will be printed in the Voter Information Guide. Candidates cover printing and translation costs, usually around $150, and may not mention other candidates by name.

Overall, city and town council candidates can expect to pay approximately $200 to $400 in filing fees and associated costs, not including whatever you spend promoting your candidacy.

Required Candidacy Materials (Special Districts)

The required paperwork for water, school boards and other special districts is similar to City and Town Council, however we were unable to confirm if nomination papers are required. (The registrar was busy with candidate appointments!) We will update our information as soon as the requirement is confirmed.

Each election year, the County produces a website and candidate guide with detailed information, and the 2026 edition is attached below.

Guide Candidatefiling

1.19MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you do decide to run, contact editor@deserttrumpet.org so we can interview you and include you in our upcoming candidate forum.

Contacts

• Twentynine Palms City Clerk: Cindy Villescas, (760) 367-6799, cvillescas@29palms.org

• Yucca Valley Town Clerk: Brooke Dudra, (760) 369-7209, townclerk@yucca-valley.org

• San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters: (909) 387-8300

Hi, new subscribers! The Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our County news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online or readd them later if you change your mind.

Become a paid subscriber!

Subscribing to the Desert Trumpet will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Few issues spark enough rage, passion, and sincere curiosity to fill a room with over 80 people on a 106-degree day in July. Flock Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) is one of them.

This past Thursday, July 9th, Morongo Basin residents packed the Joe Davis Community Center in Twentynine Palms for a town hall on the Flock ALPR surveillance program. (The Desert Trumpet recently published two letters to the editor about the program and has extensively covered public comment at City meetings.)

Organized by Twentynine Palms Mayor Pro Tem Octavious Scott, key players invited to the town hall included Flock public affairs representative Lily Ho, San Bernardino County Sheriff Public Affairs Lieutenant Kari Klaus, Sheriff Information Services Division Captain Heather Forsythe, and some very impassioned residents.

Despite being a pressing community topic, with a local Change.org petition to remove Flock’s cameras garnering over 800 signatures, and an anticipated high meeting turnout, the discussion did not follow an agenda and lacked a formal moderator, adding disarray. Technical issues with the screen projector coupled with a handful of rowdy attendees and crowd interruptions contributed to this.

Those who made up the room were largely opposed to Flock’s practices, citing cybersecurity concerns, data privacy issues, and skepticism about law enforcement integrity. Facilitating the meeting was Mayor Pro Tem Octavious Scott, who often interjected to settle the impassioned crowd.

Mayor Pro Tem Scott opened the meeting by thanking those in attendance and encouraged everyone to be respectful:

The structure of this meeting is— we’re going to start off with some shared values, some concerns, issues that you might see with Flock, or things that you might like about Flock, and it’s meant to be very conversational. It’s not meant to be structured. It’s meant to put everybody on equal footing.

Scott then called on audience member Yiwen Tang who had a prepared question on heat maps and pattern of life activity. What followed was some apparent confusion in the flow of the meeting, and it was unknown whether or not Tang’s pointed question would get answered by the Flock rep. Audience interjections ensued.

It was then agreed upon that the meeting would launch with Flock representative Ho’s presentation followed by questions from the crowd. The roundtable proceeded in a more or less orderly way for the next two and a half hours.

Ms. Ho was faced with the sisyphean task of winning over meeting attendees and quelling community concerns, something she had not accomplished by the end of the meeting.

The content of Ho’s presentation attempted to set the record straight on Flock’s software, capabilities, and proven track record of assisting in crime solving, explaining how the tech works and noting that searches require an offense type and case number. Ho stated that Flock does not use facial recognition software or AI tracking.

Ho explained that there is no permitted data sharing with agencies outside of California, describing this as a “digital guardrail,” but local agencies can choose who they share data with. eg. data shared between law enforcement agencies.

In response to critics that say the tech violates the 4th Amendment, Ho’s presentation had a slide that stated:

Appellate and federal district courts In at least fourteen states, including the 9th and 11th Circuits, have upheld using evidence from license plate readers as constitutional without requiring a warrant.

Attendees had done their homework and came with questions, case law, maps, and even cited Flock’s own website.

Concerns Over Data Privacy & Surveillance

Multiple speakers expressed unease at being tracked doing everyday tasks such as driving to church, a doctor, a friend’s house. They argued that constant logging of movement chills freedom of association and expression, regardless of guilt. Several invoked “pattern of life” heat maps, comparing the technology to tools used by authoritarian regimes as well as the U.S. military against enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some speakers said this surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Ho stated:

We can go through really long discussions about the Fourth Amendment. I’m not an attorney myself, but we can speak to it as well. But to sum it up, there’s over 60 case law supporting license plate readers, and that it does not offer a pattern of life.

When pressed by audience member Yiwen Tang, who quoted a webinar presented by Flock admitting to the software’s capabilities for storing pattern of life data, traffic patterns, and heat maps for between 14 and 30 days, Ho admitted:

Honestly, I have not seen what you’re looking at, so I can’t even comment on it.

Residents repeatedly questioned who ultimately controls stored data. Ms. Ho said data is stored by AWS data centers. A quick search shows that these are run by Amazon.

Concerns centered on breaches of Flock data, lack of multi-factor authentication enabling shared or hacked logins, and whether footage could be manipulated or accessed by unauthorized actors, including AI systems.

“Literally anything can be hacked,” admitted Ho.

ICE and Federal Data-Sharing Fears

Several attendees pressed on whether the Sheriff had signed memoranda of understanding to share data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), referencing recent immigration detainments locally. Flock’s representative insisted no direct contracts exist with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and that California’s digital guardrail blocks out-of-state sharing. Skepticism about enforcement of that firewall persisted.

No Kings— County Sheriff Department Admits to Shortcomings

Lieutenant Klaus admitted that the Flock discussions have been a learning lesson for the Sheriff’s department, and that the department has contracted with other ALPR companies in the past. Regarding department data sharing, Klaus noted that once the department learned about this data sharing setting, they turned it off:

It was a learning time for our department… We don’t share any of our permissions or any of our data with anybody that’s not in the state of California or any federal agencies. We’ve gone a little one step further. We actually appointed an analyst that rechecks all of our settings twice a month to make sure that there’s a safeguard.

So far, residents of the cities of San Bernardino and Twentynine Palms are some of the only within the County to protest Flock systems. Fifty municipalities nationwide have suspended their Flock contracts. Two days after the town hall, the Los Angeles Police Department suspended its Flock contract on Saturday, July 11th, citing data privacy concerns.

From the audience, Dana Balicki asked about keyword searches by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department:

Why did the Sheriff’s Department do a keyword search for “No Kings” on June 14 and for “ICE protest” on June 9, and that those searches were done without an event type or a case number—that would be helpful to know.

Balicki noted that audit logs allegedly show “five San Bernardino Sheriff Department officers running searches 24 hours a day,” suggesting password sharing between Flock account holders and County Sheriff’s Department personnel.

Captain Forsythe was adamant, “I can tell you that any searches that were done in that way were not adherent to our policy… So once that was caught, I could guarantee you there’s probably an administrative investigation, or there was.”

Klaus clarified that the search was conducted by a department intelligence analyst to investigate a crime that took place at or around a No Kings protest and that the department has since changed its search criteria policy:

We have our intelligence analysts that were running a specific plate for a crime that occurred at No Kings, and this was prior to our new policies. So they were allowed to put a reason why they are searching, and that’s the reason that they chose, which was not a very good reason.

According to the Los Gatan, community newspaper for the City of Los Gatos, whose local police department is now faced with its own civil suit regarding use of Flock camera software, between December 2024 and October 2025, Flock was used to search “50501 protests,” “Hands Off protest,” and “No Kings protests” by 19 law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Klaus and Forsythe both emphasized that public trust is a top priority for the County. Klaus said that the Sheriff Department’s transparency landing page would soon be updated to include detailed information on how Flock data is stored, shared, and safeguarded.

Will the department’s suggested solutions and policy changes be sufficient to address community concerns?

Law Enforcement Value for ALPR Data & Crime Solving Assistance

Sheriff’s personnel described recent cases in which Flock data provided real crime-solving value. Sergeant Daniel Berumen of the Morongo Basin Sheriff’s Station talked about his use of ALPR technology throughout his career. Berumen highlighted Flock’s role in apprehending a serial killer caught crossing state lines, a recent homicide investigation in Wonder Valley, and domestic violence cases in which license plate data provided crucial suspect leads.

Berumen maintained that the use of ALPR technology could help save investigative time when other department resources are scarce.

Resident Lynette Ramirez saw the potential benefit of the technology, and recounted seeing signage throughout town for missing people when she first moved to the Mojave.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by spreading the word!

Share The Desert Trumpet

Longtime resident Pamela Holmes recounted a suspicious man watching a school playground, and a hit-and-run that badly injured her son, arguing that safety concerns for kids and pedestrians outweigh privacy objections :

We’re looking at safety versus right to privacy. I have the right to be safe.

Other meeting attendees continuously emphasized that they were not against solving crimes— the issue was with Flock itself. Attendee Alexandra Aikens shared:

I don't think anyone in this room is against solving homicides, is against catching pedophiles... My own cousin was one of those bodies found in Wonder Valley, so I am very aware of what it's like to be a victim of crime out here.

Critics countered that ALPR technology has led to wrongful stops and arrests at gunpoint of innocent people, that most domestic violence is committed by known intimates rather than strangers caught by cameras, and that the safety narrative Flock promotes is empirically weaker than officials claim, given mixed crime-reduction research.

New Contract Terms Shift In Flock’s Favor

Resident Pat Flanagan printed maps of Flock camera locations throughout the desert, including Yucca Valley and Palm Springs, showing the reach of the Flock camera network beyond Twentynine Palms.

Citing ACLU research, Ms. Flanagan detailed how Flock’s 2026 contract dropped a prior no-sale clause, granted Flock a perpetual license to reuse data even after contract termination, and added arbitration clauses under Georgia law that make it harder for cities to exit.

Noting his background in software development, Benjamin Alley inquired how the sheriff’s department would rebuild public trust if systems became “accessible, corrupted.”

Community Issues With Transparency, City Manager Cole Speaks Out

Speakers criticized inadequate public notice of the original November 2024 Flock contract vote and the roundtable itself (citing an over-reliance on Facebook and not meeting newspaper public notice windows), months-long delays answering public records requests, and a broader sense that the City Council and Sheriff’s Department have not earned community trust to wield such a powerful tool responsibly.

Esther Thomas, identifying as a zillennial, admonished the City’s community engagement attempts:

If I personally was not on Facebook, I would have no idea of this meeting. I'm a younger person. I understand that Facebook is not as popular these days for the younger people.

When audience members raised concerns that the prior city manager Stone James had intended to push the contract renewal date further down the line, City Manager Kevin Cole denied it, saying the contract renewal is set for January or February, with Council discussion likely anticipated in November or December.

I wasn’t city manager back when it was originally voted on. I am now.

Though not a City employee at the time of its passage in November 2024, Cole admitted that the City could have done better community outreach back when they initially discussed the Flock contract:

[We could] probably do a better job of letting people know. We do have a Facebook and an Instagram page. We can let people know when our meetings are. If people are interested, which everybody in this room showed up today is obviously interested, please look for when our meetings are happening. Come down, be part of the process. We want you there. We want to hear from the public.

Calls for Local Control, Citizen Oversight

A compromise position emerged: residents said they might be able to accept cameras if data stayed locally stored, access was tightly restricted to specific case numbers, and a citizen advisory or oversight committee reviewed searches and policy. Nonetheless, many audience members expressed distrust of Flock, the Sheriff’s department, and the City that the roundtable did not allay.

Residents want real crime-solving tools, but they also want proof that Flock's cameras won't be misused, hacked, or shared with agencies like ICE. City officials and Sheriff's Department representatives promised more transparency before the contract renewal early next year. Whether that's enough remains uncertain. For now, Morongo Basin residents plan to keep showing up, keep asking questions, and keep pushing for local control over how their data are stored, accessed, and protected.

Hi, new subscribers! The Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our County news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online or readd them later if you change your mind.

Become a paid subscriber!

Subscribing to the Desert Trumpet will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

On July 9, the San Bernardino County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a full repeal and reenactment of Chapter 88.03 of the Development Code, the county’s local rules for surface mining and land reclamation1 (Project No. PMISC-2026-00029). The recommendation passed on a voice vote with no audible opposition, following roughly two hours of public comment. In attendance were Commissioners Matthew Slowik (2nd district) and Jonathan Weldy (1st district), Chair Michael Stoffel (3rd district) and Vice Chair Kareem Gongora (5th district). The absence of Commissioner Suket Dayal (4th district) was not noted by the Chair.

By our count of the transcript, 32 people spoke, and every one either opposed the ordinance or asked the Commission to delay it. None spoke in support. Nineteen participated remotely from the Joshua Tree Community Center; thirteen spoke in the chambers in San Bernardino. Staff also reported more than 100 written comments submitted for the item.

While the two groups of speakers were united in their opposition to the loss of local review, they were focused on two different projects. About a third of the remote contingent expressed concern over the proposed Music Valley rare-earth mine near Joshua Tree National Park. The in-chamber speakers, most from the mountain community of Wrightwood, came to oppose the proposed Lone Pine Canyon Road Quarry near the Cajon Pass; nine named that project directly.

The July 9 vote sends a rewrite of the County’s surface mining ordinance to the Board of Supervisors, tentatively on August 18. We cover the meeting’s opening and Item 3, the mining ordinance; we’ve set aside Item 2, an unrelated warehouse and parcel-map project in San Bernardino that does not affect the Morongo Basin.

Relevant links:

• San Bernardino County Planning Commission Staff report for Item 3

• Our agenda preview

• Video of the meeting

What the ordinance does, and how staff framed it

Dan Walsh, the County’s Chief Engineering Geologist, presented the item:

This ordinance represents a comprehensive modernization of Chapter 88.03. It expands procedures, strengthens enforcement, and aligns the County’s regulations with current state requirements.

He told commissioners the ordinance was “adopted in 1999 and certified by the State Mining Geology Board on November 10, 1999” and “has not been significantly revised since.” The written staff report instead states the chapter was “last substantively amended in 2007.”2

Staff is asking the County to treat the ordinance as exempt from environmental review:

The proposed amendment was determined by the County to be exempt under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)... because the ordinance is limited to an administrative update of an existing surface mining and land reclamation ordinance, and will not directly or indirectly authorize activity that may have a significant effect on the environment.

A Wrightwood resident who identified himself as an attorney, speaking during public comment, challenged that reasoning, noting the "common sense" exemption applies only where the County can show "with certainty" that there is "no possibility" of a significant environmental effect, a standard, he argued, staff never addressed.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by spreading the word!

Share The Desert Trumpet

The provision that drew the objections

The change residents focused on is a new “Federal Lands” subsection, 88.03.040(b). Its operative sentence reads:

A Permit shall not be required for those portions of surface mining operations that require and obtain a federally approved plan of operation, or other federal authorization, to conduct surface mining operation.

Speaker Catherine Powell, a Wonder Valley resident, read that language aloud, noted it “has not been stated very clearly in the presentation,” and translated it:

If a mining company gets a green light from the BLM or another federal agency, it no longer needs a County permit for work on that federal land. This gives area residents much less recourse to challenge mining operations that directly affect them.

Under questioning from Commissioner Matthew Slowik, Walsh maintained the ordinance does not shift authority, because “the County has never had jurisdiction for permitting on public lands.” Per Walsh, federal agencies permit mining on federal land, the County requires a reclamation plan, and the update, he said, only makes those existing boundaries “more clear.” Slowik concluded he did not “see [the proposal] changing anything relative to jurisdiction, review authorities, decision making.”

Two different environmental-review laws are in play. Mining on private or County land triggers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state's review process; mining on federal land falls under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its federal counterpart. Which one applies — and how much public say comes with it — turns on whether a County permit is required.

Asked directly whether federal-land mining would proceed with no environmental review, Walsh said review would still occur “whether it be federally or locally,” but added a caveat:

in the past, NEPA and CEQA have been kind of in lockstep together. That’s changed recently. Obviously, with the new administration, they are kind of depleting federal staffs and their ability to review all the environmental impacts under NEPA.

Several speakers argued that is precisely the problem. Pat Wallis, a Yucca Valley resident, former city planning commissioner, and 2026 candidate for the 23rd District congressional seat, told the Commission:

Staff calls this an administrative update. It isn’t... The County permit is what triggers CEQA. It’s what gives residents notice, a hearing, enforceable conditions... NEPA has been hollowed out... This determination will not survive judicial review... it’s going to result in predictable litigation.

The national backdrop

The County’s move doesn’t sit in isolation. It comes as the Trump administration has acted aggressively to expand mining on public land: a March 2025 executive order invoked emergency powers to increase domestic mineral production, directed the Interior Department to prioritize mining over other uses on federal land holding critical mineral deposits, and told agencies to fast-track and streamline the federal environmental review, the very NEPA process the County’s ordinance would lean on for mines on federal land. That push is the engine behind the rare-earth rush now reaching the desert, from Dateline Resources’ mining explorations in Music Valley to Colosseum gold mine near the Mojave National Preserve.3

That thinning of federal review is exactly what Walsh flagged during the hearing. And it is the crux of what residents pressed: the County proposes to defer to a federal process at the very moment that process is being pared back by design.

The choice also comes from a County with a documented streak of friction with the state. In 2022, San Bernardino County voters narrowly approved Measure EE, directing officials to study seceding from California over its share of state resources, a study the county later shelved.

Voices from Joshua Tree

Nineteen residents addressed the Commission remotely from the Joshua Tree Community Center, most objecting to the loss of local oversight over mining on public lands, with at least six pointing specifically to the proposed Music Valley rare-earth mine.

Chance Wilcox, California Desert Associate Director for the National Parks Conservation Association, urged denial:

This common sense exemption seeks to remove the County and therefore the people from that review and keeps us in the dark. As we speak, foreign mining companies are seeking to begin large-scale surface mining in and around our federal public lands... The people were not included in the process of this analysis, and it seems as though there was only one stakeholder meeting that was only attended by mining companies and operators, the very entities who benefit from this action.

Pat Flanagan, a Desert Heights resident speaking on behalf of the Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA), challenged the premise that the federal process is an adequate substitute for county review:

Both NEPA and CEQA, enacted in 1970, mandate that agencies open their environmental evaluations to the public... [but] the BLM has recently introduced multiple sweeping regulatory updates that will drastically limit the public’s ability to participate in land management decisions.

She cited a 2026 BLM grazing-rule rewrite affecting 155 million acres and a 2026 oil-and-gas leasing proposal, both of which, she said, cut public comment periods and narrow who may weigh in.

David Fick, a 40-year Joshua Tree resident and MBCA board member, was blunter:

What you’re considering is surrendering control to the federal government, and this is called a backroom deal... Do not trust the BLM on this.

Fick recounted a 20-year fight against the Eagle Mountain “mega dump,” which he attributed to “vast amounts of BLM corruption.”

Nicholas Graver, a Twentynine Palms resident and biologist, rejected the “administrative update” framing outright:

The proposed changes are not merely administrative; they’re an abdication of responsibility from the County and the state, instead opting to trust the federal government’s environmental review process.

Graver said he lives on the only road in and out of Music Valley, where “that same mining corporation, Dateline Resources, proposes to build a massive new mining operation”:

My house shakes when a medium-sized truck drives through down Baseline Road, and now we’re talking about a major mining operation that would have to use those same roads.

Galen Boone, a Yucca Valley resident, pointed to the shared transportation corridor — a reminder that even a mine sited on federal or out-of-county land would route its trucks through San Bernardino County communities:

We also do not want parades of mining trucks clogging Highway 62, our only highway and lifeline that connects our communities from Morongo to Wonder Valley.

Boone cited the scale of the Music Valley claims — “almost 1000 claims over almost 20,000 acres of mostly BLM land, some within 100 feet of our national park” — figures consistent with reporting on the Dateline Resources project.

In the chambers: Wrightwood and the Lone Pine Canyon Road Quarry

The thirteen in-chamber speakers came largely from Wrightwood with concerns over the proposed Lone Pine Canyon Road Quarry, a roughly 285-acre project about four miles from town, along the San Andreas Fault in the Cajon Pass. (Despite the name, it has nothing to do with the town of Lone Pine in the Eastern Sierra.) They raised concerns about blasting near the fault, dust and air quality, heavy-truck traffic on their only evacuation route, and a recurring worry about the ordinance itself: that it lets County staff decide whether a change to a mine’s reclamation plan is “substantial” — triggering public notice — or “non-substantial,” approved without a hearing. Several asked the Commission to continue the item and to consult local tribes, noting the industry had a seat at the drafting table and residents did not.

Who was consulted

Repeatedly, speakers said the County drafted the ordinance with the mining industry and no one else. Walsh confirmed the collaborators on the record and defended the choice:

during this time we have been [in] collaboration with [CalCIMA]4, we have been [in] collaboration with also SMGB5... we called on the experts... these are the attorneys that actually litigated the case law behind the SMARA6 sections. So why pore over a legal document that we’re probably not going to understand when we just talked to the guy that was in the courtroom that day, the guy that actually litigated the case.

He added that “all the comments received by SMGB were incorporated into the document.” Staff did not identify any residents, tribes, or conservation groups as participants in drafting. Commissioner Weldy acknowledged the concern:

[Industry] are the experts. But there also is the inference there: we’re working in our own self-interest, and so you need to have the public sort of output and input along with that... to level the playing field so that it’s a fair hearing.

Where Music Valley sits — and whose jurisdiction it is

One question ran beneath much of the testimony and never got a clean answer: where is the Music Valley project, and who would review it?

County staff told the Commission the project is “not within San Bernardino County... located within Riverside County, six to eight miles southeast of 29 Palms,” on BLM land and that “the county has no jurisdiction on that.”

The company’s own account differs. In its June 22, 2026 press release, Dateline Resources describes the Music Valley project as located “in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties,” with its newest claims — 66 claims covering about 1,300 acres — in the “northwest of the project area... approximately six kilometres southeast of the town of Twentynine Palms.”

That distance is measured from the town center, not the city boundary. Twentynine Palms is a large incorporated city whose limits extend well to the southeast, and a point six kilometers from the center can still fall inside them. An overlay of the city’s own boundary, from the City of Twentynine Palms’ public GIS, and Dateline’s claims appears to place the newly staked claims within the city limits, which lie entirely in San Bernardino County.

If that placement holds, the problem isn't staff's claim that the County lacks jurisdiction — that may well be correct. It's that the reason would be the opposite of the one staff gave: not that the project sits in Riverside County, but that it sits inside the City of Twentynine Palms, in San Bernardino County. This would give the City of Twentynine Palms, a government entity that staff never mentioned, a direct stake, and raises the question of which agency would review it.

The Desert Trumpet has asked San Bernardino County, the City of Twentynine Palms, and the Bureau of Land Management to clarify exactly where the claims fall and which agency would review the project. We will report their responses.

Notice in the largest county in the country

The County’s legal notice of the July 9 hearing ran once — on June 29, in the San Bernardino Sun. Walsh described the Sun in his presentation as a paper that “reaches a countywide audience.”

San Bernardino County is the largest county by area in the contiguous United States, roughly 20,000 square miles — larger than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island combined. The Sun is based in the city of San Bernardino, on the valley side of the county; the desert and mountain communities that turned out to object sit 50 to 100 miles away. As Joshua Tree speaker David Fick put it, the commissioners are “all about 90 to 100 miles away from what this Music Valley mining project is.”

Those communities have their own newspapers of record — in the Morongo Basin, the Hi-Desert Star (Morongo Valley, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Landers, Pioneertown) and the Desert Trail (Twentynine Palms, Wonder Valley, Desert Heights). Near the quarry, the Mountaineer-Progress (Wrightwood, Phelan, Piñon Hills) is the paper of record. The County placed notice in none of them.

The result was visible in the testimony: residents reported learning of the hearing anywhere from 18 hours to about two months out, many only from neighbors or from the Desert Trumpet. Nothing in state law barred the County from also noticing the affected communities in their own papers of record. It published the single legal minimum instead.

The vote, and what comes next

Commissioner Kareem Gongora, the vice chair, said he had come in unconvinced:

initially, I was not in support of this, but just hearing that dynamic gives me more comfort because I want stronger protections.

He seconded the motion. Slowik moved approval of staff’s recommendation with a single corrected code reference — a cross-reference staff conceded was wrong, changing “8308” to “8608,” the kind of drafting error Wallis had flagged from the podium. Chair Michael Stoffel called the voice vote: “All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?... Motion passes.”

Asked why the rewrite was moving forward now — a question Weldy raised directly, framing residents’ suspicion that it was timed to smooth pending projects — Walsh said the timing was coincidental, the work having begun in early 2023. Staff said the recommendation is tentatively headed to the Board of Supervisors on August 18, would require a second reading, and would not take effect until roughly mid-September to early October, after which it returns to the State Mining and Geology Board for certification. Staff also noted the Lone Pine Canyon Road Quarry is tentatively set for Planning Commission review on August 6, before the ordinance would take effect.

This recap was produced in collaboration with our AI, Anthropic's Claude, working with human direction and review, from the meeting's Otter.ai transcript, the County staff report and the additional research sources listed below. Please read our AI policy for further information.

Become a paid subscriber!

Subscribing to the Desert Trumpet will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets
  

  Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

The Twentynine Palms City Council meets this Tuesday, July 14, at 6 pm at City Hall. This will be the rollout of the City’s new Webex system, which will allow you to watch the meeting and make written and audiovisual public comments. You’ll need to register ahead of time with this link; if you want to comment on a particular agenda item, include the item number on the pop-up form. You can note whether you are for or against an agenda item without making a comment.

The agenda packet for the meeting is here—we’ll include agenda numbers in our preview, but check the agenda to ensure you reference the right items.

If you merely want to watch the meeting as in the past, here is the link for the City’s YouTube page.

There is a five-page Public Participation Policy in the agenda packet (pages 17 to 21), which will be voted on as part of agenda item 5. We cover it in more depth below, along with other changes mandated by California State Senate Bill 707.

You can still submit an email to Council. Be sure to email them prior to 2 pm on the date of the meeting so they have time to read your email. You can also copy the clerk at cvillescas@29palms.org and ask that your letter be made part of the public record.

Again, here are useful links:

• The meeting’s agenda packet

• The link to make public comments on the new Webex system

• The YouTube link to view the meeting

• The email address for the City Clerk cvillescas@29palms.org

PUBLIC COMMENT

Since we’re talking about public comment and the new Webex system, be assured that you can still comment on agenda items and issues important to you at every City Council meeting. Comments on agenda items take place during discussion of that item, while comments on non-agenda items take place near the end of the meeting. The Brown Act prevents Council from commenting on non-agenda items. For this meeting, to comment, pick up a form at the entry desk, fill it out, and hand it to the Clerk, who usually sits just in front of the Council dais on the right.

Keep in mind that the City has been falling short on documenting public comments. See our analysis here. Indeed, the minutes for the last City Council meeting, held on June 23, are not included in this agenda’s Consent Calendar, as they generally (but not always) are.

CONSENT CALENDAR

3. Information on the Importance of Periodic Septic System Maintenance.

The City has been placing educational materials on septic systems and groundwater safety prepared jointly by the City and the Water District in most agenda packets, as we covered here. The City intends to place this item on the Consent Calendar as a standing reminder to residents to maintain their septic systems, although it is a very under-the-radar way to do so. The Water District has similar information on septic safety linked here.

Also tucked into the agenda packet is the information that three of the City’s eight batch treatment systems are failing. On March 10, the Desert Trumpet pointed out:

The report does not identify their locations, nor does it provide a count of the individual residential and commercial septic systems operating within city limits. For a community that relies entirely on septic systems for wastewater management and is actively tracking groundwater contamination risk, that seems like information the public has a right to know.

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by spreading the word like these generous supporters.

Share The Desert Trumpet

DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS

There are no public hearings included in the agenda, and the meeting will move directly to potential action items.

4. Designation of Delegate for the Annual CalCities Conference

The League of California Cities will host their annual Cal Cities Expo in September at the Anaheim Convention Center. According to the its website, the League is a non-profit organization composed of 476 cities throughout the state. They lobby at the state and federal level, advocating for legislation that affects policy decisions that come down from the State Capitol in Sacramento. The City of Twentynine Palms will be sending a delegate and an alternate delegate to the expo, where they will participate and vote on the League’s annual business, and will be choosing their delegates at this meeting.

The fee for the event is $725 for each delegate, covered by the City budget, as are hotel and transportation costs. Last year, then-Mayor Pro Tem Daniel Mintz and Councilmember April Ramirez attended the conference in Long Beach in October. Membership in the League of California Cities, event fees, and travel costs are not broken out separately in the City’s budget.1

5. Senate Bill 707 (SB707) Introduction of Policies Related to Brown Act Changes.

On October 3, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 707 into law. This bill updates the Brown Act, a law that controls how local governments hold public meetings. The goal of the bill is to make it easier for more people to get involved in local government. Some parts of the law started on January 1, 2026, but the biggest changes begin July 1, 2026. Hence the City’s new Webinar system.

The system will change how residents make public comments. There is a new Public Participation Policy on pages 17-21 of the agenda packet; if you find the policy problematic, bring it up in comment on item 5. Here are some key items:

• Time limits scale with turnout: 3 minutes/speaker if 10 or fewer speakers sign up, 2 minutes if 11–15 speakers, 1 minute if 16 or more. The Mayor has discretion to adjust. You cannot cede your time to another speaker. The policy does not make it clear whether the count is per item or is based on the number of speakers signed up for the entire meeting session.

• In-person speakers go first, ahead of video/phone participants. When a remote speaker is called, they get only 15 seconds to respond before the next speaker is called, so be ready.

• Sign-up deadlines: in-person speaker slips are encouraged by 4pm the day of the meeting. They are accepted until 6 pm, just before the meeting starts. This means that if something comes up in the meeting you want to talk about, you will not be able to submit a slip. Telephonic participants must register by email in advance to get dial-in instructions.

• Remote participants are muted by default and only unmuted when called on (audio auto-mutes again once time is up); video participants are prompted to enable audio/video when recognized.

• Bring copies if submitting handouts: in-person commenters supplementing their remarks with hard copies should bring at least eight copies for the Clerk/Council.

• Decorum rules: comments must be directed to the Council as a whole, kept professional and courteous. Threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, and obscenity are not protected and can get a speaker warned or removed. This applies to remote commenters too. They can be muted, have video disabled, or be removed for disruption).

SB 707 has also extended pandemic-era teleconference rules through January 2030 and allows Councilmembers to participate remotely without publicly identifying their location under “just cause.” This includes for childcare, illness, family emergencies, work travel, or military service. Councilmembers can participate remotely for up to five meetings a year.

The bill also extended social media guidelines for Councilmembers. On topics within their jurisdiction, Councilmembers can use social media to:

• Answer questions from the public

• Provide information to the public

• Solicit information from the public

They can also freely comment on, like, or interact with posts from members of the public. They cannot respond directly to anything another member of the same body posts, comments, or shares on social media about Council business. The law restricts not just written comments but also emojis, "like" buttons, and other reactions.

6. Adoption of Resolutions to Place the Proposed Sales Tax on the November 3, 2026 General Election Ballot

The sales tax ballot item is moving closer to being a reality. The agenda includes a pair of resolutions that would place the 1% sales tax measure on the ballot for residents to vote on in the November 3, 2026, general election.

For the guide that goes out to voters, the City Council can choose one of its members to write an official argument supporting the sales tax measure, capped at 300 words, to go in the voter guide that is sent by the State to every registered voter. This rationale is due to the City Clerk by Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 5:30 pm. If the Council skips this step and multiple residents submit their own arguments for or against the measure, the Clerk must pick one of each based on priority rules, starting with the Council, then citizen groups or sponsors, then individual voters. The City Attorney will also write an impartial analysis (500 words max) explaining the measure's legal effects, due the same day. The state deadline to place a measure on the November ballot is August 7.

The draft ballot measure is very specific about what the sales tax might pay for, such as funding sheriff patrols, street repairs, park upkeep, and an animal shelter upgrade. Remember, however, that the this is a general tax, which isn’t legally tied to any particular use. Once the money comes in, it goes into the City’s General Fund, and whichever Council is in office at the time can spend it on anything. (In our recap of the last Council meeting, we covered what is and isn’t taxable.)

Placing the measure on the ballot requires a three-quarter vote of the Council. That means at least four of the five members have to say “yes.” If that vote isn’t there, the measure doesn’t move forward.

The City Council meeting will also include the City Manager’s report. The list of future council-initiated items is much leaner. This is the current list:

1. Shade Structures around Freedom Plaza and a possible art fixture with “Freedom Plaza” announcing the location.

2. Discussion on the use of City funds for grants and the potential reallocation of housing and homeless funds to grants.

3. Discussion on the next steps of reallocating $1.3 million for housing.

4. Review and revision to Municipal Code 5.08 related to Cannabis uses to bring the City up to par with new legislation and State Law.

Items resolved or pulled from the list by City Manager in the last City Council meeting include:

• Discussion of a policy regulating the use of City Attorney resources

• Discussion on creating a “Recognized Neighborhood Program”

• Discussion of Code Enforcement and compliance with Proposition 36, including finding a pathway to meet Governor Newsom’s new guidance

• Discussion about annexing parcels APN 0634-05-124 and 0634-05-109 (Set Free Ranch) in Wonder Valley

• Discussion of a possible safe passage with CalTrans around Donnell Hill

• Discussion on collaboration with Liberty Military Housing to update RHNA numbers

• Study Session regarding the FLOCK cameras

The next Twentynine Palms City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, 2026 at 6 pm.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our County news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online or readd them later if you change your mind.

Become a paid subscriber!

Subscribing to the Desert Trumpet will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Summer in the Hi-Desert means monsoon clouds over the mountains, wildfire risk increases, and a reminder that we live in one of the most seismically active corners of the country. Although it’s a coincidence that the two largest earthquakes to hit southern California in the last 50 years happened in the summer,1 it’s still a good time to freshen up your earthquake kit, dig out your sandbags, and make sure your home is safe from wildfires.

Here’s what you need to know about the Morongo Basin’s three big hazards, and what you can actually do about each one.

EARTHQUAKES: Yes, we’re overdue. No, that doesn’t mean tomorrow.

You may have seen recent headlines saying a major earthquake on the San Andreas or San Jacinto fault is overdue. While this is true, seismologists are not getting new signals from our biggest faults but taking a fresh look at old data.

Using tree rings and buried sediment layers, scientists built a computer model tracking how stress builds on a fault over time. Their conclusion: the southern San Andreas and San Jacinto faults are more stressed than at any point in the last 1,000 years, because neither fault has produced a major rupture in southern California since 1857.

That doesn’t mean a quake is coming next week or next year; earthquakes can’t be predicted that precisely. One spot scientists are watching closely is the Cajon Pass, the narrow gap between the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. Researchers call it an “earthquake gate,” a point that can either stop a rupture or let it jump from one fault to another, spreading damage across the Coachella Valley and San Bernardino County.

If you’ve lived in the Basin a while, you’ve probably experienced major earthquakes.

On June 28, 1992, the M7.3 Landers earthquake ruptured through the Mojave Desert, the largest earthquake to hit the lower 48 states in 40 years. It was part of a sequence: a M6.1 foreshock near Joshua Tree, the M7.3 Landers mainshock, and a M6.3 aftershock near Big Bear. Because the epicenter sat in what was at that time sparsely populated desert, damage was lighter than the magnitude suggested, but local communities felt very strong shaking, and the quake tragically killed a child when a stone fireplace collapsed. The region stayed active: the M7.1 Hector Mine quake struck in 1999, and in July 2019 the Ridgecrest sequence brought a M6.4 quake followed a day later by a M7.1.

What to actually do about it?

Per the USGS/Earthquake Country Alliance guide “Staying Safe Where the Earth Shakes”:

• Secure your space. Strap your water heater to wall studs (about $20 in parts), anchor top-heavy furniture, and hang mirrors on closed hooks. Move heavy items off high shelves and away from beds and couches.

• Make a household plan. Pick a meeting spot, keep emergency contacts handy, and choose an out-of-area contact everyone can check in with. Long-distance connections often come back faster than local ones. Know where your gas shutoff and breaker panel are and keep a wrench nearby in case you need to shut off gas.

• Build a kit. Store at least one gallon of water per person (and pet) per day, for at least three days, ideally up to two weeks and longer if you’re remote, like many homes in the area. Keep a grab-and-go backpack with document copies, medication, snacks, and a phone charger.

• When shaking starts: Drop, Cover, and Hold On. Drop onto your hands and knees, cover your head and neck under a sturdy table, and hold on until it stops. If you’re in bed, stay there and cover your head. Most injuries happen when people get up and move through broken glass or trip over fallen objects in the dark.2

You can practice this every October with millions of people during the Great ShakeOut.

FLOODING: A strong El Niño is coming, and the Basin knows what flash floods can do.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirms that El Niño, the warm-water Pacific pattern that tends to bring wetter Southern California winters, has formed and is strengthening, with NOAA’s July models suggesting it could become one of the strongest events in decades, peaking around late fall or early winter.3 Three of the last four “very strong” El Niño winters brought above-average rain to southern California.

Our hard-packed desert ground doesn’t absorb rain well and heavy storms run straight downhill into washes. Flash floods move fast. Twentynine Palms residents have not forgotten that on July 14, 2024, a flash flood triggered a 15-car swift-water rescue on Highway 62 and flooded homes across town. City crews got the flash flood alert at 1:52 p.m. and responded within 20 minutes, but public works still had to move over 1,000 cubic yards of sand afterward, roughly 100 dump truck loads. Some residents flooded more than once that year. The region has a history of flooding, including fatal flash floods in 1999 and 2003.

How to get ready before the next storm:

• Get sandbags early, available at Twentynine Palms City Hall and County Fire Station 44. Team Rubicon, a veteran-led disaster response nonprofit that has worked directly with Basin residents, recommends folding bags shut rather than tying them, and stacking overlapping rows instead of one loose pile. Remember, do not overfill the bag! It is also effective to overlap bags, as you can see in the “correct” illustration below. Tucking the empty end of the bag that lies below the filled end creates an especially tight fit.

• Consider a “burrito wrap” for serious protection: wrap plastic sheeting around your home’s base, staple it at the top, and weigh the bottom down with sandbags. This keeps water from pushing through vents and door gaps — common weak points.

• Protect your roof, too. Team Rubicon’s advice: don’t just throw a tarp over a hole. “Think like a raindrop,” says Rubicon’s Kevin Kothlow. The tarp needs to go over the roof’s peak and down both sides so water actually sheds away from the structure. Check for soft spots and failing flashing around vents and skylights before climbing up. Keep a heavy-duty tarp (bigger than you think you need), furring strips, nails, a staple gun, and duct tape on hand.

• Know whom to call. If your home takes on 18+ inches of water (less for mobile homes), the Red Cross can help with cleanup funds and replacing essentials. Report dangerously rushing water to the Twentynine Palms Water District’s hotline (760-367-7546).

The Desert Trumpet attended a Project Rubicon workshop in 2024 and published step-by-step instructions on deploying sandbags and floodproofing your home:

• “When the Clouds Open: Team Rubicon’s Guide to Diverting Water and Protecting Your Home”

• “Think Like a Raindrop: Floodproofing Your Home”

And when driving during a storm, be safe: Turn around. Don’t drown.

FIRE: Lightning starts most of our wildfires, but people start plenty too.

Monsoon season brings lightning along with the rain, and lightning is the biggest natural cause of wildfire here. Joshua Tree National Park’s fire records go back to 1945: about 74 percent of recorded fires were lightning-caused, the rest human-caused. Fire has always been part of this desert, and they usually stayed small because desert plants are spread out.

That’s changing. Before 1965, most lightning fires burned under a quarter acre; since then, fires have gotten bigger. The 1999 Juniper Complex fire, the largest in park history, burned nearly 14,000 acres of junipers, pinyon pines, and Joshua trees, which take decades to recover. Unlike coastal California, this is not a fire ecology where desert plants need to burn to germinate. Invasive grasses filling the gaps between desert shrubs are part of the problem. When they dry out, they act as fuel that lets fire spread faster and burn hotter.

The Town of Yucca Valley’s Wildfire Guide says clearing flammable vegetation can cut your risk of losing a structure by as much as 70 percent:

• Build a defensible space of at least 30 feet around your home. Clear more on a hillside, since fire moves fast uphill.

• Clear dead leaves and brush and thin tree canopies to 15 feet between crowns.

• Keep a 10-foot clearance around propane tanks and barbecues. If you have a lawn, which can’t be very many people in the Morongo Basin, mow it regularly.

• Install hose spigots on at least two sides of the house, and keep a garden hose long enough to reach anywhere fire could start. A portable gas-powered water pump helps if the power goes out and hydrant pressure drops.

• Keep basic tools ready: a ladder as tall as your roofline, a rake, axe or chainsaw, shovel, and buckets.

EXTREME HEAT: Know where the cooling center is.

Triple-digit days aren’t rare during our summers, but they’re still dangerous. Twentynine Palms City Manager Kevin Cole says the city’s cooling center, at the Senior Center on 6539 Adobe Road, opens once the heat index hits 110 degrees, which is lower than the 115 threshold used in past years. Cole notes the city relies on National Weather Service readings, not your phone’s app, to determine whether to open the cooling center, so check NWS directly if you’re unsure whether it’s open.

THE BOTTOM LINE

None of these hazards are new to the Morongo Basin, and none are going away. Earthquake fault stress has been building on the San Andreas Fault for more than 150 years. El Niño is strengthening into what could be an intense monsoon and wet winter. Dry lightning during monsoon season is not unusual. It’s summer. It gets hot. The good news: most of this prep takes an afternoon and doesn’t cost a fortune. Secure your furniture, stock your water, keep sandbags on hand, clear your brush, maintain your swamp cooler and your air conditioner, and you’ll be in good shape.

For Morongo Basin residents concerned about the Music Valley rare earth mine (see a March 30, 2026, Los Angeles Times article linked here) and other mining operations in the area, one of just two items on Thursday’s San Bernardino County Planning Commission agenda is a proposal that could reshape how mines get approved across our deserts. This includes land right next Joshua Tree National Park and on the borders of Twentynine Palms and Wonder Valley. The agenda for the meeting is linked here and the staff report for the item is here.

Agenda Item 3 (Project No. PMISC-2026-00029) would repeal and rewrite Chapter 88.03 of the County Development Code, the County’s local rules for surface mining and land reclamation. County staff describe it as a routine “administrative update” to bring the 2007-era rules in line with California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). But tucked inside is a change with real teeth: the County would give up its own permitting authority over mining projects that receive federal approval.

Under the proposed new Section 88.03.040(b):

a Permit shall not be required for those portions of surface mining operations that require and obtain a federally approved plan of operation, or other federal authorization.

In plain English: if a mining company gets a green light from a federal agency like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), it would no longer need a County permit for the work on that federal land. This gives area residents much less recourse to challenge mining operations that directly affect them.

If you want to weigh in, the window is now. The Planning Commission takes up the mining ordinance at 9 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, July 9. You can speak in person in San Bernardino, or from the desert by remote video at the Joshua Tree Community Center (6171 Sunburst Ave). You can also go to the the Jerry Lewis High Desert Government Center in Hesperia — just fill out a "Request to Speak" on Item 3 when the meeting starts (3 minutes per speaker). Can't make it? Email your comment to PlanningCommissionComments@lus.sbcounty.gov, referencing Item 3, before the meeting begins. Full details and talking points are at the bottom of this post.

Why this matters

California law generally requires mining projects, including those on federal public land, to go through county permitting, a process meant to study and minimize impacts on air, water, wildlife, and neighbors. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) warns that the county’s proposed change would surrender that local check precisely where it matters most:

Because federal requirements are weaker than California’s this means new mining projects will be approved without the public’s knowledge, and with serious impacts to our treasured public lands, air, and water.

Two other features of the proposal deserve closer scrutiny:

• No environmental review. The County is claiming the entire rewrite is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the “common sense” exemption (14 CCR §15061(b)(3)), on the theory that it’s a purely administrative update that won’t authorize anything with a significant environmental effect. That means no environmental study of the change itself.

• Nothing stronger than the state floor. The staff report states plainly that “the County is not proposing any changes that are more stringent than SMARA,” even though the ordinance’s own language (§88.03.030(b)) would allow the County to go further to protect residents.

Who was in the room

According to the staff report, the County built this rewrite in direct collaboration with CalCIMA — the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association, the mining industry’s trade group. After an initial November 2023 stakeholder meeting, mining operators asked that CalCIMA “coordinate with the County throughout the process,” and staff then “collaborated with CalCIMA to prepare an update.” The State Mining and Geology Board reviewed a draft in November 2025 and “had no comments.”

There is no mention in the staff report of outreach to local residents, tribes, or conservation groups. NPCA’s concern is blunt: “in its stakeholder engagement for this proposal, the county only talked to the mining industry, and not local residents.”

The bigger picture: mining pressure is rising

This rule change isn’t happening in a vacuum. Mining interest in the California desert is surging:

• In February 2026, the Australian company Dateline Resources announced its “Music Valley” rare-earth project in the Pinto Mountains south of Twentynine Palms1. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) confirmed the company filed 969 mining claims totaling roughly 19,380 acres — some within 100 feet of Joshua Tree National Park. Environmental advocates warn the project could deplete scarce water, generate toxic waste, add heavy truck traffic, and threaten the desert tortoise.

• Meanwhile, a U.S. Senate budget-reconciliation proposal has floated auctioning off tens of thousands of acres of BLM public land across the Morongo Basin including Wonder Valley, Desert Heights, and parcels near Joshua Tree’s Section 6. This raises the prospect of far more private development and extraction on land that is public today.

A mine like Music Valley sits largely on federal BLM land. Under the County’s proposed federal-lands carve-out, much of a project like that could move forward without a County permit and without the local environmental review that a permit triggers — the exact scenario NPCA is warning about.

Questions the proposal raises

Whatever one thinks of the County’s “administrative update” framing, the rewrite leaves several open questions that should be addressed at Thursday’s hearing:

• If the County stops requiring permits for mining on federally approved public land, and federal environmental review is less rigorous than California’s, how will impacts to local air, water, and wildlife be studied and mitigated?

• Will nearby residents still learn about and get a chance to comment on new mining projects on public land, or could those projects advance without local notice?

• Why did the County stakeholder outreach engage the mining industry’s trade association but, per the staff report, no local residents, tribes, or conservation groups?

• Given that the ordinance’s own language allows the County to adopt rules stronger than the state minimum, why does the proposal decline to do so anywhere?

• Should the Commission recommend this to the Board of Supervisors now or continue the item to give the public more time to review a countywide change of this scope?

The Planning Commission doesn’t have the final say — but Thursday matters

The Planning Commission won’t adopt the ordinance itself. Its job Thursday is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which takes the final vote later. That’s precisely why public comment now is important: the Commission can recommend approval, recommend changes, or recommend that the Board make no change at all — and it can vote to continue the item to give the public more time to review it.

How to Make Your Voice Heard

The San Bernardino County Planning Commission holds a public hearing on the mining ordinance:

Thursday, July 9, 2026, starting at 9:00 a.m.

Comment in person or by remote video:

• Meeting location: County Government Center, Covington Chambers 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., 1st Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92415

• Courtesy remote participation (comment from the desert):

  • Joshua Tree Community Center — 6171 Sunburst Ave., Joshua Tree, CA 92252

  • Jerry Lewis High Desert Government Center — 15900 Smoke Tree St., Suite 131, Hesperia, CA 92345 (Conference Room 221, 2nd floor)

Fill out a “Request to Speak” form on Agenda Item 3 at the start of the meeting. Speakers get up to 3 minutes. Note: remote locations are a courtesy and may close due to weather, technical failure, or emergency.

Interested parties can also comment by email: PlanningCommissionComments@lus.sbcounty.gov Reference Agenda Item 3, PMISC-2026-00029. To be shared with commissioners before the vote, comments must arrive before the meeting begins Thursday morning.

The full agenda and staff report are posted at lus.sbcounty.gov. The meeting also streams live there.

Sources & further reading

• San Bernardino County Planning Commission Agenda, July 9, 2026, and Staff Report for Item 3 (PMISC-2026-00029), Land Use Services Department

• “Next to Joshua Tree National Park, a mining company is staking its claim for rare earth minerals,” Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2026

• “Mining Company Plans to Drill Within 100 Feet of Joshua Tree National Park,” GearJunkie

• “Senate Floats Auction of 1000s of Acres of Morongo Basin Public Land,” Desert Trumpet

This article was produced with AI assistance, consistent with the approach described in our AI Policy.

Help us cover the County of San Bernardino — Become a paid subscriber!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

  Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Consider showing up to the Roundtable discussion about AI-powered Flock surveillance cameras, organized by Twentynine Palms Mayor Pro Tem Octavious Scott, Thursday, July 9, 4:30-6pm at the Luckie Park Activity Center, 74325 Joe Davis Drive. (Note the location as it was moved and is NOT being held at City Hall.)

A community group has formed in opposition to Flock cameras, their website is https://deflock29.org/.

Do you have concerns about Flock cameras?

By Stacey Solie

What if the government were to give you a location tracker to put around your wrist and your child’s wrist?

What if the tracker can be upgraded remotely to also record your voice and image?

What if the government says, “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”?

What if the government initially gives it to you for free, but later requires you to pay for the tracking device?

What if the device tracks when you go to the church, the casino, and the shooting range?

What if the government gives data about your child to a corporation that is also selling that data?

What if the tracker seems similar to what phones and watches are already doing, except that for the government to access phone and watch data they have to show probable cause and get a warrant signed by a judge?

What if you are going through a bitter divorce and your soon-to-be-ex-wife pays for access to all of your personal data and sorts through it to make you look bad in the custody battle, but you can’t afford the fee for her data?

What if the storage of this intimate data requires sprawling warehouses that deplete public water and electricity—and are also super loud and your property values plummet?

What if CEOs are revising contracts to claim the right to use and sell your data after the contract ends?

What if providing data access to the feds is against state sovereignty laws and opens your city up to costly lawsuits?

What if in the next election someone you don’t like becomes President, and the tracker is used to arrest your teenager because something they said pissed off somebody in government?

What if your PTSD came from a war fought to protect American values—like the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches without a warrant?

What if cities like Mountain View and Los Altos, where the people who own Big Tech companies live and work, are cancelling their contracts with surveillance companies? What do they know that we don’t?

Questions for the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department about Flock

By Elliot Balsey

When the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) presented information about this system to the Twentynine Palms City Council on November 12, 2024, it was described as a three-phase rollout. Phase 1 is now complete with 31 cameras. How many cameras are planned for Phases 2 and 3, and what is the timeline?

Why has SBSD chosen not to enable the Flock Transparency Portal? Many other agencies have enabled this to help build community trust. Examples: San Diego PD, Kings County SO, Kern County SO

In 2025, Flock announced that all license-plate reader (LPR) cameras would receive a free upgrade to stream live video. Has your agency enabled this feature, or do you plan to?

Is an officer allowed to share their Flock password with a law enforcement officer from another agency? If not, how would you be able to detect if this happened?

Network audit logs show 57% of searches run by SBSD officers do not include a criminal case number. Why?1

What mechanisms are in place to prevent officers from performing inappropriate searches, and how is this audited? Examples from Institute for Justice. Notably, some of these abuses were discovered only after victims checked the audit logs at haveibeenflocked.com.

What is your agency’s policy on sharing Flock data with other agencies? If you discovered that Flock shared your data in violation of that policy, how would you respond? I found this policy from 2018, but it’s outdated and lacking several required details according to California code § 1798.90.53.

Why do the audit logs show several SBSD officers running searches 24 hours a day?

Why did your agency run a Flock search for “ICE PROTEST” on June 9, 2025 — the same day as a peaceful protest in San Bernardino? And another search for “no king” on June 14? Political protest is legally protected by the First Amendment.

Does the Flock system create a heat map (pattern of life) of a vehicle movement using the multiple aggregated images for a specific searched vehicle? (In April 2026, in Oshkosh, Flock said no. Police Chief Dean Smith proved them wrong by simply looking at the tools. Flock’s own product trainers are on video explaining this feature and calling it “the heat map that you know and love.”)

Assuming SBSD opts out of all data sharing, if federal agencies like the Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security serve a secret subpoena demanding access to the database, would Flock comply? What if that demand was accompanied by a gag order?2

We have filed numerous records requests with SBSD for Flock network audit logs. Under CPRA government code § 7922.535(a) you are required to respond within 10 days with an estimated date when the records will be available. It’s been over four months, and you have not responded. Why? Without this data, we cannot verify Flock’s claims that they’ve disabled sharing outside California. 26-5814, 26-11951, 26-11952, 26-11970

Possible improvements

If we must have LPRs, here are some potential compromises to make the system safer.

1. All user accounts must use MFA (multi-factor authentication) to prevent password sharing and hacking

2. All images and metadata should be end-to-end encrypted so that nobody other than local law enforcement officers can access it (including Flock employees). This is how Apple HomeKit Secure Video cameras work. Encryption is different than a policy choice that is subject to change; it’s a technological design that makes it impossible for any third party (including the manufacturer) to see the video.

3. All images and derived metadata must be destroyed within 3 minutes unless they match a hot list. New Hampshire has this law like this.

4. All searches must include a criminal case number.

5. All searches must be authorized by a judicial warrant.

6. Random spot checks on 5% of searches to verify case number is valid and relevant, to avoid reusing an old case number.

7. Data may not be shared with any other agency. If officers need to share information with neighboring agencies, they can use existing tools like APBs (all points bulletins), BOLOs (be on the lookout), radio, etc.

8. Audit logs shall be publicly available including officer’s name, timestamp, and search reason.

9. The software vendor shall maintain a warrant canary on its website to help inform the public in case the federal government demands data and issues a gag order.

Thanks to you, Desert Trumpet exceeded our $10,000 paid subscription goal!!!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets.

Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Here’s what I want you to know before I tell you anything about the movie business: the Morongo Basin went four years without a movie theater. When Cinema 6 in Yucca Valley closed during the pandemic, seeing a film on a big screen, indoors, meant an hour in the car, each way, down the hill. For four years, one of the most basic pieces of community life — a dark, cool room where strangers sit together and watch the same story — simply didn’t exist up here.

It does now. Paradigm Cinemas, at 56401 Twentynine Palms Highway, reopened the building in August 2024. Four screens, first-run films, in the same spot that’s been showing movies since it opened as the Valley Twin in 1982.

The story of how it came back is worth knowing: the new owner found the shuttered theater through a post on an online forum. A woman who had tried to take it over herself, couldn’t, and wanted someone out there to know that this community had a good theater and no one to run it. Someone read that post and drove out to see for himself. That’s the whole origin story. Somebody asked, and somebody answered.

Which brings me to summer. The heat that’s arriving now in Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Morongo Valley, Twentynine Palms, and more brutally down in the low desert is not a punchline here. It shapes when we walk our dogs, when we leave the house, what our electric bills look like.

A movie theater in the summer is one of the few public places where anyone, for the price of a ticket, can spend two hours in real air conditioning, in the dark, with other people. That has always been part of what theaters are for. The summer blockbuster exists because of the heat; air-conditioned movie houses were selling escape from it decades before most homes had any. In the desert, that original purpose never stopped being true.

So go. And if you’re down the hill, the low desert has kept its screens too. The Mary Pickford in Cathedral City, now Mary Pickford is D’Place, runs first-run films across fourteen auditoriums with recliners, house-made ice cream, and $6.95 Tuesdays.

In downtown Palm Springs, the old Regal on Tahquitz Canyon has become Festival Theaters, independently run and committed to being the valley’s home for independent, international, and LGBTQ+ cinema, with $7 Tuesdays of its own. Its general manager has called it the last shot at a true arthouse theater in the desert. He’s not wrong, and that’s exactly the kind of place that survives because people show up.

Now, what’s actually playing, because this is the part I find genuinely hopeful.

The box office is healthy again. Domestic ticket sales through the end of May were running 11.3 percent ahead of last year. But the more important story is who is driving that recovery, because it is not who you’d expect.

Start with the biggest film of the year that isn’t a sequel or franchise. Project Hail Mary, directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, stars Ryan Gosling as a middle school teacher who wakes up alone in space with no memory of how he got there. It opened March 20 to $80.6 million domestically and $140.9 million worldwide. It has since grossed $683.5 million worldwide against a $200 million budget, making it the fourth highest-grossing film of 2026.

Rotten Tomatoes calls it a “near-miraculous fusion of smarts and heart.” What made it connect isn’t complicated: it’s a film about competence, friendship, and altruism. A scientist solves impossible problems, forms an unlikely bond with an alien, and tries to save everyone. In a moment when the prevailing blockbuster mood has been destruction and franchise obligation, audiences turned out in huge numbers for a movie that just wanted to do good in the universe. That means something.

Then there’s the other side of the recovery: horror built on almost nothing.

Backrooms, directed by twenty-one-year-old Kane Parsons, who built his audience making short horror videos on YouTube, was co-financed by A24 and Chernin Entertainment for roughly $10 million. It opened May 29 to $81.4 million domestically and $118 million worldwide, more than tripling A24’s previous opening weekend record. It has since crossed $331 million worldwide, becoming the studio’s highest-grossing film ever and making Parsons the youngest filmmaker to top the domestic box office.

Obsession, from director Curry Barker, 26 years old and similarly YouTube-born, was produced for $750,000, then acquired by Focus Features for $15 million after a bidding war at the Toronto International Film Festival. It has now crossed $371 million worldwide, the biggest film in Focus Features’ history, and its fourth weekend gross set an all-time record for the biggest fourth weekend ever for a horror film. Word of mouth did that. People telling other people: you have to see this in a theater.

Meanwhile, The Devil Wears Prada 2 opened May 1 and has passed $678 million worldwide, more than any Marvel film released last year earned. Read that again. A twenty-years-later sequel about a fashion editor outgrossed the entire 2025 superhero slate.

The franchise machine that dominated theaters for fifteen years is no longer the sure thing. What’s working instead: a space epic about a scientist who befriends an alien and saves the world through sheer curiosity; horror built by young filmmakers for next to nothing; and stories about adults, made with care. Audiences are choosing. That’s new, and it matters.

Here is what all of it adds up to for us in July. The movies are in the most interesting place they’ve been in years. The room they play in is the coolest one in town. And ours stayed dark for four years before somebody brought it back. Buy the ticket. Buy the popcorn. Keep the lights on at Paradigm so the dark room stays open for all of us.

Are you a paid subscriber? Take the poll below! Or anyone reading can write in the comments and add a movie that will get you into the theaters this summer.

Enjoy Sad Trombone? This column is one of our paid subscriber benefits, offered for free this month to celebrate beating the heat at a local theater.

Want more of Sad Trombone? Upgrade to a paid subscription today!

Subscribe now

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Get the Desert Trumpet in your email in-box!

Subscribe now

Life slows to a crawl in the Mojave summer heat and so does City business. Many local officials take a break and enjoy the long lazy days. Below is our compendium of the summer meeting schedule — remember during the summer, meetings are fluid so always double check the calendars or better yet, sign up for notifications in your in-box! See links below.

Note that with the passage of SB 707 on July 1 all legislative bodies will be required to provide two-way remote meeting access — it’s possible that some bodies such as the TBID or PAAC will be exempt. Stay tuned. But the days of the Planning Commission turning off the camera for a study session or workshop are over.

City of Twentynine Palms

Note: This list was updated on July 6, when we learned that all July city meetings are cancelled.

Meeting location:
City Hall
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277

City meetings calendar
City meetings sign up

CITY COUNCIL
Usually meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday, 6 pm

Tuesday, July 14
Tuesday, July 28
Tuesday, August 11 Cancelled
Tuesday, August 25

PLANNING COMMISSION
Usually meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesday, 5 pm

Tuesday, July 7 Cancelled
Tuesday, July 21 Cancelled
Tuesday, August 4
Tuesday, August 18

TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TBID)
Usually the 3rd Thursday, 3:30 pm

Thursday, July 16 Cancelled
Thursday, August 20

PUBLIC ARTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Usually meets the 3rd Wednesday, 5 pm

Wednesday July 15 Cancelled
Wednesday, August 19 Cancelled

Town of Yucca Valley

Meeting location::
Yucca Valley Community Center, Yucca Room
57090 Twentynine Palms Hwy
Yucca Valley, CA 92284

Town meetings calendar and agendas
Town meetings sign up (sign in to receive notifications)

TOWN COUNCIL
Usually meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesday, 5 pm

Tuesday, July 7 Cancelled
Tuesday, July 21
Tuesday, August 4
Tuesday, August 18

PLANNING COMMISSION
Usually meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday, 6 pm

Tuesday, July 14
Tuesday, July 28
Tuesday, August 11
Tuesday, August 25

San Bernardino County

County Government Center - Covington Chambers
385 N. Arrowhead Ave., First Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415

Meetings calendar and agendas (Board of Supervisors)
Meetings sign up (Board of Supervisors)
Meetings calendar and agendas (Planning Commission)
Meetings sign up (Planning Commission)

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Usually meets on alternating Tuesdays, 10am, Covington Chambers

Tuesday, July 7 Cancelled
Tuesday, July 21 Cancelled
Tuesday, August 4
Tuesday, August 18

PLANNING COMMISSION
Meets Thursdays twice per month, schedule varies, 9am, Covington Chambers

Thursday, July 9
Thursday, July 23
Thursday, August 6
Thursday, August 20

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share this post—it’s free!

Share

Get the Desert Trumpet in your email in-box!

Subscribe now

For many visitors, seeing the Milky Way is the reason they come to Joshua Tree after dark. July is one of the best months of the year to experience our home galaxy, when its brightest and richest regions stretch across the desert sky.

If you’ve never seen the Milky Way from a truly dark location, you might be surprised by what you’re looking for. It’s not a sharp band of stars or a glowing ribbon overhead. Instead, it appears as a soft, cloudy river of light arching across the sky. Once your eyes adjust, you’ll realize that the “cloud” is actually made up of countless distant stars.

Give Yourself Time

The single biggest mistake first-time stargazers make is stepping out of the car, looking up for thirty seconds, and deciding there isn’t much to see.

Our eyes need about twenty to thirty minutes to fully adapt to darkness. During that time, avoid looking at your phone or any bright white lights. If you need a flashlight, use a dim red light instead. The difference is remarkable. Stars that were invisible when you arrived slowly begin to appear, and the Milky Way becomes more defined with every passing minute.

Your Eyes Are Part of the Experience

Modern cameras can capture astonishing photographs of the Milky Way. Long exposures reveal vivid colors, glowing nebulae, and millions of stars that our eyes simply can’t detect. Those images are beautiful, but they’re a different experience.

The naked-eye view is something no photograph can replace. You can see incredible pictures of the Milky Way in books, magazines, or on a screen anytime you like. You can only experience the real thing by stepping outside under a dark sky and looking up.

Your eyes won’t see bright pink nebulae or electric-blue star clouds. Instead, you’ll see the soft glow of our own galaxy stretching overhead, just as people have for thousands of years. It’s quieter, more subtle, and, in many ways, more remarkable. You’re not looking at a picture of the universe. You’re standing in it.

Look South

In July, the brightest part of the Milky Way rises from the southeastern sky near the constellations Scorpius and Sagittarius. This is the direction of the center of our galaxy, where hundreds of billions of stars are packed together.

As the night goes on, the Milky Way climbs higher and stretches overhead toward Cygnus the Swan in the northeast. Around 10 p.m. you’ll have one of the year’s best views, and it only gets better as the night goes on.

Binoculars Are Your Secret Weapon

People often assume they need a telescope to enjoy the Milky Way. In reality, binoculars are one of the best tools you can bring.

Don’t underestimate binoculars! Point them anywhere along the bright band of the Milky Way, and you’ll watch the hazy glow resolve into thousands of individual stars. Sweep slowly through the star clouds around Sagittarius and Scorpius, and you’ll stumble across open star clusters and dense fields of stars that seem almost impossible to count.

Your binoculars don’t need to be huge or fancy. Look for sizes like 8×42 or 10×50. They’re ideal for stargazing, useful during the day for wildlife and sightseeing, and one of the most affordable ways to grow a casual interest in astronomy into a lifelong hobby.

Find a Dark Spot

Joshua Tree National Park is famous for its dark skies, but not every location is equally dark.

Try to get away from parking lot lights, campground lighting, and nearby headlights. Even walking a few hundred feet from bright lights can dramatically improve what you see. The farther you can get from artificial light, the more structure you’ll notice in the Milky Way.

Let Your Eyes Wander

The Milky Way isn’t something to study with laser focus. It’s something to experience.

Spend a few minutes looking around instead of staring at one spot. Your peripheral vision is often better at detecting faint light than your central vision. The longer you observe, the more detail begins to emerge. Dark dust lanes cut through the brighter star clouds, and subtle variations in brightness become easier to notice.

Remember What You’re Seeing

That soft band of light isn’t a cloud or a distant nebula. It’s our own galaxy seen from the inside. Every point of light you can resolve is another star sharing our galactic neighborhood.

When you look at the Milky Way, you’re looking at your home.

It’s one of the most humbling sights the night sky has to offer, and July is one of the very best times of year to experience it from Joshua Tree.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Thanks to you, Desert Trumpet exceeded our $10,000 paid subscription goal!!!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets.

Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

By the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee

What did the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors decide at the June 9 and June 23, 2026, regular meetings? This recap does not cover the June 11 special closed-session meeting, which was limited to performance evaluations of the Chief Executive Officer and County Counsel under Government Code §54957. District 3 is large so focus on Morongo Basin items only.

Following the agenda previews we published for the June 9 and June 23 meetings, this is our first recap of Board actions at the meetings. We lead with the items that ran across both meetings, then list what the Board did on every Morongo Basin specific and impact item, by date.

Across both meetings

Solar — and a candid word from the Chair about energy development in District 3. Two June 23 items turned on how the County sites solar: the appeal of the denied Bear Valley project near Erwin Lake (Item 203) and the Energy Ad Hoc Committee discussion (Item 205). We framed both in our preview against the already-approved Lear Solar project just outside Twentynine Palms. We also did a deep dive into the approval of the Lear Solar project.

During the Bear Valley discussion, Board Chair and District 3 representative Dawn Rowe, said something the Basin should sit up for:

The third district is the area that we have developable land for energy, and that’s just unfortunate, because it’s not in some of the other districts.

In plain terms, the Chair identified District 3 — the Basin’s district, our district — as the County’s energy-development frontier, a designation that lands squarely on the unincorporated and economically disadvantaged Basin communities most exposed to large-scale solar.

The Bear Valley appeal itself drew more than an hour of testimony, overwhelmingly from Bear Valley Electric Service employees in favor and immediate neighbors opposed on grounds of zoning, wildlife corridor, fire risk, and lack of notice. The Board voted 3–2 to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project, with Supervisors Curt Hagman and Jesse Armendarez voting no. The speakers are not Basin residents — the project and its neighbors are in the Big Bear area — but the objections they raised, that they received no notice and that the site sits in a functioning wildlife corridor, are the same two issues we flagged in the Lear approval, which is why the item is worth watching from the Basin.

A correction to our June 23 preview: we identified the appellant as EDF Renewables. The applicant and appellant is Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc.; EDF Renewables Distribution-Scale Power is the project’s development and permitting partner, not the applicant. Appearing for the project were Paul Marconi, president of Bear Valley Electric Service; Jannik Tam of EDF Renewables; and land-use counsel Dan Quinley of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

On Item 205, the Energy Ad Hoc Committee, which is comprised of Supervisors Rowe and Hagman, took direction from the other supervisors. Supervisor Armendarez asked the committee to consider a regional, multi-county approach coordinating with neighboring counties, to look at nuclear options, to prioritize siting on already-disturbed or contaminated land over open desert, and to weigh energy development against the housing crisis.

Supervisor Hagman framed the scale of the challenge, citing his view that California must roughly double its electrical output over the next two decades. Supervisor Rowe emphasized community outreach, noting that desert residents turn out in force on these projects because developers too often look at the desert and “think it’s big and open space,” and said the Morongo Basin Conservation Association had brought her recommendations for the committee. What it pursues could shape County solar-siting policy Basin-wide.

Basin water rates: adopted, while others organized to block theirs. The two meetings are two halves of one story. On June 9 the Board held the Proposition 218 hearing on the three Basin systems in County Service Area 70 — Little Morongo Heights (Zone F) and Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3), both in Morongo Valley, and Pioneertown (Zone W-4) — and approved introduction of the rate ordinance unanimously, on a motion by Supervisor Paul Cook seconded by Vice Chair Joe Baca, Jr.

County staff confirmed from the dais that none of the zones in that hearing drew a majority protest. No resident of any of the three Basin communities spoke to the item. On June 23 the Board gave the ordinance final adoption on the consent calendar, locking the five-year schedules through 2030. As we reported from the rate study in June, that means Pioneertown’s typical fixed charge rises about 61% and its per-unit usage rate about 92% over five years, and the Little Morongo Heights fund is projected to run roughly $1.3 million into deficit by 2030 even with the increases. The County’s own June 9 summary characterized the countywide adjustments as ranging “approximately 1.7% to 10%,” framing that does not surface those five-year Basin totals.

Pay attention to where the protest energy was, and wasn’t. Of the June 9 rate hearings, the one successful majority protest came from Lytle Creek (Zone S-3) in the Cajon Pass — not the Basin — where residents organized, reached the 56.1% Proposition 218 threshold, and blocked their proposed sewer increase outright.

In Oak Hills (Zone J), on the Victor Valley side, a resident-led drive gathered 557 protest letters and speakers alleged the Prop 218 notices were never properly delivered, but that effort fell short of the majority needed and the increase there was not blocked.

The Morongo Basin’s three water systems, by contrast, drew no organized protest and no testimony from the affected communities. Under Proposition 218 these rates move forward unless a majority of affected property owners formally protest; Lytle Creek shows that threshold can be met, but it takes organizing the Basin zones did not see.

Children and Family Services. The County’s Children and Family Services (CFS) department was a through-line at both meetings. On June 9, parents and advocates raised concerns about CFS during general public comment, and Supervisor Armendarez and CEO Luther Smoke directed them to return June 23 for a scheduled CFS workshop, a presentation the Board’s Child Welfare ad hoc committee had requested specifically to address mounting public criticism. That presentation (Item 206) came June 23 as a receive-and-file overview and consumed much of the afternoon.

The department walked the Board through how the child-welfare system works: roughly 30,000 calls a year to the child-abuse hotline, the screening and investigation funnel that narrows to a much smaller number of substantiated cases and fewer removals still, a stated priority of keeping children with family through kinship placement rather than group settings, caseload reductions credited to staffing investments, and a 2025 permanency rate of about 85% through reunification, guardianship, or adoption. The department also described an independent review by national child-welfare experts and the ongoing work of the ad hoc committee.

The public comment attached to the presentation ran long and pointed. Parents, grandparents, and former foster youth told the Board that children were removed without adequate basis or notice, that completed case-plan services went uncredited, and that reunification dragged on for years; several argued that federal foster-care funding creates a financial incentive to remove children rather than reunify families.

A few speakers used the period to allege misconduct by County officials. These accounts come from individuals describing confidential dependency cases the County cannot discuss publicly, and the Desert Trumpet has not independently verified them; we report them as what speakers told the Board. Most of the speakers did not state a community of residence, and the few who did named places outside the Basin.

For Basin readers, the overview still matters: these are services that reach Basin families through the County system, including the Joshua Tree Mental Health Court and school-based work in Morongo Unified, though the presentation, like the agenda as a whole, described the system at the County level without breaking out the Basin or other rural areas.

A note on how the County Board works: member comments. One feature of these meetings has no real parallel in the Twentynine Palms or Yucca Valley council format Basin residents may be more familiar with. Near the top of the meeting, before the discussion items, each supervisor takes a turn highlighting items on the day’s agenda and recapping events from their district. On June 23, for instance, Supervisor Hagman used his turn to flag the Energy Ad Hoc discussion (Item 205) and his view that California needs to roughly double its electrical output over the next two decades, which telegraphed well before the item came up where he stood and why it mattered to him. The practice gives the public an early read on which items the Board considers significant and how individual supervisors are thinking about them, though it can also mean an item’s framing is set before any public testimony is heard.

June 9 meeting

Of the 135 items on the June 9 agenda, the consent calendar (items 2–121) passed in a single vote with no Basin item pulled. The Basin items it carried:

Basin-Specific:

• Item 20 — Flamingo Heights tax-sale rescission.

• Item 97 — Morongo Basin Unity Home; the Basin’s domestic-violence shelter provider’s contract doubles to $705,902.

• Item 102 — CSA 70 special taxes (Yucca Mesa, Wonder Valley, plus Morongo Valley and Pioneertown standby charges).

• Item 104 — Joshua Tree / Family Service Association food-services license.

Broader Items with Basin Impact:

• Items 23 and 25 — children’s mental health ($125.1M) and substance-use treatment; the children’s mental-health contracts name high-desert providers Desert/Mountain Children’s Center and Mountain Counseling & Training.

• Item 69 — refuse permits.

• Item 80 — Onyx Peak communications site.

Two items were heard separately rather than on consent:

Item 122 — Basin water-rate hearing. Heard as a discussion item; passed unanimously (see “Across both meetings”).

Item 126 — County 2026-27 budget. Adopted; a roughly $10.9 billion total spending plan including about $273.7 million in new County priorities. During the budget hearing, Pauline Pisano, a Flamingo Heights resident, urged the Board to remove what she described as funding for automated license-plate-reader and surveillance camera systems, including Flock cameras, from the budget. She cited state law SB 34 and other California cities that have canceled Flock contracts over data-access concerns, and said high-desert residents had gathered more than 1,000 signatures across two petitions opposing surveillance expansion.

June 23 meeting

Of the 206 items on the June 23 agenda, the consent calendar (items 2–200) passed in a single vote with only Item 70 pulled for discussion. The Basin items it carried:

Basin-Specific:

• Items 13 & 17 — Reach Out Morongo Basin (+$135,000 combined for caregiver and older-adult services).

• Item 47 — crisis residential treatment contracts (+$9.2 million, to $83.2 million); the County’s own summary names the “Eastern Desert” region, which ties in to the Morongo Basin, among the service areas. (Not in our preview; we fold it in here.)

• Item 115 — waste-disposal renewals (Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley).

• Item 134 — Donnell Hill communications-site license (Twentynine Palms).

• Item 157 — Sheriff patrol contracts (~$13.7 million combined for Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley).

• Item 169 — CSA 70 road-district ballot results (Copper Mountain, Flamingo Heights, Yucca Mesa East and West). Copper Mountain approved its increase; the other three rejected theirs, and the County will begin proceedings to dissolve them, after which their fees end and road maintenance through the districts stops.

• Item 178 — Fire Station 41 land donation (Yucca Valley).

• Item 200 — Basin water-rate ordinance, final adoption (see “Across both meetings”).

• Item 78 — special assessments on abated nuisance properties; primarily Lucerne Valley parcels, with one in Landers. (Not in our preview.)

Broader Items with Basin Impact:

• Item 3 — Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District appointment.

• Item 44 — Student Assistance Program / behavioral health (+$10.4 million; Desert/Mountain, Mountain Counseling).

• Item 122 — SB 1 road-maintenance list (includes Yucca Valley-area work).

• Item 196 — CSA 70 parks water/wastewater maintenance (10-year; Big Morongo Regional Park); the 10-year term is nonstandard for the County.

Heard separately, as discussion items or presentations:

Item 70 — Measure I transportation sales-tax extension. Pulled from consent; the Board placed it on the November ballot with no rate increase. SB CTA’s Otis Greer presented. Supervisor Rowe relayed a Lucerne Valley concern that aggregate hauled out of that area’s mines generates road wear without generating proportional Measure I revenue locally, under the measure’s return-to-source structure.

Item 122 — SB 1 road-maintenance list (includes Yucca Valley-area work). Adopted on consent.

Item 196 — CSA 70 parks water/wastewater maintenance (10-year; Big Morongo Regional Park). Approved on consent; the 10-year term is nonstandard for the County.

Item 204 — floodplain regulations ordinance. Introduced and adopted after a public hearing that drew no comment.

Item 205 — Energy Ad Hoc Committee discussion. A discussion item; covered above under “Across both meetings.”

Item 206 — Children and Family Services overview. A receive-and-file presentation; covered above under “Across both meetings.”

The Board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 2026, at the County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, with closed session beginning at 9:00 a.m.

This recap was produced with AI assistance and human review by the Desert Trumpet’s San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee. Corrections and feedback are welcome.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Thanks to you, Desert Trumpet exceeded our $10,000 paid subscription goal!!!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets.

Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

The Twentynine Palms City Council met on the evening of June 23 for a wide-ranging session covering City finances, the sales tax ballot measure, and an inspiring overview of the future tile mural slated for Freedom Plaza. Mayor Daniel Mintz presided. All council members were present: Councilmember Steven Bilderain, Councilmember McArthur Wright, Councilmember April Ramirez, and Mayor Pro Tem Octavious Scott.

City Manager Kevin Cole gave a heads-up that council chambers at City Hall are about to undergo renovation in July, which will lead to the possible cancellations of the Planning Commission meeting on July 7 as well as other meetings; “we’ll make those announcements as they come up,” Cole said. The first meeting slated will be the July 14 City Council meeting.

The City will be installing new two-way audiovisual systems to comply with California Senate Bill 707, which requires extensive rewiring of Council chambers. (The Desert Trumpet reported on the details in our preview of the April 14, 2026, City Council meeting.)

Our agenda preview is here.

The meeting’s agenda packet is linked here.

Here is the video link.

“We are stronger together..we are limitless…we are innovators:” The Groundwork Arts Tile Mural Project

Rhonda Coleman, Director and Lead Artist of Groundwork Arts, updated Council on the Freedom Plaza tile mural, a permanent ceramic installation driven by hundreds of student and community contributors. (See our initial report from February 24, 2026, here.) Input included inspirational phrases that students came up with, including,

we are stronger together, we are grounded, we are the future, we are limitless, we are dreamers, we are innovators, we are resilient, we are resourceful, we are definitely resourceful, we are persistent, we are tradition, and tomorrow we are future leaders, we are full of possibility.

A survey that brought in 1,563 responses from students and community members is shaping the design around themes of desert landscape, community belonging, and future generations. Residents said they want viewers to feel welcome, inspired, and connected.

Students are creating Individual hand-made tiles, guided by professional artists, which will be unified through color into a single organic image. Workshops began June 15 in Morongo Unified schools. Community residents voted to place the mural on the north wall of the National Park Visitor Center at Freedom Plaza, with a September 30 California Arts Council grant deadline driving the timeline.

REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED AND CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Although intended as a means of accountability so residents could understand how City funds were being used to underwrite necessary travel for Council members, this agenda item has evolved to be a way for some Council members to communicate on initiatives of interest to them and to the community. As the Desert Trumpet noted in its report on the May 26, 2026, Council meeting, when the segment expands to include high school sporting events, community barbecues, and personal commitments alongside City-funded travel and policy claims, that transparency purpose gets lost.

Councilmember Bilderain attended the Juneteenth flag-raising at City Hall and all-star baseball games in Banning featuring local teams. Councilmember Ramirez met with transitional and temporary housing organizations and the San Bernardino Office of Homeless Services to discuss options for the community:

keeping in mind the direction that the state is pushing us with Prop 36 and also being mindful of the new funding sources that are going to come out through the Encampment Resolution Fund, which will also cover rapid rehousing and wraparound services for homelessness in our community.

She announced a town hall with SoCal Edison on grid upgrades and appliance swap programs, which was held on June 24 and reported on by Z1077 (“SCE Town Hall draws few, blames outages on sensitive protective equipment”).

Although it’s not clear that Councilmember Ramirez attended meetings about state cuts to regional funding of the federal Victims of Crime Act, she has advocated for Partners Against Violence at past City Council meetings:

I got into this because Partners Against Violence, which is a victim advocate organization that we have here, let me know that they were slated—our region was slated to receive a 43% budget cut from the state funding….The California State Senate did approve a one-time $25 million increase for VOCA funding instead of the proposed cuts.

The reality with VOCA funding is a little more complex and has a long history. That funding has dropped nearly 80% since the first Trump administration in 2018. California temporarily filled the gap, but Governor Newsom's 2026 budget didn't include replacement funds. The Trump administration then withheld even the remaining federal funds, tying access to immigration enforcement cooperation. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued for the funds and won. The California state legislature added $50 million in state backfill funding to the current budget.

Mayor Pro Tem Scott attended the Juneteenth flag raising at City Hall and the event at Knott’s Sky Park sponsored by Women of Color Global 29. He met with a builder of tiny houses and had a fruitful discussion, he said. Councilmember Wright apologized for not attending the Juneteenth flag raising because of personal travel.

Mayor Mintz highlighted representing Twentynine Palms at the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District that featured a $4 billion rail facility in Barstow. Funded entirely by the BNSF railroad, the transfer station is designed to streamline the national supply chain, it allows for direct cargo transfers between Port of LA/Long Beach ships and cross-country trains, significantly easing highway congestion and emissions. The transfer station is projected to eliminate 800,000 truck trips. Although few of these trucks pass through the Morongo Basin, the station is intended to improve air quality throughout the region.

The City Manager has moved his report closer to the beginning of the meeting. In addition to renovations to Council chambers, Kevin Cole had several updates:

• Cooling center at the Senior Center (6539 Adobe Road) will open when the heat index reaches 110°F (lowered from the previous 115° threshold). National Weather Service data will be used to make that call.

• City Council nomination period runs July 13–August 6. Contact City Clerk Cindy Villescas at City Hall to make an appointment. We have more information on this process here.

• Hemmings Great Race: a 9-day, 2,300-mile classic car rally with 120 antique automobiles stopped in 29 Palms this Saturday, June 27, 11:30am–3pm at Luckie Park.

• Fourth of July celebration at Knott Sky Park, July 4, 6–10pm. Free event with a special Declaration of Independence reading by the Kiwanis Club (250th anniversary), water slides, food vendors, and fireworks over Tortoise Rock Casino.

• Code enforcement shoutout: the team completed a major cleanup at a property on Sherman Hoyt Avenue, removing more than 1,000 tires and several tons of trash.

• USGS Hydrology Study: The City met recently with the U.S. Geological Survey and the 29 Palms Water District and is making progress on the multi-year sewer study. (More here about the saga of a sewer in Twentynine Palms.)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

FY 2026-27 budget revisions

Proposed Budget Revisions to Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds, and Successor Agency Fund

After passing the Consent Calendar 5-0 without discussion, the Council turned to a report by Finance Director Abigail Hernandez-Conde to present the final piece of the City’s FY 2026-27 budget: $14.2 million in planned spending across the special revenue funds, capital project funds, and successor agency fund.

Major projects include $4.2 million for the Split Rock Bridge, $3.7 million for the Hatch Road bike path, $1.2 million for street repaving, and $501,000 for Hwy 62 improvements. The Finance Director said:

For other projects, we have the design for the new animal shelter for $589,000 and also $178,000 and for the animal control building upgrades, those fundings have been approved in prior years, but we haven’t utilized all the funding, so we continue to carry over those funds until the project gets completed.

Councilmember April Ramirez raised concerns about long-term financial stability, questioning whether Measure I, a San Bernardino County sales tax that funds many projects, was a reliable source. Hernandez-Conde said the picture was complex and that none of the City’s special revenue funds are guaranteed permanently, pointing to Article 8 funding as an example. That program once covered 50% of public employee salaries before the state eliminated it in 2021-22, forcing the City to absorb those costs.

City Manager Cole added a reality check that:

it doesn’t even have to be something catastrophic that stops the funding, but simply the rising cost of these projects affects how much “project” we can get. Price of oil goes up, which we’re all seeing right now. $6 a gallon for gasoline, well, that affects the price of asphalt. And so, as these prices go up, these funding mechanisms generally don’t.

Hernandez-Conde said the City evaluates each project individually and may seek additional funding sources or abandon projects if necessary.

The budget revision was approved unanimously.

Proposed Budget Revisions for Project Phoenix Funds and Enterprise Fund for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Because of family business interests in the Freedom Plaza area, Mayor Mintz recused himself from this discussion and vote.

Finance Director Hernandez-Conde presented budget revisions for two specialized City funds: the Project Phoenix fund and the sewer fund.

Hernandez-Conde reported that Project Phoenix, the City’s downtown Freedom Plaza revitalization effort, has $204,000 remaining from an original $2.3 million commitment, plus $1.1 million in housing bond funds for local housing activities. Active projects include a business loan program, storefront improvements, public art, and street furniture. A newly approved tile mural, discussed earlier in the meeting, will receive $18,000 from a California Arts Council grant.

The sewer fund covers services for Freedom Plaza businesses. The City is currently conducting a five-year study funded primarily by $1.9 million in state grants and a $200,000 contribution from the 29 Palms Water District. However, the project faces a $99,000 shortfall that the City plans to address in partnership with the water district.

The council voted 4-0-1 (recusal) to approve $70,000 to subsidize the sewer fund and $25,000 for a separate sewer study.

DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS

Sales tax on the ballot for residents to decide

Item 16 was a return visit for the proposed 1% local sales tax ballot measure, which the Council is aiming to place before voters in the November 3, 2026 general election. No vote was taken, but City Manager Cole and the Council used the discussion to make the case for the sales tax.

Cole was direct about the stakes: road maintenance, public safety contracts, animal control, park upkeep, all are areas where costs are climbing while revenues stay flat. A 1% general tax on retail sales in Twentynine Palms would, if approved by voters, generate an estimated $2 million or more annually. (Although how this was calculated is unclear.) Cole emphasized that this would not be a tax imposed by the Council. It goes on the ballot, and residents decide.

Mayor Pro Tem Scott pointed out that tourists, not just residents, would also pay the tax. With a significant number of visitors passing through the City each year, a sales tax spreads the burden across a wider group. “A lot of our visitors — they’re driving on our roads, they stop at the gas station, they grab some food,” Scott said. He pointed out that this makes difference when online shopping has cut into the sales tax revenue that smaller cities like Twentynine Palms used to count on.1

Resident Mary Alice Amsler questioned the language in the flyer the City sent out in April. She said she supported the tax but wanted sharper language:

I’m okay with the 1% tax increases. However, in reading this possible ballot question, it’s very vague and is not specific about services so it says basic necessities like groceries and prescription medications are not going to be taxed, so what is going to be taxed?

City Manger Cole explained that “approximately” is necessary because revenue will fluctuate with tourism, a point Councilmember Ramirez echoed, noting that the previous city manager had told her the same thing. Cole evaded the question of what will be taxed and who will be paying the taxes. We took a deep dive when a proposed sales tax appeared in a survey conducted in fall of 2023. The Desert Trumpet pointed out:

A sales tax is considered a regressive tax, especially in a disadvantaged community like 29. People who earn less, such as those who support the tourism industry, pay a larger share of their salary in sales tax when compared to those with higher earnings.

These items are taxable in Twentynine Palms:

• Clothing

• Newspapers, books, magazines, and periodicals

• Over-the-counter medicines (like aspirin or cough syrup) unless prescribed by a physician and purchased from a pharmacist.

• Hot prepared foods, items sold for immediate consumption (like a deli sandwich eaten in the store), and food sold through restaurants

Not taxable:

• Most groceries (excluding hot prepared food), cold prepared food sold to-go, certain medical devices, and purchases made with CalFresh benefits

• Prescription medications

• Diapers and menstrual hygiene products

• Wheelchairs, crutches, canes, and walkers under the direction of a physician

• Professional services (legal, accounting, consulting), educational services, and healthcare services

Cole also clarified that the full resolution, with more specific language, would come before Council on July 14, and he encouraged Amsler to attend.

In discussing accountability, Cole pointed to the City’s track record: Twentynine Palms has maintained a balanced budget every year going back to 1987, built up reserves through lean years, and holds regular public hearings on budget priorities. “We’ve always been prudent when it comes to using the funds that we are able to secure,” he said, “and I want to assure the public that it won’t change.”

The measure is expected to appear on the November ballot after the formal vote at the July 23 meeting.

FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS

Possibly because this agenda item comes late in City Council meetings, it is largely given short shrift. City Manager Cole took the time to give a status update on the running list of nearly a dozen initiatives the Council has flagged for further action.2

On shade structures, Cole said staff is actively looking for grant funding. The city doesn’t have enough general fund money to pay for these outright, but he acknowledged that shade in the desert is a real and valuable need. (Our research shows that Councilmember Scott proposed these shade structure for future agenda consideration at the October 14, 2024, meeting. The item has languished on the list ever since.)

On regulating the city attorney’s resources, Cole said he is putting in place an internal administrative policy: staff and councilmembers who want to use city attorney time should come to him first. He pointed out that legal services are in high demand across code enforcement, policy development, and major projects. Being deliberate about how that time is used is a matter of responsible management.

On a recognized neighborhood program, Cole said he hopes to bring something concrete back to Council in late August or early September.

Items related to homelessness, housing, and Proposition 36 were noted as connected and ongoing. Cole said that one persistent challenge is that some unhoused individuals decline offers of housing, which complicates how the City can respond.

On the annexation of two parcels associated with Set Free Ranch in Wonder Valley, Cole reported that legal counsel has flagged a significant obstacle: the parcels are not contiguous with City limits. Under the rules of LAFCO (the Local Agency Formation Commission), annexing a non-contiguous “island” requires going through surrounding property first. Councilmember Ramirez had proposed this annexation as a future agenda item at the April 14, 2026, meeting.

On the Donnell Hill pedestrian safety issue, Cole said Caltrans has already cleared a path on the south side, and a graded dirt path exists on the north side. He nonetheless advised residents not to be on that road after dark.

Cole also told Council he had distributed information on Flock surveillance cameras and would bring the issue back at a future meeting, noting that Mayor Pro Tem Scott has a town hall planned on the topic on July 9.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Although Flock surveillance devices have been the primary focus of public comments in the last months, no advocates for removing these cameras spoke at this week’s meeting. Carlos Blandon addressed development in the Hi Desert.

FUTURE MEETINGS

The next City Council meeting will take place on July 14 at 6 pm in City Hall and will feature new technology to make meetings more accessible to those who cannot attend. Check the City website and social media to find out if other meetings have been cancelled.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Thanks to you, Desert Trumpet exceeded our $10,000 paid subscription goal!!!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets.

  Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

The San Bernardino County Planning Commission approved a utility-scale solar project just outside Twentynine Palms on a finding that let it sidestep its own ordinance and without the notice that same ordinance requires be given to the water district serving the site.

The 9.9-megawatt Lear Solar Project, now under construction on unincorporated land in Desert Heights, was approved in January 2025 after County staff determined the site was “not located within the Sphere of Influence of a city.” That finding is contradicted by the same staff report’s own cover page, which lists the site’s sphere of influence (SOI) as Twentynine Palms and by the County’s own LAFCO1 mapping. The distinction is not academic: under the County’s code, a project inside a city’s SOI must be found consistent with that city’s zoning, and Twentynine Palms has banned utility-scale solar since 2012. The report’s erroneous finding is what allowed any reckoning with the City’s ban to fall away.

The County's code also required that the water district serving the site be notified when the application came in. It wasn't.

Residents on the west side of Twentynine Palms who looked north and saw a new silver line spreading across the desert and other Morongo Basin locals living in the midst of undeveloped land might wonder, “How does San Bernardino County decide where utility-scale solar gets built, and who gets a say?” Much of the answer runs through Lear Solar and a set of rules the County wrote for itself but appears not to have followed.

The Lear Solar Project

When we visited the site on June 23, construction was visibly unfinished. Many of the panels were not yet mounted and a worker on site confirmed the array was not yet complete. The work had been underway since early 2026, and as it progressed, a number of readers flagged it to us, among them two Desert Heights residents who described dust from the site clouding the air.

The parcel is owned by Lear 29 LLC,2 a California company formed in September 2021 whose mailing address is in Laguna Woods, an Orange County retirement community more than a hundred miles away and one of several absentee owners of land in this corner of the Basin. The company’s registered agent is listed in state records as Jeffrey Chao, of Lake Forest.

The project pairs about 48 acres of solar panels with on-site battery storage within a roughly 62-acre development area on the 80-acre parcel. The developer, RPCA Solar 15 LLC, leases the site from Lear 29 LLC. RPCA Solar 15 is an entity of Renewable Properties, LLC, a San Francisco solar developer founded in 2017 by Aaron Halimi, who remains its chief executive; the company reports more than 1.7 gigawatts of projects in development across 17 states.

San Bernardino County approved Lear Solar as a Community-Oriented Renewable Energy (CORE) facility, a designation its Renewable Energy and Conservation Element reserves for projects primarily serving local users; the staff report names Joshua Tree and Twentynine Palms as the intended beneficiaries, citing distances of roughly nine and five miles. Those distances measure to the communities’ centers, not their edges: the parcel sits about three-quarters of a mile from the City of Twentynine Palms border — the County’s own figure — and is visible from within the City. The site is zoned Rural Living, which already permits solar facilities under 10 megawatts with a Conditional Use Permit, so no zone change was required. That the approval ran through the County rather than the City is the heart of what follows.

The timing reflects a federal deadline. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed in July 2025, commercial solar projects must begin construction by July 4, 2026, to lock in the full federal investment tax credit on the best terms. Lear has had its County approval in hand since January 2025, so breaking ground in early 2026 is consistent with beating that window. The County record doesn't address the developer's tax position, so this is a matter of timing, not stated motive and battery storage, unlike solar, isn't subject to the deadline.

The jurisdiction question

The contradiction at the center of this approval sits inside the County’s own staff report, and it turns on a technical term: sphere of influence.

A sphere of influence (SOI) is the territory LAFCO (the County’s Local Agency Formation Commission) has designated as a city’s probable future boundary, the land it is expected one day to annex. Desert Trumpet readers may recall our last occasion to explain LAFCO: in 2022, when then-City Manager Frank Luckino raised the possibility of the City absorbing the Twentynine Palms Water District, the agency whose boundaries the City’s SOI follows. Not only does Lear Solar’s staff report cover page list the project’s “City Sphere of Influence” as Twentynine Palms and its water service as the Twentynine Palms Water District, the County’s own “City Spheres of Influence” mapping places Desert Heights, including the Lear parcel, inside the Twentynine Palms sphere.

That placement carries a legal consequence that’s in San Bernardino County’s own code: Development Code Section 84.29.035 includes Finding (c)(30): “When located within a city’s sphere of influence, in addition to other County requirements, the proposed commercial solar energy facility(ies) will also be consistent with relevant city zoning requirements that would be applied to similar facilities within the city.” The General Plan’s Renewable Energy and Conservation Element (Policy RE-3.4) sets the same expectation. The point of the rule is straightforward: a project inside a city’s sphere should be held to what the city itself would allow. But making that finding for Lear Solar would have forced a reckoning the County avoided.

The Lear parcel is not the first solar in this immediate area: the staff report itself identifies two existing arrays on the west side of Lear Avenue, southwest of the project site — one of about 20 acres adjacent to the site, and a larger one of about 100 acres beyond it. These arrays, known as Highlander 1, were completed in 2012-2013.

Highlander 1 is what prompted the City of Twentynine Palms to ban utility-scale solar within its own limits, a moratorium it has kept in place and reinforced with its recent rejection of the E-Group Geneva solar project. A genuine consistency finding for a project inside the City’s sphere would have to confront that ban, because the code requires consistency with the zoning that would apply to “similar facilities within the city.”

However, the staff report does not confront it. Its consistency response to Finding (c)(30), contradicting its own cover page, reads: “The Project site is not located within the Sphere of Influence of a city. The City of Twentynine Palms is located approximately 5 miles east of the Project site.”

Asked about the discrepancy, County Land Use Services confirmed the project is within the City's sphere of influence, the opposite of what the staff report found. Land Use Services’ explanation was that because the City raised no objection after being notified, County standards governed.3 But the code requires more than that: Finding (c)(30) calls for an affirmative determination that the project is consistent with the city's zoning for similar facilities, not merely the absence of a city objection. The question remains: how can San Bernardino County Land Use Services now assert that the project sits within the Twentynine Palms SOI, yet fail to make that finding when it mattered—in the permit it approved?

A notice the water district never got

The County’s code requires more than findings. It requires that the agencies closest to a solar project be told one is coming , and it names who must be informed. Development Code Section 84.29.040(f), “Project Notices,” directs that notice of an application “shall be provided to the Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) for the area, any Community Service District or water agency serving the project site, and to all property owners, whether located in a city or in the unincorporated area of the County.” The code also fixes the timing: notice “shall be accomplished upon acceptance of a new Conditional Use Permit application” — at the start of the process, not the end.

The Twentynine Palms Water District serves the Lear site; the staff report’s own cover page says so. Yet its general manager, Matt Shragge, says the district learned of the project only after it had been approved and fencing was underway, when it was asked to set a construction meter:

They were starting the fencing process, but for us it was like, hold on, where is there a water meter? Why are we sending a construction meter? And what’s going on? I want to meet with somebody out on the site.

The code names the water agency serving the site specifically, and by the district’s account, that notice never came.

The City says it was in the dark as well. Twentynine Palms City Manager Kevin Cole, relaying the City’s community development director, told the Desert Trumpet via email:

According to Keith, the City (Planning Department) did not receive any agency review requests or notices of public hearings on this project. Of course this is concerning, in light of the Council’s rejection of the proposed solar farm inside the City limits.

The code does not name a city’s planning department among the required recipients the way it names the water agency, but the City is the jurisdiction whose sphere of influence the County’s own report places the project within, and it learned of a major solar facility on its doorstep no earlier than its own water district did.

We inquired about the notices. County Land Use Services said it mailed a project notice to the water district, the City, and County Fire on May 3, 2024, and sent the City a public hearing notice before the December 2024 Planning Commission meeting. After contacting the water district, the County confirmed the district had received no notice.4 As for the City, its planning department says it received nothing, and the County, which has not produced proof of mailing, did not reconcile that account. The burden of showing that notice was given rests with the County, and on the water district it has, by its own account, acknowledged the notice did not arrive.

A wildlife corridor the review didn’t check

The same approval skipped past a third problem, this one in the environmental review.

The County approved Lear Solar with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), a finding that the project’s impacts could be reduced without a full Environmental Impact Report. That review addressed the standard question of whether the site sits in a wildlife-movement corridor, and answered it in the negative:

The APE5 does not occur within a corridor that links between or among larger habitat areas on a regional basis and is not within any areas mapped as Essential Connectivity Areas by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project.

The conclusion rests on a single source: the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, a statewide map layer.

But there is a designation the review does not mention. The City of Twentynine Palms 2012 General Plan maps the Joshua Tree–Twentynine Palms Connection, a wildlife linkage the plan says was “designated within and near the City” as the result of a state interagency workshop. The linkage, the plan states, “connects areas of open space in Joshua Tree National Park and the Marine Base,” across a span that “varies from approximately 9 to 22 miles.” It is mapped in the General Plan’s Exhibit CO-3.

Lear Avenue is the linkage’s western boundary, marked as such on the CO-3 map; the parcel lies east of Lear, within the corridor and not at its edge. The corridor was designated in 2012; Lear Solar arrived more than twenty years later.

The same General Plan defines a wildlife corridor as a geographic area that “link[s] together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance.” A designated link between Joshua Tree National Park and the Marine base, two of the largest blocks of protected open space in the region, is, by that definition, a corridor connecting larger habitat areas on a regional basis. The MND says the site is not in such a corridor but the solar farm runs through the corridor.

This is also where the corridor question meets the jurisdiction question. The same finding that placed the site outside any city’s sphere of influence is what let the review skip a consistency check against the City of Twentynine Palms’ planning documents. Had that check been run, it would have led to the City’s General Plan, the document that maps this linkage.

The County may argue that the Connection is a City designation. But it did not originate with the City: the General Plan attributes it to a state interagency workshop, and Exhibit CO-3 draws on South Coast Wildlands and the California Natural Diversity Database.

Why Lear was approved and Bear Valley wasn’t

San Bernardino County’s framework sorts solar projects largely by how the underlying land is already zoned, and the clearest way to see it is to set Lear beside a project the County’s Planning Commission turned down.

Lear sits on land zoned Rural Living, which already permits solar facilities under 10 megawatts with a Conditional Use Permit. No change to the land’s designation was needed, only permission for the use. The application cleared the Planning Commission.

A 5-megawatt project proposed by EDF Renewables with Bear Valley Electric Service did not. That facility, in the unincorporated Erwin Lake area at the east end of Big Bear Valley, sat on land zoned Residential Single. To put solar there at all, the applicant needed both a General Plan Amendment and a full zone change to Rural Living — not just permission for a use, but a redesignation of what the land is for. The Planning Commission denied it. The developers have appealed to overturn that denial; the Board of Supervisors continued the matter at its June 23, 2026 meeting without ruling.

Projects on rural-zoned vacant land, like Lear, move relatively smoothly through the County process; projects that require rezoning residential or community-adjacent land face a far steeper climb, and at that level community opposition carries real weight. The framework was, in effect, built to accommodate exactly the kind of project Lear is, which is also why the consistency check the County skipped mattered. Rural Living zoning let the Lear Project through without a rezoning fight, and the finding that the site was outside any city's SOI kept the City's stricter standard from being considered.

A pattern taking shape around one substation

Lear is not the only energy project converging on this corner of the Basin and the common thread is the SCE Carodean Substation, on Two Mile Road on the west side of Twentynine Palms, the point where the local grid’s power is gathered and distributed.

Across Two Mile Road to the northeast is the site of the E-Group solar project, also known as the Geneva Solar Project, or the Harmony Acres Solar Farm, which the Twentynine Palms City Council rejected on a 3-1-1 vote in March 2026 after hours of public opposition. The developer has since sought to move the project to state review. As of this writing the California Energy Commission had made no determination on the project itself, and the question of state jurisdiction remains unsettled.

On the parcel beside the substation itself, a Sacramento family land trust, the McDonald-Russell Family Trust, has filed a pre-application with the City for the Healthy Planet Energy Storage Project, a 100-megawatt battery facility. That proposal is at the earliest stage, the trust is still in escrow on the parcel, and, like E-Group, it would require a General Plan amendment, a rezone, and a conditional use permit, because battery storage is not a permitted use on the residentially zoned land.

And a few miles to the northwest, in unincorporated Desert Heights, the County-approved Lear array feeds the same local grid, part of the roughly 56 megawatts of solar that the battery pre-application says already flows into the local system.

These are separate projects, separate developers, split between two jurisdictions. Each is reviewed on its own, by the City or the County, and none is weighed against the others. The County approved Lear through an MND, a finding that environmental impacts could be reduced below significance without a full Environmental Impact Report; whether that review accounted for the solar already operating and proposed nearby is a question worth considering.

Why this reaches beyond the Lear Solar Project

What happened with the Lear Solar Project can happen anywhere in the unincorporated Basin. The flaw at the center of the approval is clear. The San Bernardino County Planning Department and Planning Commission approved the Lear Project based on a staff report that contradicts itself on whether the site sits within a city's sphere of influence and never resolved the discrepancy.

The notice failure points to something structural. None of the ordinance's three required channels worked as intended:

• The Morongo Basin MAC, whose delegates included one representing Desert Heights, was dissolved and its status at the time of Lear’s review is unclear. The ordinance names a body that no longer exists.

• Notice to adjacent property owners, the second channel, is better suited to dense neighborhoods than to the rural Basin, where parcels are large, often vacant, and frequently held by absentee owners like Lear’s.

• That leaves notice to the water district, the channel that plainly should have worked regardless, and the district says it never came.

The communities most exposed to large-scale energy development — among them Landers, Johnson Valley, Wonder Valley, Desert Heights, Flamingo Heights, and Copper Mountain Mesa — have a direct stake in how the County answers the questions the Lear Project raises. Those answers are increasingly being shaped through the County’s Energy Ad Hoc Committee, led by Supervisor Dawn Rowe, which helps steer where and how energy projects get sited.

Whether the County closes these gaps, or leaves them open will determine whether the next solar farm arrives the way this one did: with the neighbors finding out when the fencing goes up.

In brief:

• San Bernardino County approved the 9.9-MW Lear Solar Project on unincorporated land less than a mile from Twentynine Palms, which has banned utility-scale solar since 2012.

• The County’s own staff report contradicts itself on whether the site sits in the City’s sphere of influence. That contradiction let the County skip a required check against the City’s zoning — and its ban.

• County code required notice to the water district serving the site. The district says it got none until the fencing went up; the County now confirms it.

• The site runs through a wildlife corridor designated in 2012. The County's 2025 environmental review concluded none existed.

• The same process governs the rest of the unincorporated Basin. Solar farms are reviewed project by project, without confirmed notice and with no one weighing the cumulative effect.

  ---

Sources: Lear Solar (RPCA Solar 15, LLC), PROJ-2023-00170 — San Bernardino County Planning Commission staff report and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Notice of Determination, State Clearinghouse No. 2024110047; San Bernardino County Land Use Services. San Bernardino County Development Code Sections 84.29.035 and 84.29.040(f); County General Plan Renewable Energy and Conservation Element (Policy RE-3.4). City of Twentynine Palms General Plan 2012, Conservation and Open Space Element (Joshua Tree–Twentynine Palms Connection; Exhibit CO-3, sourced to South Coast Wildlands and the California Natural Diversity Database). LAFCO City Spheres of Influence mapping. Bear Valley Solar (PROJ-2025-00036), CEQA record. E-Group PS / Geneva / Harmony Acres Solar Farm, City of Twentynine Palms (CEQA SCH No. 2024021042). Healthy Planet Energy Storage Project, pre-application PA25-000007, City of Twentynine Palms. Federal: One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025), Internal Revenue Code Section 48E. Interviews with Matt Shragge, General Manager, Twentynine Palms Water District, and email exchange with Kevin Cole, City Manager, City of Twentynine Palms; Desert Trumpet reporting, March 2026.

This article was produced with AI assistance, consistent with the approach described in our AI Policy.

Help us cover San Bernardino County — Become a paid subscriber!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

  Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

During the pandemic lockdown I tried to get a little more cardio and found a snazzy jump rope with black and white wooden beads that clacked in a very satisfying way when they hit the pavement. I was panting in no time. What a find! What a treasure!

I foolishly left the jump rope on the porch, only to find the next morning that it had been gnawed into several pieces. It didn’t take me long to find something had spirited the wooden beads away into a pile of sticks and cholla bombs that nestled against the fence. A packrat, coveting my treasure, had ripped my jump rope apart.

I should have known better.

The packrat that ate my jump rope

You’ve probably walked past many a packrat nest in the desert, possibly without realizing it. From the outside, these nests, also known as middens,1 look like heaps of sticks and other oddments wedged under a boulder or against a rock. They can be several feet tall or wide and might have several entrances.

Home, fortress, pantry

Packrats are also known as desert woodrats (Neotoma lepida), which is what I am going to call them from now on, and are medium-sized rodents up to 15 inches long, half of which is tail. They thrive throughout the desert west from eastern Oregon to Sonora, Mexico. They are nocturnal, solitary, and aggressive about defending their territory. They are also, unsurprisingly, compulsive collectors. They gather plant material, bones, feathers, rocks, tortoise poops, and human belongings such as jump rope beads.

A midden is more than a trash pile. It’s a home, a fortress, and a pantry. The structure can have up to six entrances and eight interior chambers, including nesting areas and food storage. The spiny cholla pieces bristling on the outside make it much harder for a coyote or a snake to poke around for a rat snack. Inside, the temperature stays cooler than the desert air, and the humidity is higher. In a place where water and shade are life, a midden is a very smart piece of architecture. Maybe we should all be living in middens instead of houses and apartment buildings.

Here’s where it gets weird

Except for the urine. Desert woodrats often urinate on the debris piles; sugar and other substances in the urine crystallize as it dries out, creating a material known as amberat that can cement parts of the midden together, encasing pieces of plants, droppings, and other debris in an amber-like matrix.

As local writer Chris Clarke explains in a wonderful essay on desert woodrats, two scientists studying where no juniper trees can be found in the Nevada desert came upon juniper twigs cemented into amberat. The only thing was that no juniper trees could be found within twenty miles, and desert woodrats typically travel only a few hundred feet from home. Where had the juniper twigs come from? They came from the deep past, preserved in a nest maintained by generations of desert woodrats for more than 9,000 years when the area had been wetter and a little more lush.

Since that discovery, scientists have examined thousands of middens across the American Southwest, including in and around Joshua Tree National Park. A 2006 study found middens in the park containing dozens of plant species, the oldest dating back 30,000 years. Because of woodrats, we now know that this desert was once a cooler, wetter landscape of grasslands and woodlands. The packrat’s hoarding habit turns out to be one of the greatest gifts to paleontology in history.

But middens are only part of the story. Recent research shows that the desert woodrat has some surprising adaptations.

A poisonous midnight snack

The creosote bush that dominates our landscape also happens to be toxic to most animals that try to eat it. The leaves are coated in a chemical cocktail of resins and compounds that are toxic to most animals. The desert woodrat eats it anyway, because what else is there?

A 2025 study published in the journal Science figured out that rats’ superpower is being able to safely eat creosote. When creosote spread across the Southwest about 15,000 years ago, woodrats that happened to carry extra copies of certain detoxification genes were better able to survive eating it. Those individuals reproduced; their offspring carried the same advantage. Over generations, natural selection stacked the deck in their favor, until some individual woodrats now carry nearly forty copies of a single detox gene. Humans carry two copies of the closest equivalent.

Basically bulletproof

There’s more! We all know rattlesnakes are a real and present danger in this desert. A rattlesnake bite that would kill a house mouse in minutes might barely slow a desert woodrat down. These sturdy rodens can survive 500 to 1,000 times the venom dose that would kill a standard lab mouse. Recent research from the University of Michigan found that woodrats have twelve copies of a gene called SERPINA3, which makes proteins that block components of rattlesnake venom. Humans have one copy. And intriguingly, warmer temperatures seem to increase the rats’ venom resistance, meaning a woodrat in summer may be harder to kill with a bite than the same rat in cooler weather.

A Mojave green rattlesnake hunting behind the fountain in the video above.

And summer is when the rattlers come out….

Keeping up with climate change

And here’s one more 2025 study. By looking at ancient woodrat middens, museum specimens, and modern populations, researchers found that woodrat body size has tracked climate closely over the past 40,000 years and evolved quickly to keep pace with temperature and rainfall shifts. These rodents have larger bodies in colder periods, smaller in warmer ones. As temperatures rise today, they will likely shrink, with ripple effects on their behavior, health, and role in the ecosystem.

The woodrat is a small, brown, mostly invisible animal that spends its nights foraging within a hundred feet of home. It is unassuming and yet has evolved multiple independent solutions to some of the harshest conditions the desert offers like poison, venom, heat, and drought while simultaneously building structures that preserve the history of the landscape for tens of thousands of years.

What’s in your midden?

Some of the most amazing superpowers are the ones no one expects, including our own. The desert is very good at reminding us of this. You can walk past a midden a hundred times and see only a pile of sticks. Or you can stop, notice, and find 30,000 years of history waiting inside.2

A note on hantavirus: The desert woodrat is a known carrier of hantavirus, so use caution around middens near your home. If you need to clean up after a woodrat, dampen the area with a diluted bleach solution before handling any material and wear gloves and a mask. Hantavirus infections are rare in San Bernardino County, but they are serious.