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

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

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

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

Update – May 2026: The situation in the Morongo Basin looks much the same as it did in 2024. After another wet year, rabbits had a strong breeding season; however, some of the young rabbits born this spring did not inherit immunity to rabbit hemorrhagic virus (RHDV2) from their mothers, and some have since died from the disease. Residents should continue to report dead rabbits to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and follow safe handling guidelines. The CDFW is not seeing a large uptick in reports—yet.

July 3, 2024

Residents of the Morongo Basin, including Twentynine Palms, have reported finding dead cottontails and jackrabbits these last few weeks, bringing back disturbing memories of the rabbit hemorrhagic virus (RHDV2)¹ that burned through the rabbit population in 2020.²

The Desert Trumpet reached out to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and received information from Senior Veterinarian Dr. Deanna Clifford about the RHDV2 cases that are currently being reported from Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and the Indian Cove area.

Which Animals Are Affected?

RHDV2 kills up to 100% of the rabbits that catch it, which includes desert cottontails, black-tailed jackrabbits, and domestic rabbits. There is no treatment for it, but there is a two-dose vaccine for your pet bunny—which is available from vets in the low desert who treat exotic animals; El Paseo Animal Hospital in Palm Desert carries the vaccine, for example.

It appears to be specific to rabbits and does not transmit to humans, pet dogs and cats, or other wild mammals. Nonetheless, wear gloves if you have to handle a dead rabbit and wash your hands well afterward.

How Does the Virus Spread?

The RHDV2 virus is seasonal, Dr. Clifford said. Kits have immunity from their mothers, but lose it after they stop nursing—one reason we are seeing some dead rabbits now. There is immunity in the wild cottontail and jackrabbit population, and it is hoped that rabbits won’t experience the mass die-offs of 2020.

It is likely, Dr. Clifford said,

“that the virus has remained present in the population at a low level, then periodic outbreaks occur when a lot of susceptible rabbits are present on the landscape. This could be from a good reproductive year with a lot of young animals present and from normal population turnover due to average lifespans of individual rabbits (2-5 years roughly). We have seen a seasonal increase in dead rabbit reports and RHDV2 cases in spring-early summer each year, which corresponds to the time that rabbits are most abundant with a lot of young animals present.”

The belief is that the rabbit community will develop strong immunity over time. A CDFW Biologist Supervisor also said, “The working hypotheses for what’s behind a resurgence include two recent wet years producing crops of naive young rabbits and hares, or variation in the RHDV2 virus leading to evasion of prior immunity, or of course, some combination thereof.”

The virus spreads:

• from direct contact between rabbits, carcasses, water sources, flies, fleas, and mosquitos

• predators can spread it through their feces.

The virus is very difficult to eradicate and freezing weather won’t kill it. Infected rabbits may look disoriented or have difficulty moving and die quickly.

What Do I Do If I Find a Dead Rabbit?

1. Take a photo and do an online mortality report for CA Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If your internet access is spotty, you can also call (916) 358-2790 to reach CDFW’s Wildlife Health Lab to make a report.

2. From CDFW: Reporting parties are advised to remove carcasses to slow the spread to healthy rabbits; we recommend double-bagging carcasses, spraying the outer bag with 10% household bleach solution, and disposing of in regular trash, or by burying it more than three-feet deep. If samples are sought in your area, a representative of the CDFW Wildlife Health Lab may contact you to seek your assistance in preserving a sample by freezing or refrigerating.

3. We also recommend carefully cleaning water dishes with bleach regularly or removing them up entirely, because they can spread the disease.

Rabbits die quickly from the RHDV2 virus. You may see blood around the mouth, nose, or rectum. (Photos by Kat Talley-Jones)

Dr. Clifford said that the CDFW has been receiving reports of dead rabbits from Yucca Valley and Joshua Tree. “Having members of the public continue to submit reports on what they are seeing is valuable for trying to understand more about what potential impact the disease may have in a local area, and how long recurrent outbreaks appear to be causing mortalities.”

We will update information about the RHDV2 virus if we receive more information and are grateful for information we received from CDFW. Let’s hope that our local cottontails and jackrabbits quickly weather this outbreak.

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

Subscribe now

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

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

1 RHDV1 spread from China in 1984, and it was contained by about 2001. The RHDV2 mutation arose in 2010 in France and has since troubled rabbit populations worldwide. For a fascinating look at the virus, see Susan Orlean’s 2020 “The Rabbit Outbreak” in the New Yorker. (The article is behind a paywall; here is a PDF.)

Edited to add sample letters to Keith Gardner here and a more comprehensive fact sheet here.

Chris Tiffany sent us a copy of her public comment on the E-Group PS Solar Project, which we publish here as a letter to the editor.

The 45-day public comment period is open until January 22, 2026. During that time, both individuals and public agencies are able to submit written comments on the draft to Community Development Director Keith Gardner at kgardner@29palms.org or via City of Twentynine Palms, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277.

Prior coverage of solar development can be found here.

Re: E-Group PS Solar Project

Please enter this letter into the Public Comments for the above named project.

I stand in opposition to this solar fleld project.

1. The extensive grading and ripping up of these undisturbed 184 acres of native vegetation exposes our area to dust and fine particulates that are contrary to the motivation that has brought generations of residents to the high desert expressly for our healthy air quality. It is common knowledge that the veneer that holds our desert soils is fragile and once disturbed takes hundreds of years to heal. This acreage is habitat for a variety of species large, small, and microscopic. Do we really want our viewshed ruined, our climate altered by a project like this one? Drive to Desert Center on a windy day and see the destruction of pristine desert at the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm and witness the dust storms this indiscriminate grading up of native vegetation has created there.

2. The City should be a leader in the High Desert and an outspoken advocate for placing solar panels on existing buildings and homes and on all new construction. This simply makes more sense than large solar fIelds.

3. Also, approving another zoning change is a mistake. The Development Code does not allow solar farms. Chipping away at the General Plan is not a good idea. The vision was written into the Plan to safeguard the future of our beloved desert home.

4. A final question: This Terra Nova Planning and Research group is the same company that advocated for a Negative Declaration for the Ofland project, avoiding the rules of CEQA that require a full environmental impact study for developments of this magnitude. This company is based in Palm Desert where the entire region no longer holds any evidence of the dunes once covered with sand verbena that I hold in my own memory. I don’t think anyone who lives in 29 Palms wants a paved-over community or the acres of industrial developments like this solar farm represents.

I thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. My personal ties and love of this desertscape were forged over 70 years ago.

Chris Tiffany
Twentynine Palms

Going into the 2026 elections, Desert Trumpet has sustained a potential 50% cut in funding. Help us provide the coverage you’ve come to expect by becoming a paid subscriber or upgrading your paid subscription today!

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

Feel free to share this article!

Share

As Twentynine Palms moves into 2026, the City finds itself at a crossroads. New resorts, housing permits, solar projects, tourism trends, and boosterism from City officials all point to revenue opportunities for Twentynine Palms and its residents. At the same time, economic uncertainty, legal challenges, and questions about sustainability continue to shape how residents and City staff think about development.

Threats to this growth include an economic climate complicated by actions taken by the federal government. Will there be enough workers skilled in the building trades to construct new resorts and housing? Fears of ICE enforcement and immigration-related actions have already begun affecting the broader construction industry in Southern California. USC’s Lusk Center for Real Estate, has reported that 41% of the state’s workers are foreign-born. Richard Green, director of the Center, noted: “It’s been hard for a while to find construction labor. The raids don’t help.”

In addition, supply-chain volatility and tariffs have led to higher costs of lumber, steel and aluminum, and furnishings, with wood products imported from Canada rising 10 to 15% in cost.

Earlier this month, the Desert Trumpet looked at development in the Morongo Basin in 2025. This overview examines where Twentynine Palms stands today including what is being built, what is being debated, and what it could mean for the community in the year ahead.

HOTELS AND RESORTS

Tourism remains one of Twentynine Palms’ strongest drivers of development. Last year the Reset Hotel opened, and it was the first hotel built from the ground up in the City in fifteen years. The Amboy and Ofland resorts could also have a significant impact if built.

According to Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Marketing Director Breanne Dusastre at the December 18 TBID meeting (reported here), the city collected $75,295 in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) during the last quarter of fiscal year 2025, which ended September 30. That figure exceeded seasonal expectations and marked a 9% increase over the same period the year before.

The growth was not evenly spread across all types of lodging. Hotels and RV parks led the way, showing 16% growth, while vacation rentals increased by only 1.45% during the same period. Dusastre attributed the strong numbers largely to new hotels coming online, notable the Reset Hotel and Hotel Wren.

When considering the TBID 2024-2025 fiscal year, however, the picture became more mixed. TBID year-end assessment revenue totaled $368,356, a slight 0.35% decline year over year. Hotels and RV parks still grew, up 3.4%, but vacation rentals fell 4.4% percent.

Adding more uncertainty, there is still no clear data on how last fall’s federal government shutdown—which took place after the end of fiscal year 2025—affected visitation to Joshua Tree National Park or nearby communities. Data for the end of the first quarter of FY 26, which was December 31, should be available soon.

A looming question for 2026 is how higher national park entrance fees for international visitors (now $250 for non-US resident visitors) may affect their travel decisions in the coming years. Neither Joshua Tree National Park nor TBID track this statistic. All this is to say that tourism trends are always extremely volatile, but especially so now.

The Amboy Resort and 3D-Printed Cabins

A new project approved in 2025 is a so-called eco-resort along Amboy Road. At its October 21 meeting, the Twentynine Palms Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a 30-unit resort known in city documents as Envoy Resort.

The project is notable for its construction method. All 30 guest cabins—each about 200 square feet—will be 3D-printed using recycled plastic and fiberglass. According to the developers, this would make the Amboy resort the first resort of its kind in the region and possibly the state.

The resort is planned on a 10-acre parcel east of Adobe Road and west of Desert Knoll Avenue. Only the southern five acres, zoned Commercial Tourist (CT), will be developed. The northern half, zoned Residential Single-Family (RS-2) and largely made up of sand dunes, will remain untouched.

No date has been set for the beginning of construction or completion of this project.

Ofland Resort

The litigation against the Ofland Resort is ongoing. In August, the Center for Biological Diversity and Indian Cove Neighbors filed a lawsuit in the San Bernardino County Superior Court against the City of Twentynine Palms over the City Council’s approval of the proposed Ofland resort project without a full environmental review. Desert Trumpet reporter Eleanor Whitney goes into greater depth here.

We covered the City Council’s decision to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and zoning and General Plan changes that would allow construction of the resort to move forward here. This decision to approve the resort required conversion of a residentially zoned area to a tourist-commercial and open space conservation designation.

Ofland was also briefly named in the city’s draft Strategic Plan under a goal to strengthen hospitality infrastructure. It was removed due to objections from other hospitality providers before approval of the plan at the City Council’s December 9 meeting.

SHORT-TERM RENTALS

Short-term rentals (STRs) remain a major topic in the Morongo Basin, but the market appears to be changing, at least in Twentynine Palms.

As of August 18, 2025, City data showed 345 active STR permits, with eight pending applications. That is down from 363 active permits in April, still well below the citywide cap of 500 permits.

According to Planning Commission Chair Jessica Cure, as profiled in the Desert Trumpet, demand is strongest at the high end of the market. Luxury desert properties continue to perform relatively well, while more modest vacation rentals are seeing weaker demand. This is to be expected in the current “K-shaped” economy, one that sees growth in higher-income groups and sectors, while growth for those with lower incomes stagnates.

At the same time, Planning Commission Chair Cure cited a noticeable shift back toward long-term rentals. This shift could help stabilize neighborhoods that have seen high turnover from short-term rentals in recent years.

Going into the 2026 elections, Desert Trumpet has sustained a potential 50% cut in funding. Help us provide the coverage you’ve come to expect by becoming a paid subscriber or upgrading your paid subscription today!

Subscribe now

HOUSING

New housing in Twentynine Palms lags behind hotel and resort development but is showing signs of progress.

City staff reported to the City Council in October 2025 that 39 residential building permits had been issued to date. These included:

• 29 single-family homes

• 5 multi-family units

• 5 accessory dwelling units (ADUs)

An additional 22 housing applications were under review at that time.

Later in the year, updated figures shared by city officials indicated permits had been issued for 51 new dwelling units, suggesting housing production is improving compared to recent years.

One of the most significant housing policy efforts underway involves accessory dwelling units (ADUs). City staff and consultants are developing a set of pre-approved, architect-vetted ADU plans that homeowners can use “off the shelf.”

The goal is to reduce costs, shorten permitting timelines, and make it easier for residents—especially those who are not professional developers—to add small housing units on their property. Council members broadly supported the effort, noting that state law already requires cities to allow ADUs and for pre-approved plans to be available, as seen in this handbook from the California Department of Housing and Community Developoment.

City officials say the plan responds directly to common barriers, including high design costs and long review times, and could modestly increase housing supply without changing neighborhood character.

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT

Energy development is also part of the local conversation. A public comment period is currently open for the E-Group PS Solar Project in Twentynine Palms. The Desert Trumpet covered recent developments on this project here. The 45-day public review period is open until January 22, 2026. During that time, both individuals and public agencies are able to submit written comments on the draft to Community Development Director Keith Gardner at Twentynine Palms City Hall at kgardner@29palms.org or the City of Twentynine Palms, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277.

This comes as California prepares for the closure of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, located near the Nevada border. Ivanpah, which used concentrated solar power technology, is scheduled to shut down in 2026 after years of underperformance and high operating costs. Utilities ended long-term contracts that were no longer competitive compared to cheaper photovoltaic solar.1

Despite political headwinds at the federal level and reduced support for renewable energy subsidies, industrial-scale solar likely remains financially viable in California. However, the economics have changed. New projects increasingly include batteries to store excess daytime power and deliver electricity during evening hours when demand is higher.

For communities like Twentynine Palms, large solar projects raise familiar questions about land use, environmental impacts, and long-term benefits versus short-term disruption.

Opponents of the project note that impacts of the solar projects include:

• Mass grading: The developers have misrepresented this site as “flat. Now the DEIR discloses ~528,000 cubic yards of earth moved — roughly 50,000 dump trucks of soil. with this level of earthmoving the desert cannot be restored to its natural desert condition.

• Desert tortoise: The DEIR identifies the site as occupied desert tortoise habitat. Mass grading and the other planned industrial-scale changes threaten tortoises in this important piece of occupied habitat.

• Dust & health: Twentynine Palms is windy. Mass grading can create fugitive dust (including fine particles) during construction and potentially for years during operation/maintenance and later decommissioning. Dust storms could be more frequent and severe.

LOOKING AHEAD

Taken together, the development picture in Twentynine Palms is mixed. Tourism remains strong, though vulnerable to outside forces. New resorts in residential zoning spark controversy. Housing growth is slow but supported by targeted policy changes. Solar energy projects point toward the future, even as past experiments wind down. Residents and visitors are quick to point out the many derelict structures along the Hwy 62 corridor and throughout the City.

As economic uncertainty continues into 2026, the key challenge for the city will be balance: encouraging investment while protecting the desert landscape and quality of life that make Twentynine Palms unique.

For residents, these decisions will shape not just what gets built, but what kind of community Twentynine Palms becomes in the years ahead.

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 organizing committees of Indian Cove Neighbors and Say No to Ofland. Read our policy for covering Ofland here.

Thanks to our new paid subscribers, we are at $8305 in subscriptions, just $1695 short of our $10,000 goal. Upgrade your subscription from free to paid today for just $50 per year or $5 per month.

Subscribe now

Are you able to give more than $100? Donate via Paypal!

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

Feel free to share this article!

Share

In 2024 the Desert Trumpet highlighted development proposals throughout the Morongo Basin. This year we’ll update the status of these projects and add a few others. These developments differ in scope, size, cost, funders, and zoning. Some projects are moving forward and others have met with legal opposition. New development projects have popped up including a couple that seem bafflingly inappropriate for for the Hi Desert.

We try to track these projects throughout the year, but if we’ve missed anything, please let us know! In the coming week we’ll do a deeper dive into developments in Twentynine Palms that include housing and short-term rentals as well as the lodging featured here.

TWENTYNINE PALMS

Commercial Projects in Residential Zoning

We’ll start with Twentynine Palms because the Desert Trumpet’s focus is on the scrappy little city wedged between the Marine Base and Joshua Tree National Park.

In 2024 our development recap focused on the Ofland Resort and the Twentynine Palms Solar Project. Both saw momentum in 2025.

Ofland Resort

In May Jonathan Hume reported for the Desert Trumpet:

On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, the Twentynine Palms Planning Division effectively gave the proposed Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms resort development a big leg up, making public the City's Initial Study (IS)1 finding that the project needn't do a costly and time consuming Environmental Impact Report (EIR), because its moderate impact instead merits a far less expensive and onerous Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

We covered the City Council’s July 22 decision to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and zoning and General Plan changes that would allow construction of the resort to move forward here. This decision in effect approved startup of the resort project, which required conversion of a residentially zoned area to a tourist-commercial and open space conservation designation.

In August, the Center for Biological Diversity and Indian Cove Neighbors filed a lawsuit in the San Bernardino County Superior Court against the City of Twentynine Palms over the City Council’s approval of the proposed Ofland resort project without a full environmental review. Desert Trumpet reporter Eleanor Whitney goes into greater depth here. The lawsuit is currently moving through the State-mandated legal process.

Ofland was also briefly named in the city’s draft Strategic Plan under a goal to strengthen hospitality infrastructure. The mention of the resort was removed due to objections from other hospitality providers before approval of the plan at the City Council’s December 9 meeting.

E-Group PS Solar Project

Since March 2023, the Desert Trumpet has reported on public scoping meetings on a solar project that E-Group PS, LLC, proposes to build adjacent to the Harmony Acres neighborhood of Twentynine Palms. This includes the project’s introduction at City Council in May 2023, recaps of public meetings held in March 2024 and a feature on the who benefits from the project. See our 2024 overview for background.

On December 9, 2025, a draft of the Environmental Impact Report for the E-Group PS Solar Project was released. The report, which was prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, can be accessed via the City of Twentynine Palm’s website. The 45-day public review period is open until January 22, 2026. During that time, both individuals and public agencies are able to submit written comments on the draft to Community Development Director Keith Gardner at Twentynine Palms City Hall at kgardner@29palms.org or the City of Twentynine Palms, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277.

FLAMINGO HEIGHTS AND LANDERS

Flamingo Blossom

In December 2024 we gave a rundown on Flamingo Blossom to be situated off of Old Woman Springs Road directly north of popular desert destination restaurant La Copine. Developers presented plans for a 19-room resort on a 4.4-acre lot. The lot is zoned for commercial development, but many homes sit directly behind it. Per the project’s website,

The property will provide commercial spaces for a market and art gallery, a family friendly outdoor space, and an event space for retreats, weddings, art events, and, when needed, disaster relief.

The project has been quiet in 2025; Flamingo Blossom’s website and social media have not been updated, and knowledgeable Flamingo Heights residents have nothing to report.

The Landing

The Landing—also called the Landers Hotel—is a proposed resort-style hotel set on a 5.7-acre lot in Landers on Belfield Road on lots zoned for commercial use.

Plans for this project include a 35-room hotel, a market accessible to locals, a restaurant and bar, an onsen spa and an observatory. In September 2025, the developers posted a notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. The 85-page initial study has been posted by San Bernardino County here. The review and comment period began September 22 and closed on October 21.

Attendees of a November 2024 community meeting had mixed reactions to the project. Some objected to light pollution and disruption from traffic. Others, like Chris Gubler of Gubler Orchids, said “I just want to tell the group I’ve been looking at this and listening, and I support the project. It conforms to the law, they bought that land and they can build on that land.”

Going into the 2026 elections, Desert Trumpet has sustained a potential 50% cut in funding. Help us provide the coverage you’ve come to expect by becoming a paid subscriber or increasing your paid subscription donation today!

Subscribe now

JOSHUA TREE

LoveMore Ranch

LoveMore Ranch is a proposed development of 64 homes on a vacant 18.5 acre parcel in the Friendly Hills area of Joshua Tree, northwest of Alta Loma Dr. and Sunset Rd. It’s zoned JT-RS (Single Residential) and has been owned by Axel Cramer since September 2020. According to the LoveMore Ranch website, the parcel’s “zoning allows for 57 to 114 homes, but we plan to develop 64 lots to balance density with preserving the natural habitat.”

In our December 2024 update, the Desert Trumpet noted an August Cramer and his group held a meeting at Joshua Tree Community Center to solicit community input. Despite the fact the area immediately north has similarly small parcels, per Z107.7 reporting, attendees disliked the project’s density and some vowed to oppose it.

In January 2025, the San Bernardino County Planning Commission approved the project’s tentative map.

In 2025, an appeal by the Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA) and a group called Joshua Tree Village Neighbors (JTVN) challenging approval of the LoveMore Ranch project was denied by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on April 8. After that decision, JTVN filed a lawsuit contesting the County’s decision.

The lawsuit claims the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (linked here) did not meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It also alleges that public notices for comments and hearings were inadequate. The appeal raised concerns about flooding, wastewater treatment near homes, traffic safety, and conflicts with community planning documents. It also argued the project should require a Conditional Use Permit.

MBCA further argues the project is not sustainable, as it would remove native vegetation, regrade the land, and eliminate more than 50 Joshua Trees. While MBCA supports new housing, it favors lower-density development that better fits the neighborhood.

As with the Ofland legal action, the lawsuit is currently moving through the State-mandated legal process.

Joshua Tree Resort

New for 2025 is the Joshua Tree Resort, a four-bedroom short-term rental operated by Fieldtrip. It boasts a lazy river pool, hot tub, sauna, yoga deck, outdoor egg swing theater, a putting green, and a commercial grade ice machine. As it has in Twentynine Palms, Fieldtrip describes this resort as a “residence” that “stands apart as one of the only homes in the high desert with its own private lazy river.”

This project’s property, located at 2751 Border Avenue, is being considered for rezoning, changing medium-density residential land to commercial use. The County prepared an Initial Study with a recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public comment period ran from April 25 to May 27, 2025. However, according to the MBCA, notice was not given to the Joshua Basin Water District, nearby property owners, or the community. A search has not revealed that rezoning has occurred, even as the resort appears to be in operation and is being advertised on social media.

Compass Yacht Club

Also new for 2025 was the Compass Yacht Club. A town hall meeting at the Joshua Tree Community Center was held on the stealthy date of December 17 for the nautical-themed resort the Hi Desert didn’t know it needed. Nonetheless, Z1077 reported that nearly 50 skeptical residents attended.

Developers Rigel Bitterman from Lucky Find Hospitality and David Loewenstein and Jason Grauten from RAD LAB presented their vision for a resort set across 23 acres. It includes 38 yacht and 28 boathouse accommodations. The most likely cluster of parcels at the Border Road and Hwy 62 location given by the developers is bisected by a large wash, making the yacht theme perhaps unintentionally appropriate.

YUCCA VALLEY AND WONDER VALLEY

The Desert Trumpet is unaware of resort or large housing development projects in Yucca Valley or Wonder Valley. If any are afoot, please share information with us.

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 organizing committees of Indian Cove Neighbors and Say No to Ofland. Read our policy for covering Ofland here.

Thanks to our new paid subscribers, we are $500 closer to our $10,000 goal! Upgrade your subscription from free to paid today for just $50 per year or $5 per month.

Subscribe now

Are you able to give more than $100? Donate via Paypal!

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

Feel free to share this article!

Share

On December 9, 2025, a draft of the Environmental Impact Report for the E-Group PS Solar Project was released. The report, which was prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, can be accessed via the City of Twentynine Palm’s website. The 45-day public review period is open until January 22, 2026. During that time, both individuals and public agencies are able to submit written comments on the draft to Community Development Director Keith Gardner at Twentynine Palms City Hall at kgardner@29palms.org or the City of Twentynine Palms, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277.

The proposed solar project is on a parcel of about 477 acres, north of Two-Mile Road near the Sugar Bowl and west of the Harmony Acres neighborhood. As previously reported by the Desert Trumpet, the City, with Terra Nova, conducted an initial study that determined the solar project could have significant environmental impacts. The solar project would be developed on 241 acres, including grading about 184 of those acres to accommodate a 50 megawatt commercial solar generation facility, including 160,000 photovoltaic solar panels mounted on 720 ground-mounted, fixed-tilt solar panel racks. Each rack is 104 feet wide and 252 feet long and would be separated by 10 foot wide service drives.

The PS Solar Project also includes a residential portion, as it will remove 241 acres of residential land and the elimination 48 potential housing units. SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities from enacting changes that would reduce their quantity of potential new housing. To offset this loss, the developer is proposing a General Use Plan amendment and rezone of the south 236 acres of the parcel from the currently allowed 71 housing units to a maximum of 119 housing units. No residential development is being proposed as part of this project.

Currently, the City’s Development Code does not allow for commercial solar farms (19.18.030 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements). It banned utility-scale solar facilities in 2012, shortly after the Highlander 1 Solar Field on Lear became operational.

Subscribe now

Going into the 2026 elections, Desert Trumpet has sustained a potential 50% cut in funding. Help us provide the coverage you’ve come to expect by becoming a paid subscriber or upgrading your paid subscription today!

The parcels proposed for the 29Palms Project are zoned Single Family Residential RL5. In addition to overriding the City’s moratorium, E-Group will be seeking a development code amendment, general plan amendment, and zone change to permit the project on the site.

The project was first presented at a City Council meeting in May 2023. In an analysis published last year, the Desert Trumpet looked into the land owners, stake holders, and benefits and drawbacks of the proposed solar project, including looking to see who stands to gain the most if this project moves forward.

The draft report identifies the following areas of controversy based on written comments received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) public review period and the scoping meeting in 2024:

• Aesthetics and Glare

• Air Quality/Dust Control

• Biological Resources

• Hydrology

• Land Use Compatibility

The Notice of Availability states that,

The potential impacts of the Project were determined to be less than significant for the following topics: air quality, energy, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and utilities. The potential impacts of the Project were determined to be less than significant with mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR for the following topics: biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and Tribal cultural resources. The potential impacts of the Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable for aesthetics.

To mitigate these measures, the report proposes the following:

Aesthetics: Install native plants along the east and south sides of the perimeter fence to shield the site from residential viewers before the completion of construction and on the site within 60 days of the completion of construction or as early as possible as determined by the City and a qualified biologist.

Air quality and dust control: The plan states that no mitigation is required, however under “biological resources,” the developer states they will follow standard dust control measures, included limiting speeds to 15 mph on unpaved roads, replacing ground cover in disturbed areas, frequently watering active work sites, the installation of shaker plates, and suspending excavation and grading operations during periods of high winds.

Biological resources: The developer states that they will conduct biological monitoring, worker environmental awareness training, clear delineation of property boundaries and any environmental resources that will be avoided during construction, submitting a storm water prevention plan to the City, and covering open trenches and holes that may trap wildlife. The draft report contains detailed plans to minimize, monitor, and mitigate the impacts on desert tortoises and their habitat, and sensitive plants, including western Joshua trees.

Hazardous materials: A Hazardous Material Management Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City specifying the method for handling and disposing of hazardous material related to the construction process. In addition, a test to determine the leaching potential of solar panels will be conducted before they are recycled or disposed of.

Hydrology: Prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) that clearly states how to stop, contain, and clean up from a spill of hazardous materials, as well as training workers to prevent and control spills.

The draft EIR also includes a section about cultural and Tribal resources. The developer states they will conduct an analysis of historical and archaeological cultural resources, create a Cultural Monitoring and Discovery Plan prior to development and require that archaeological and tribal monitors be present during all ground disturbing activities.

The 540-page draft Environmental Impact Review report is available for public review, and comments are open until January 22. Additional past reporting on the solar project is also gathered here. The Desert Trumpet will provide additional reporting and analysis as this story continues to develop.

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

Feel free to share this article!

Share

Help us reach our 2025 goal of $10,000 in subscriptions! Upgrade to a paid subscription for just $5 per month or $50 per year.

Subscribe now

We are facing a potential $30,000 loss in funding for 2026. Would you care to donate more than $100? Our Paypal account is up and running!

On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, the Twentynine Palms Planning Division effectively gave the proposed Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms resort development a big leg up, making public the City's Initial Study (IS) finding that the project needn't do a costly and time consuming Environmental Impact Report (EIR), because its moderate impact instead merits a far less expensive and onerous Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). You can read the City’s Initial Study here.

The 20-day public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration runs May 14 to June 2. Comments can be submitted to Community Development Director Keith Gardner at City of Twentynine Palms, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 or via email to kgardner@29palms.org.

The Notice of Intent accompanying the Initial Study states:

Although significant impacts could occur, mitigation measures included in the Initial Study will reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The City hereby prepares and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

A MND is a document used under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if a proposed project will have significant environmental impacts. It is used when an Initial Study identifies potential significant effects, but project revisions or mitigation measures would avoid or reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level. The MND serves as a legal statement finding "no substantial evidence" that the revised project, with its agreed-upon mitigations, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

Described in the study as a "152-acre luxury resort project," the initiative, a proposed 100-room hotel at the southeast corner of Lear Avenue and Twentynine Palms Highway, would actually occupy just 42 acres at the center of the now-vacant 152-acre parcel, ringed by 110 acres of conserved land. Each of the proposed hotel's 100 "rooms" would be a freestanding 384-square foot unit with its own patio. Additionally, the hotel would feature lodges, pools and spas, recreational areas, playgrounds, food and beverage service (actually a “fast-casual” restaurant with patio seating and pre-packaged alcohol in a dedicated structure open 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., per Ofland Development’s website), and 25 employee housing units.

The Desert Trumpet's previous coverage of the Ofland Hotel project includes our "2024 Development Recap" from December 7, 2024, "Ofland Resort Takes Another Shot at Winning Over Indian Cove Residents" from March 3, 2024 and "We have a housing crisis, not a recreation crisis" from December 9, 2023.

Ofland's asks from the City

Rezoning is a key aspect of what Ofland Development needs from the City to move ahead with this project. Currently, this undeveloped 152-acre parcel is zoned Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E), which, as the study states, "does not permit the proposed uses." The existing RS-E zoning allows residential homebuilding with subdivision into parcels of at least 2.5 acres.

Ofland is asking the City to rezone this parcel into 42 acres of Tourist Commercial (TC) zoned land to accommodate the hotel itself, surrounded donut-like by 110 acres of Open Space Conservation (OSC) zoned land.

This OSC designated land would preserve a buffer zone between the hotel area and the parcel’s perimeter of 500 feet to the west, 800 feet to the east, 600 feet to the north and 500 feet to the south.

The City's current zoning lacks a Open Space Conservation zoning type, so in addition to the rezoning, the City would need to approve a General Plan Amendment and a Development Code Amendment to create and implement this new OSC zoning designation.

Accompanying this substantial rezoning is the requirement that the project accommodate state SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which prohibits cities from enacting changes which would reduce their quantity of potential new housing. Under SB 330, in order for the City to downzone one area — for example, by rezoning this 152-acre parcel to something other than its current potential accommodation of 61 houses — it must correspondingly upzone another area.

Fortunately for Ofland Development, the City already has just such an upzoning already in mind. Per the Initial Study, "Twentynine Palms is currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a solar project encompassing ±477-acres in the northern portion of the City." Here the City is referring to the proposed E-Group PS solar project north of Two-Mile Road near the Sugar Bowl and west of the Harmony Acres neighborhood, the plan for which, conveniently enough, includes upzoning the south 236 acres of that parcel from the currently allowed 71 housing units to a maximum of 236 housing units. Voilà! With a little Planning magic, here are the necessary 61 potential housing units in the City to offset those subtracted by Ofland Hotel to comply with SB 330.

Notably, though, the City's robbing-from-Peter-to-pay-Paul sleight of hand here does yield an odd dependency of one speculative project, Ofland Hotel, upon another, the E-Group PS solar farm. You'd be forgiven for wondering whether the City was bending over backward to accommodate developers coming, hat in hand, to 29.

Finally, when and if the zoning hurdles are cleared, in order to proceed, Ofland Development will still need a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) from the City. This is a discretionary land use permit allowing a property owner to engage in a type of use not otherwise permitted by the local zoning ordinance, only if certain conditions are met. CUPs, zoning changes and general plan amendments all require approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Digging into the Initial Study (EIR vs MND? So many acronyms!)

The Initial Study evaluates 21 different environmental factors, including Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Population/Housing, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources and Wildfire. The 99-page Initial Study and its appendices total 729 pages.

It's impractical to cover so much material in depth, so what follows are highlights from four of the 21 study areas.

Land Use and Planning

Item XI (b) in this Initial Study (page 62) evaluates the Ofland Hotel project for disagreement with the City's General Plan, asking whether there's "Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?" Here the Study finds "Less than significant impact."

Assessing the Ofland Hotel project against various stated General Plan goals, the Study offers the following analysis in support of its conclusion:

The location of a tourist-oriented project on Highway 62 is consistent with the City’s pattern of locating and concentrating commercial land uses along this high-volume corridor. Commercial lands and uses occur both east and west of the project site, and the project would continue this pattern of development with minimal intrusion into residential areas, particularly because of the Open Space buffer proposed as part of the amendment.

The hotel project itself is single-story, low impact development of individual cabins for guests, and employee housing to assure that employees have affordable housing and are not required to commute. The 100 cabins represent a density of 2.4 units per acre, which is lower than the neighborhood currently developed on the west side of Lear Avenue adjacent to the project site. The implementation of the GPA [General Plan Amendment] will also implement the City’s economic development goals, including local revenue and employment, while minimizing and buffering residents to the south, west and east.

While it’s true that the proposed density of 2.4 hotel units per acre is less dense than the relatively dense portion of the Indian Cove neighborhood immediately west of the proposed hotel site — it’s notable that this new 2.4 units per acre density would represent a significant density increase versus the sparely populated east portion of the Indian Cove neighborhood’s existing RS-E zoning’s 0.4 units per acre (2.5-acre lots); as well as versus the southeast portion of the neighborhood’s RL-5 zoning with a density of just 0.2 units per acre (5-acre lots).

Against the General Plan goal that it "Consider and address the potential impacts of new development on surrounding properties," the Study offers that:

The project will have no significant impact on surrounding properties, because of the low intensity (2.4 units per acre) of the project, and the creation of the Open Space buffer, which will provide a permanent physical separation between the project and existing and future residential uses on the west, south and east.

Against various General Plan goals, including that development projects "Protect and preserve Twentynine Palms natural resources, promote the existing quality of life and prepare for future residents and businesses by promoting superior sustainable development," and "Encourage a mix of retail, service, industrial, manufacturing and professional uses that create diverse, well-paying employment opportunities," the Study offers that:

The site is located on Highway 62, which has been and continues to be the City’s commercial corridor. The location of a hotel at this location is consistent with other hotels located east of the site, which also occur on the highway. This location allows for easy access by employees who may live in the City. In addition, the employee housing proposed as part of the project will limit daily employee trips, and also provide an affordable living environment for employees who might not be able to afford market rents and purchase prices in the City otherwise.

Biological Resources

Item IV in this Initial Study (page 28) evaluates the Ofland Hotel project for any "substantial adverse effect" on "any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status" or "habitat or other sensitive natural community." For these conservation factors the Study finds the Ofland Hotel project impact to be "less than significant with mitigation" or "less than significant impact."

As the Study states, "36 wildlife and 16 plant species are listed as species of concern and are known to or may potentially exist within the City," but top of mind is the desert tortoise:

Ongoing threats, including population loss, habitat degradation and fragmentation due to development have resulted in the desert tortoise being listed as a federal and state threatened species.1 As such, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have established regulations to allow development to occur within a strict framework that ensures potential impacts to the desert tortoise population and sensitive habitat are reduced to the greatest extent. CEQA further requires all new developments avoid potential impacts to the desert tortoise and any other federal, state, and/or local listed species.

Biological resource findings in the Initial Study are based on a Biological Resources Assessment Report prepared in March, 2024, which was in turn primarily based on an October, 2023 field visit. This field visit revealed no desert tortoises on the proposed site but the Study acknowledges their proximity:

The probability of the desert tortoise to occur onsite is moderate due to the presence of suitable habitat. The site’s dominant vegetation (creosote bush scrub) is a habitat typically utilized by desert tortoises. Although no desert tortoise individual or sign was identified onsite during the field survey, habitat on the site is suitable, and they could move onto the site prior to construction.

Notably, just one month after this Biological Resources Assessment Report was prepared, the California Fish and Game Commission uplisted the Mojave desert tortoise from “threatened” to “endangered” — but nowhere does the Study acknowledge this change.2

The Study suggests that although "Impacts to the species, should they occur would be significant if not mitigated," potential threats to the tortoise from the Ofland Hotel project can be mitigated via site surveys prior to construction:

BIO-1: Desert Tortoise

Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit on the Project site, pre-construction surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFWS 2019, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).” If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise is found onsite during construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps. No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without prior authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.

The study suggests other mitigation measures to mitigate potential impact on migratory birds, burrowing owls, American badgers and the San Diego pocket mouse, and specifies that all project construction workers receive Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training.

Cultural Resources

Item V in this Initial Study (page 34) evaluates the Ofland Hotel project for its potential impact on cultural resources. You might think a "vacant" 152-acre desert parcel would contain zero cultural resources, but given that, as the Study states, "The City is located in an area historically occupied by two Native American groups, the Serrano and the Chemehuevi," that isn't quite correct:

Intensive-level field surveys were conducted on November 14 and 15 [2023] by CRM TECH staff. During the field survey, 19 previously undocumented cultural resources were recorded within the project boundaries and designated temporarily as 4064-1H through 4064-19, pending assignment of permanent identification numbers in the California Historical Resources Inventory.

The 19 newly identified cultural resources within the Project boundaries include prehistoric (i.e., Native American) milling features and lithic artifacts as well as historic-period refuse items, and they were recorded as 5 archaeological sites and 14 isolates (i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts). Among these are 2 prehistoric sites, 3 historic-period sites, 7 prehistoric isolates, and 7 historic-period isolates.

But intriguing as they may be, these archeological discoveries don't merit special protection for purposes of compliance with CEQA:

According to guidelines set forth by the California Office of Historic Preservation, isolates with fewer than three artifacts, by definition, do not qualify as archaeological sites due to the lack of contextual integrity. As such, the 14 isolates found in the project area are not considered potential “historical resources” and require no further consideration in the CEQA compliance process.

The Study details two measures to mitigate the project’s impact on these archeological finds:

CUL-1 The two prehistoric sites in the Project area identified as 4064-7 and 4064-18 shall be placed in clearly demarcated Environmentally Sensitive Areas during project construction. No construction activities shall be permitted in these areas.

CUL-2 Earth-moving activities, including grading, grubbing, trenching, or excavations at the site shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and, if requested, a Native American monitor. The monitoring program should be coordinated with the Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, who may wish to participate. If any cultural materials more than 50 years of age are discovered, they shall be recorded and evaluated in the field. The monitors shall be prepared to recover artifacts quickly to avoid construction delays but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for controlled archaeological recovery if a substantial cultural deposit is encountered. The monitors shall determine when excavations have reached sufficient depth to preclude the occurrence of cultural resources, and when monitoring should conclude.

Transportation and Traffic

Item XVIII in this Initial Study (page 83) evaluates the Ofland Hotel project for potential transportation and traffic issues and finds there will be "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation."

The study acknowledges the hotel would generate lot of new car trips:

The Project is anticipated to generate 894 external vehicle trip-ends per day with 54 external AM peak vehicle hours trips and 62 external PM peak hours vehicle trips, based on the hotel units and assuming that the food and beverage facilities would be open to the public.

Asking whether the Ofland Hotel project might create "Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities," the Study refers to an analysis of existing and projected traffic and intersection delays, and recommends various traffic mitigation measures to accommodate the project. These include paving Lear Avenue between Twentynine Palms Highway (SR-62) and Sullivan Road, paving a section of Sullivan Road, and installation of various new stop signs and turn lanes.

As part of its traffic analysis the Study states that the Ofland Hotel restaurant, in serving the general public as well as hotel guests, will tend to reduce car trips:

[T]he on-site food and beverage uses support to the Project units and provide a new local service for adjacent residents to accommodate their food and beverage needs. The provision of on-site guest services and lodge facilities shortens nondiscretionary trips by putting those goods and services closer to complimentary land uses, resulting in conditions which do not increase overall VMT [vehicle miles traveled].

But this idea of guests rarely venturing out would seem to be at odds with Ofland’s enticement of off-site spending on their website, that Ofland guests will reliably spend north of $200 daily at local businesses:

On average, each occupied unit at Ofland spends $209 per day off-site in local restaurants and stores generating over $3,500,000 spent annually within the local economy.

Next Steps

Following the Initial Study comment period, which ends June 2, consideration of the Ofland Hotel project CUP and zoning changes may land on the Planning Commission’s agenda as soon as their June 17 meeting.

Regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendations, this development proposal will end up before City Council. Council can approve it, impose further conditions or modifications themselves, send it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration or modifications, or deny it.

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.

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

Feel free to share this article!

Share

We want to thank the paid subscribers and individual donors who helped underwrite We know that many communities in the Morongo Basin are economically disadvantaged, so our coverage will always be free. However, if you have the means to support our work, we always appreciate upgrades to a paid subscription. Your upgrade helps keep subscriptions free for those who cannot afford to donate.

Subscribe now

Note that donations in excess of $100 are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law, and your subscription/donation will be listed as AHA Projects, the name of our fiscal receiver, on your statement.

Additional writing by Laura Hauther

With names reminiscent of focus-group approval like Yonder (now Ofland), Wander (now Reset), Wonder Inn, Flamingo Blossom and LoveMore, it’s hard to keep track of all the hipster-esque desert development proposals that have popped up in the Morongo Basin since 2020. These developments differ in scope, size, cost, funders, and zoning but all have been met with various levels of local opposition.

In Twentynine Palms residents are pushing back against projects that require zoning changes to move forward, while residents at community meetings in Flamingo Heights, Joshua Tree and Landers had tough questions for developers despite projects taking place in appropriate zoning.

What follows is our desert developer bingo update on five of the projects that have raised the ire of their potential neighbors and host communities.

Commercial Projects in Residential Zoning,
Twentynine Palms

Ofland

Ofland is a proposed 152-acre 130-cabin resort development in the Indian Cove neighborhood of Twentynine Palms. Near Joshua Tree National Park’s Indian Cove campground, the area is currently zoned by the City of Twentynine Palms as residential. “Say No to Ofland” is a local opposition group1 that has formed in response to the development proposal, with a Facebook page listing a myriad of reasons why the City should not follow through with the consideration, listing concerns of light pollution, traffic congestion, zoning, and wildlife and desert tortoise habitat. A change.org petition opposing the Ofland project has garnered over 550 signatures since launching on November 15.

Much like the proposed solar farm on the north side of Highway 62, also standing in the way of this project is local zoning ordinance, which designates the area as single-family residential. Developers are proposing a zoning ordinance change to accommodate commercial tourist zoning. If they choose to approve the project, the City would have to grant a conditional use permit and change zoning regulations for the Indian Cove area.

Ofland Project Timeline:

• November 2023: Yonder Developers host a public meeting where developers are confronted with heavy resident opposition.

• January 2024: After significant local spotlight on the proposal and continued resident opposition, developers change the proposed project’s name from Yonder to Ofland.

• February 2024: Developers host a public forum and are again met with local pushback, with over forty locals in opposition to the project attending.

Currently, the project’s website lists various justifications for City Council approval of the project, claiming the project will garner the City revenue of $850K in annual TOT and property tax, generate fifty to sixty “sustainable jobs,” and conservation efforts in the form of donations around $150,000 through “non-profit partnerships.”

As for City action on the Ofland project, developers must first submit an application for rezoning and a conditional use permit with project plans outlined to the City Planning Commission. As of December 2024, the developer’s full application has yet to be submitted and the parcel remains in escrow. Whether the project moves forward or not will ultimately be up to the Twentynine Palms City Council — Natalie Zuk

29Palms Solar Project

Since March 2023, the Desert Trumpet has reported on public scoping meetings on a solar project that E-Group PS, LLC, proposes to build adjacent to the Harmony Acres neighborhood of Twentynine Palms. This includes the project’s introduction at City Council in May 2023, recaps of public meetings held in March 2024 and a feature on the who benefits from the project.

The owner of the parcels for the proposed solar farm is Proactive Properties, LLC, whose principal is George Mulopulos, a Las Vegas radiologist. Proactive Properties owns many parcels in Twentynine Palms, one of which was once considered for the Ofland development. Dr. Mulopulos is the author of editorials in the Hi-Desert Star / Desert Trail and comments to City Council arguing that Twentynine Palms should be more business and development friendly.2 He is leasing the parcels to E-Group PS, LLC.

Despite public reactions ranging from “yes, please” to “never ever,” it has been crickets in the public sphere since March 2024—the 29Palms Solar Project has not appeared as an agenda item for either the Planning Commission or City Council. In response to periodic Public Information Requests that the Desert Trumpet has submitted, the City has provided uninformative links to calendar invitations to year-old meetings and not much else. A community group has formed in opposition to the project, but, otherwise, any information we have to pass along is speculative.

One of the objections to the 29 Palms Solar Project is that it would destroy important Mojave desert tortoise habitat. In May, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife uplisted the desert tortoise from threatened to endangered status, highlighting the critical need to protect this iconic reptile.

Wildlife surveys have taken place; in the spring, while walking near the Sugar Bowl, I ran across a group from a biological resource survey team investigating the property. They were well aware of the tortoises living there. A few weeks later, in a casual conversation, City Manager Stone James noted that there were “only” six or seven tortoises on the development site. We have requested drafts of the biological report but have not received them.

In 2012, the City passed a moratorium on the development of utility-scale solar projects in response to the development of the 2012 Highlander 1 solar farm on Lear Road. But California Assembly Bill 205, passed in 2022, makes it possible for E-Group PS, the project’s developer, to bypass the City because of the urgency of climate-friendly energy solutions.

California cities are pushing back against AB-205: In May, the City of San Juan Capistrano filed a legal objection to a solar energy project proposed within its city limits. The developer, Compass Energy Storage, LLC, bypassed the city and went directly to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for approval after the city had denied a conditional use permit in 2022. Public outcry and an incomplete proposal have pushed Compass Energy Storage’s new proposal to the CEC into 2025.
— Kat Talley-Jones

A Residential Project in Residential Zoning, Joshua Tree

LoveMore Ranch

LoveMore Ranch is a proposed development of 64 homes on a vacant 18.5 acre parcel in the Friendly Hills area of Joshua Tree, northwest of Alta Loma Dr. and Sunset Rd. It's zoned JT-RS (Single Residential) and has been owned by Axel Cramer since September 2020. According to the LoveMore Ranch website, the parcel's "zoning allows for 57 to 114 homes, but we plan to develop 64 lots to balance density with preserving the natural habitat."

In August 2024 Cramer and his group held a meeting at Joshua Tree Community Center to solicit community input. Despite the fact the area immediately north has similarly small parcels, per Z107.7 reporting, attendees disliked the project's density and some vowed to oppose it.

That same month the Morongo Basin Conservation Association commented to the County complaining about "any claims concerning sustainability and responsible growth and development" for this project, among other issues. The the environmental (CEQA) comment period for this project recently ended. — Jonathan Hume

Commercial Projects in Commercial Zoning,
Landers and Flamingo Heights

After fighting off the massive Flamingo 640 project, locals haven’t lost their taste for defending their remote desert homes. The builders of these new projects learned from Flamingo 640’s mistakes: make it smaller, make it more compatible with the natural and social environment, and ask for community feedback from the beginning.

Flamingo Blossom

Flamingo Blossom will be situated off of Old Woman Springs Road directly north of popular desert destination restaurant La Copine. The lot is zoned for commercial development, but many homes sit directly behind it.

When two of the partners behind the Flamingo Blossom, Nicholas Fahey and Rob Masser, met with community members in May 2024, they were greeted by a packed room and plenty of pushback from neighbors. The plans for the 4.4-acre lot had twelve single-story cabins in two sizes: 450 square feet and 750 square feet, a pool and pavilion, and an art gallery.

Claire Wadsworth, owner of La Copine, echoed the concerns of many in the community when she asked if any of the amenities would be open to the public. Wadsworth said she considers it just another short-term rental that creates problems for locals without adding to the community.

Based on feedback from plans released to the community in the months before the May meeting, Flamingo Blossom had already eliminated a large hangar-type structure and hired a new architect to develop a new vision for the project with less intrusive structures more suited to the neighborhood and the desert environment. For many, this was not nearly enough to assuage their fears of increased traffic, noise and disruption.

Fahey has pointed out, “If it’s not us, it’ll be someone else. I get offers on that piece of property monthly, so those folks are coming.…We are trying to be respectful of your community.”

Based on feedback received in May, Michael O’Connor, the third partner at Flamingo Blossom, joined Fahey and project architect Brando McDonnell to present a new plan in a second meeting last October. This new vision increased the number of cabins to 19, eliminated the pool and pavilion, moved the art gallery/event space to the southeast corner, and added grab-and-go food options and a market open to the public.

O’Connor emphasized that they want to be part of the community, saying “We are here for the long term. Locals are the economic base for this kind of business, and we’ll have special pricing for the local folks.”

Most of the people in attendance at this meeting were direct neighbors of the project, like Debra Melford, a 13-year resident who said, “I don’t want to sell my house and move, but I may have to if this gets built.”

O’Connor assured her that noise would be mitigated, with most of the construction happening off-site. The cabins wouldn’t be placed all at one time, O’Connor said, but gradually over a period of time.

“We are also businessmen. I think that was a little bit shielded last time,” O’Connor said, “but we want to make this part of the community.” — Laura Hauther

The Landing

The Landing is a proposed resort-style hotel set on a 5.7-acre lot in Landers on Belfield Road.

Plans for this project include a 35-room hotel, a market catering to local needs, a restaurant and bar, an onsen spa and an observatory. Jonathan Rieke, studio director of the architecture firm West of West, is the designer for the project.

At a November 20 meeting, project developers Sam Friedman and Ben Toffey were joined by Rieke and an environmental planner specializing in CEQA compliance, Jessica Kirchner of Impact Sciences. They faced community members in hopes of winning over those skeptical of the project’s impact, especially those struggling financially who don’t see the benefit of having an upscale hotel built in their neighborhood.

The Landing developers responded by showcasing the market geared toward locals and stocked with groceries and other basics. Toffey, a resident of Landers, said the market will be priced for locals: “We talking $2 coffee and bagels that are $3.…It’s not going to be fancy.” The idea came from his own frustration when having to drive a long way to get basics, Toffey said.

Addressing resident’s concerns about more light pollution, Friedman said Landers’ dark skies make it a great place for their observatory, saying “We know that it's home to America's finest astronomers. There are multiple observatories already here, and we're excited to build one of our own.”

Attendees were mixed in their reactions. Some seemed to like what they heard, while the project’s closest neighbors, like Heidi Cicero, voiced the concerns:

We own a house right across from your project, and I’m frustrated because my questions haven’t really been answered…there’s not a lot of traffic on the street (Belfield) right now…the two commercial businesses on that street close at night, and the difference is, with a hotel, is people coming and going 24/7.

Chris Gubler of Gubler Orchids, said “I just want to tell the group I’ve been looking at this and listening, and I support the project. It conforms to the law, they bought that land and they can build on that land.”

Friedman and Toffey said they are currently moving through the permitting process. They anticipate breaking ground in the coming year, and hope to open within two years. — Laura Hauther

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

Feel free to share this article!

Share

Not currently subscribed?

Subscribe now

Residents of the Morongo Basin, including Twentynine Palms, have reported finding dead cottontails and jackrabbits these last few weeks, bringing back disturbing memories of the rabbit hemorrhagic virus (RHDV2)1 that burned through the rabbit population in 2020.2

The Desert Trumpet reached out to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and received information from Senior Veterinarian Dr. Deanna Clifford about the RHDV2 cases that are currently being reported from Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and the Indian Cove area.

Which Animals Are Affected?

RHDV2 kills up to 100% of the rabbits that catch it, which includes desert cottontails, black-tailed jackrabbits, and domestic rabbits. There is no treatment for it, but there is a two-dose vaccine for your pet bunny—which is available from vets in the low desert who treat exotic animals; El Paseo Animal Hospital in Palm Desert carries the vaccine, for example.

It appears to be specific to rabbits and does not transmit to humans, pet dogs and cats, or other wild mammals. Nonetheless, wear gloves if you have to handle a dead rabbit and wash your hands well afterward.

How Does the Virus Spread?

The RHDV2 virus is seasonal, Dr. Clifford said. Kits have immunity from their mothers, but lose it after they stop nursing—one reason we are seeing some dead rabbits now. There is immunity in the wild cottontail and jackrabbit population, and it is hoped that rabbits won’t experience the mass die-offs of 2020.

It is likely, Dr. Clifford said,

“that the virus has remained present in the population at a low level, then periodic outbreaks occur when a lot of susceptible rabbits are present on the landscape. This could be from a good reproductive year with a lot of young animals present and from normal population turnover due to average lifespans of individual rabbits (2-5 years roughly). We have seen a seasonal increase in dead rabbit reports and RHDV2 cases in spring-early summer each year, which corresponds to the time that rabbits are most abundant with a lot of young animals present.”  

The belief is that the rabbit community will develop strong immunity over time. A CDFW Biologist Supervisor also said, “The working hypotheses for what’s behind a resurgence include two recent wet years producing crops of naive young rabbits and hares, or variation in the RHDV2 virus leading to evasion of prior immunity, or of course, some combination thereof.”

The virus spreads:

• from direct contact between rabbits, carcasses, water sources, flies, fleas, and mosquitos

• predators can spread it through their feces.

The virus is very difficult to eradicate and freezing weather won’t kill it. Infected rabbits may look disoriented or have difficulty moving and die quickly.

What Do I Do If I Find a Dead Rabbit?

1. Take a photo and do an online mortality report for CA Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If your internet access is spotty, you can also call (916) 358-2790 to reach CDFW’s Wildlife Health Lab to make a report.

2. From CDFW:  Reporting parties are advised to remove carcasses to slow the spread to healthy rabbits; we recommend double-bagging carcasses, spraying the outer bag with 10% household bleach solution, and disposing of in regular trash, or by burying it more than three-feet deep. If samples are sought in your area, a representative of the CDFW Wildlife Health Lab may contact you to seek your assistance in preserving a sample by freezing or refrigerating. 

3. We also recommend carefully cleaning water dishes with bleach regularly or removing them up entirely, because they can spread the disease.

Dr. Clifford said that the CDFW has been receiving reports of dead rabbits from Yucca Valley and Joshua Tree. “Having members of the public continue to submit reports on what they are seeing is valuable for trying to understand more about what potential impact the disease may have in a local area, and how long recurrent outbreaks appear to be causing mortalities.”

We will update information about the RHDV2 virus if we receive more information and are grateful for information we received from CDFW. Let’s hope that our local cottontails and jackrabbits quickly weather this outbreak.

Did you know the city of Twentynine Palms sits between two vast desert tortoise preserves?

You know one of them as Joshua Tree National Park (759,156 acres), and the other is the Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command and Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (596,288 acres).

Between these two reserves, tortoises feast on spring flowers, wander their territories, and push each other around, when they aren’t snoozing in their burrows nearly 90% of the time. They share their burrows with snakes, lizards, rodents, insects, and even burrowing owls, which makes them a keystone species, one that has a large effect on the environment and one that other animals and plants depend on. And the thing about a keystone? You pull it out and a whole ecosystem can collapse.

Tortoises live in the park and on the base but also on undeveloped private property in the city’s more rural areas. Residents who have spent their whole lives here report that tortoises were far more common forty or fifty years ago than they are today.

This reduction in the number of desert tortoises—a vast reduction statewide—led first to the listing of the tortoise as threatened by California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 1989 under the California Endangered Species Act and as threatened by the federal government in 1990 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

After studies showed that the tortoise population plummeted 85 to 95% in the western Mojave between 1980 and 2014, in 2020, Defenders of Wildlife, the Desert Tortoise Council, and the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee petitioned CDFW to consider changing the state listing from “threatened” to “endangered.” Following an exhaustive review by the CDFW, the department approved the uplisting of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).

If we don’t act to stop plummeting tortoise populations, what is the next state listing for the desert tortoise? As Ed LaRue of the Desert Tortoise Council told the Desert Trumpet, the next step is extinction.

We can’t let that happen.

A hatchling tortoise enjoys a spring feast in the national park. Video by Kat Talley-Jones

Why Have Tortoise Numbers Fallen So Drastically?

Desert tortoises are very slow to reproduce and don’t reach maturity until their late teens. Even under ideal circumstances, many eggs and most hatchling tortoises don’t survive. Humans living, working, and playing in the desert have brought additional threats. The 233-page California Fish and Wildlife document1 declaring the tortoises’ status change outlines these threats:

• Development of large-scale renewable energy projects

• Expansion of military testing and training installations

• Increased human population growth and activities in the California desert—“tortoise populations located immediately adjacent to expanding human communities have disappeared”

• Unregulated off-highway vehicle use

• Human activities such as increased trash for ravens to scavenge and building lofty power poles to perch on encourage the spread of ravens, who prey on tortoises

• Invasion of non-native plants that replace greens eaten by tortoises

• Hotter and more frequent fires resulting from the spread of non-native grasses

• Cattle grazing that tramples vegetation and introduces invasive plants

All of these threats are amplified by climate change, and all of these threats exist in the Morongo Basin except for cattle ranching.

What Does the New Uplisting Mean for Twentynine Palms?

While there are no new regulatory changes or additional penalties with the tortoise’s change in status from threatened to endangered, it does add urgency to the need to protect them.

As of 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) can assess civil penalties of up to $29,751 for knowingly taking a threatened animal, such as desert tortoises. Criminal violations can result in fines of up to $50,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

When the Desert Trumpet asked the Bishop office of California Fish and Wildlife how this listing would help tortoises, staff said steps that are being taken include:

1. Developing, supporting, and building partnerships to facilitate recovery

2. Protecting existing populations and habitat, instituting habitat restoration where necessary

3. Augmenting depleted populations through strategic programs

4. Monitoring progress toward recovery

5. Conducting applied research and modeling in support of recovery efforts within a strategic framework

6. Implementing a formal recovery plan

Many of these plans are in place, including a program run by MCAGCC Environmental Affairs Division at the Marine base that headstarts hatchling tortoises—caring for them until they are three to five years old, when their shells harden and they are big enough not to be eaten by ravens when they are released. The Living Desert Museum has a similar program. The approach is too new to know if it will work well, but it might give tortoises a chance.

The CDFW report notes, however:

Historical and current conservation and management efforts such as the prohibition on taking tortoises, creation of land use plans, required mitigation, and translocation and head-starting efforts have not proven sufficient to halt the population declines of desert tortoise. 

How can the City of Twentynine Palms and its residents protect desert tortoises? Help preserve their habitat by respecting wildlife corridors and buffer zones with the national park.

The City can continue to encourage Gold Star food businesses that consistently close their dumpsters to discourage ravens from raiding them. In the future, utilities can be buried underground to deprive ravens of perches.

In addition, the City could ban mylar balloons; it’s a rare hike locally when we don’t find balloons tangled in creosote or cat’s claw. (Our record is 15 in one hike.) Tortoises see colors and to them, brightly colored balloons look like food. A wad of mylar can get stuck in a tortoise’s gut, causing it to slowly die of starvation.

Tortoises Can Be Moved, Right?

In several community meetings this year, developers of the Ofland/Yonder resort and the industrial-scale solar facility planned to be built by E-Group PS say they’ll move tortoises found on the properties they wish to use for their own profit.

City residents who live near these proposed projects know the comings and goings of local tortoises; this spring I walked with Mary Kay Sherry on ridges that E-Groups PS plans to scrape and flatten. These hills have been honeycombed by a robust population of tortoises that include everything from large males and females to tiny hatchlings. Mary Kay has been observing these tortoises for 17 years and feels deeply attached to them—as do most 29ers who have wild tortoises as neighbors who give them names like Fred and Ethel, Squiggles, and Jorge.

Can tortoises be moved successfully? In 2008, Fort Irwin, a U.S. Army post located about 130 miles north of here, moved hundreds of tortoises. Nearly half of them died. Since then, strategies for moving tortoises have become more sophisticated and the survival rate of translocated tortoises is higher—indeed, some researchers say relocated tortoises can boost populations.

A study by the Smithsonian’s Conservation Biology Institute showed that individual tortoises that had been relocated survived, at least for several years. Relocated males, however, did not breed successfully, ending their genetic and generational lines. The male tortoises might have used too much energy learning the lay of the lay of the land or the local males might have successfully kept the new males from mating.

Dr. Kristin Berry, a pioneering tortoise researcher, says, “In general, moving organisms from one area to another … is not a successful conservation action and may do more harm than good to conserved populations by spreading diseases … increasing mortality, and decreasing reproduction and genetic diversity.”

What’s Next for Our Tortoises?

Unless development can proceed cautiously in the Morongo Basin, our local tortoise populations may be wiped out. Tortoises will likely survive in Joshua Tree National Park and on the Marine base for a long time, but chances to ensure genetic diversity through interactions of tortoise groups will dwindle.

Even though Mojave Desert Tortoises have existed as a species for thousands if not millions of years, today they are not resilient and can’t respond rapidly to habitat loss and climate change.

And yet, as David Carroll—a naturalist, artist and winner of a MacArthur Genius Grant–observed of all turtles, “That little brain has a few hundred million years of history programmed into it. I think they’re soil scientists, botanists, hydrologists. They know about all these things. They know what to do. They’ve lived so long on this earth.”

And as Joshua Tree National Park’s website says, “Perhaps this long stint on Earth has given them plenty of time to consider wise living strategies, such as careful, slow-paced locomotion, a healthy diet full of greens, resting during winter and summer, the desert's most challenging seasons, and water conservation.”

Whether they are wintering in their burrows, or meandering slowly across our parcels, the tortoise is a much-loved icon of the Morongo Basin. Do we want to be the generation that allows the marvelous Mojave desert tortoise to slip from the endangered list to extinction?

Local groups involved in tortoise conservation:

Joshua Tree National Park

Mojave Desert Land Trust

Morongo Basin Conservation Association

National Parks Conservation Association

Saving Slowpoke

Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians

90 Miles from Needles podcast (episode: “The Tortoise Still Has a Chance”)

Two meetings were held last week on a proposed 241-acre solar project located north of Two-Mile Road near the Sugar Bowl and west of the Harmony Acres neighborhood. The first was held on March 20 by E-Group PS, the solar project developer, to let immediate neighbors know about the project. The second was a scoping meeting gathering public comment for an Environmental Impact Report held by the City of Twentynine Palms.

YOUR VOICE MATTERS

Comments are due on March 29 for a draft Environmental Impact Report that the City is preparing. Send your comments to Community Development Director Keith Gardner, kgardner@29palms.org

The City, with Terra Nova Planning & Research, conducted an initial study that determined the solar project could have on significant impacts on local

• aesthetics (visual character and glare),

• air quality & greenhouse gases (increased residential density),

• biological resources,

• geology & soils (erosion),

• cultural resources & tribal cultural resources, and

• land use (conflict with the General Plan).

Commenting on these and other issues of concern to you at this early stage can have an important impact on the outcome of this project. You will have other opportunities as the development process continues.

“ESTEEMED HOMEOWNERS & LANDOWNERS” MEETING, MARCH 20

In a sometimes contentious but mostly civil meeting, Robert Smith, counsel with the K&L Gates law firm, presented the 29Palms Solar Project to homeowners and landowners in the area surrounding the facility. Smith began with the parameters of the solar facility, which we covered in our overview.

Visibility and grading. Smith noted that one of the main concerns from earlier conversations with the community in City Council meetings was visibility from neighborhoods. He pointed out that E-Group PS, the developer, has located the solar field downslope in the northern part of the acreage so that it is less visible from Two Mile Road and nearby properties.

Meeting attendees—including Planning Commission Chair Jim Krushat, who lives nearby—raised the point that the land in this area is, as Krushat put it, “convoluted terrain,” and isn’t flat. Smith acknowledged that some grading would be needed to accommodate the solar facility’s 760 arrays. He said that there wasn’t a final grading plan yet, but, when pushed, said about 40% of the solar site north of Samarkand Road would be graded. Krushat was clear he was there as a resident and not as a member of the Planning Commission.

Smith claimed that vegetation would be much less disrupted than in some solar farms because the panels don’t rotate and move with the sun. E-Group also plans to plant “native plants and palm trees” along the perimeter to mask the panels from the road. This prospect drew some heat from the 40 or so attendees, who said that native plants grow slowly and need water to get established and that palm trees aren’t local vegetation and would not thrive without water and care.

City benefits and jobs. Smith said there would be enough power for all the homes in Twentynine Palms although energy would go to the Southern California Edison grid and not directly to the City. The City could form its own power company and provide electricity to residents. (An example of this would be the city of Lancaster in the Antelope Valley and its Lancaster Choice Energy.) “It's certainly something that we'd be willing to support,” Smith said. “But at the end of the day, it's the city's decision.” He also said that there was a benefit package for the City:

“We're still in negotiations with the City as to what that community package will look like. It's going to include a local solar fee, which is going to go into directly into the General Fund to fund whatever projects City Council and Planning Commission determine are appropriate….we also proposed to provide free local solar generation at places in the City where it's appropriate, so we suggested things like schools, public buildings, places with affordable housing, we'd be happy to install those free of charge.”

Smith and E-Group have claimed the solar facility would bring up to 300 jobs, which he admitted would be over the 35-year lifespan of the facility — 200 jobs are construction that would end in a year, 100 jobs Would be over the life of the facility “It’s not a lot of jobs,” he said, and virtually none would be needed once construction was completed beyond landscaping maintenance and remote security. Robots would clean the panels with water trucked in from elsewhere after “wind events” and as needed.

Credibility of E-Group. Meeting participants questioned E-Group’s track record of building solar facilities in the United States and in the California desert in particular. Smith said, “They're based out of Europe, although they have a number of partner projects they've done in the United States. They're hoping that this is their first in California, but hopefully not their last.”

E-Group rep Peter Bobro said they have ongoing projects in Oregon, North Carolina, and New York State and many in Europe. He provided the company’s website, from which we learn that the company was founded in Slovakia and is listed on the Czech stock exchange; it appears to be an investment firm more than an engineering company. The website lists projects in Slovakia, Finland, Romania, and the Czech Republic, and “it sees potential in the booming Asian tiger economies.”

Desert tortoises. Neighbors sometimes see desert tortoises on their walks through the area. Smith acknowledged that tortoises had been seen on the site and said that “we have proposed a desert tortoise relocation plan that will coordinate with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife to make sure that they are relocated to appropriate habitat.”1

Why Twentynine Palms? Why this property? “Before we even submitted an application,” Smith said, “a group looked around Twentynine Palms for about two years for appropriate sites.” These two parcels were chosen because “every mile to interconnection costs $7 million. And so why this site attractive in the first place, because you're going down half a mile and private lands, and you're going half a mile to the Carodean substation, so it's very close to the point where you're going to plug into the grid.”

Attendees asked, why Twentynine Palms when the city has a moratorium against developing solar facilities? Pat Flanagan claimed that this was based on the negative effects such as large amounts of dust generated by the Highland 1 station when it was constructed in the early 2010s. Smith did not address this question but did bring up California State Senate SB 3302—that any decrease in residential zoning has to be offset by an increase in zoning elsewhere in the City. Because the parcels where the facility will be located are zoned Rural Lands 5 (RL5) with Single-Family Residential Estate (RSE) zoning south of the site.

“So what we're doing is there'll be a new zone called the renewable energy zone, which will be where the solar panels are. The southern portion of the site will be zoned as single family residential. But to be clear, there's no residential development proposed for this project.”

This will lead to a rezoning of the west side of Twentynine Palms, especially if the Yonder/Ofland project gets its conditional use permit and rezones 151 acres in Indian Cove.

Timeframe. If the project receives approval from the City Council and the area is rezoned, construction will begin in 2025 and the facility will become operational in 2026. Smith was asked what happens if the City rejects the proposal? Russell Kohn said, “After all, it doesn’t allow solar farms, and it seemed that the letter that R&L Gates sent was a ‘bully letter’ that said it would bypass the City and go straight to the state of California.”

Smith responded:

What we said the City was that there is a separate state process that was enacted by the state legislature that would allow us to circumvent city approval because the state of California decided that they need to develop more solar. While we're here today, why we presented at the City Council last year, while we've been in this community for four years, is we don't want to do that process. We want to be an invested neighbor. There's tons of solar developers that are currently working with the California Energy Commission to go around their cities. We are not that developer.”

Whether this stated intent still holds as the process hits its benchmarks remains to be seen.

Desert Trumpet subscriptions are always free—but thanks to our paid subscribers, we’ve met 86% of our quarterly $2,400 fundraising goal! We need to raise $370 by March 31 to stay on track and fund our upcoming City Council election coverage as well our in-depth coverage of the planned solar farm. Won’t you consider upgrading to a paid subscription or donating $100 or more through Paypal?

Subscribe now

MARCH 21 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCOPING MEETING

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director, and Nicole Criste of Terra Nova Planning and Research presented an overview of the 29Palms Solar Project and the steps involved in submitting an Environmental Impact Report.

Criste also noted the zoning change needed and the conditional use permit that would be required for the facility to go forward. She said,

“Because of state law that requires that the city maintain its housing capacity, the project itself then includes a general plan amendment and a zone change to add a zone to the city zoning code to allow for energy uses for solar.”

She briefly ran through the impacts on aesthetics (visual character and glare), air quality & greenhouse gases (increased residential density), biological resources, geology & soils (erosion), cultural resources & tribal cultural resources, and land use (conflict with the General Plan). She then opened the floor to comments from the 40 or so meeting attendees.

Aesthetic. Several audience members spoke on their emotional connection to the land and the beauty that will be lost to the solar farm. Richard Gray said that “I’ve been on six different projects that we’ve managed to stop. They promise the good that will come to our community that never seems to trickle down.” Peter Lang said walking down Samarkand, “the beauty really hits you.” He cited the City code that prohibits solar developments and brought photographs of the vista and some of the desert tortoises residents have encountered.

Air quality. Property owner Kurt Keppeler expressed concerns about the sand and dust that would blow from the solar facility, as did Beth Sheffield and Pat Flanagan. She also raised concerns about the carbon sequestration and mycorrhizal networks lost when creosote and other native plants are scraped off the land.

Land use. Cindy Bernard (Desert Trumpet editor-in-chief) pointed out a potential conflict of interest with Crist and Terra Nova working on environmental reports for the City on the solar project and for the Ofland resort, which is proposed just to the south of the solar farm. Would the City also need a residential offset if land zoned residential becomes the Ofland resort? She also asked if the developer would go to the State didn’t approve the project. Robert Smith of K&L Gates addressed this by saying the developer would prefer not to take that route and would try to work with the City as much as possible.

Biological resources. Mary Kay Sherry asked about water usage and spoke about the desert tortoises she has encountered, as did another speaker, who described the wildlife she has encountered riding her horse through the area.

Climate. Jonathan Hume (Desert Trumpet writer) said he might be the only person speaking in support of the solar facility. He said that electricity has magically appeared and he has never had to think about where it comes from. And he understands why people might not want to have a solar farm next door.  “But we're coming into an era where era where we no longer can't afford to make those trade-offs and have things just be invisible. They're essential to continue our way of life and to reduce global warming.”

Other speakers suggested alternate locations for the solar facility and said how unsuitable this one is.

Nicole Criste and Keith Gardner closed the meeting asking for written comments and thanked attendees for taking the time to come to the meeting.

On Thursday, March 21, 5 pm, at Patriotic Hall in Luckie Park, the City of Twentynine Palms is holding a public scoping meeting on the solar project that E-Group PS, LLC, is proposing to build in the City. In addition to the scoping meeting, the public is invited to submit public comment—the deadline is March 29. Comments should be mailed Community Development Director Keith Gardner at City Hall, 6136 Adobe Rd., Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 or emailed to him at kgardner@29palms.org. Details can be viewed on the City website.

Scoping meetings are often held at the start of preparing an Environmental Impact Report or other review. There are usually presentations by stakeholders and the opportunity for public comment. The City’s staff has prepared a “Notice of Preparation and Initial Study,” a comprehensive overview of the solar facility project.

In its review, the City has determined that the project could have significant effects on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, cultural resources, land use, and tribal cultural resources, among others, and requires that the developer prepare an Environmental Impact Report.

We take a closer look here at who benefits if this solar farm is built. More renewable energy and less dependence on fossil fuels benefits everyone in reducing carbon emissions and taking action to slow climate change. But what are the costs of solar farms in communities they occupy? And in the case of the 29Palms Solar Project, who benefits?

The Desert Trumpet obtained documents and communication about the project from City staff in a public information request and from them, we’ve assembled background on the 29Palms Solar Project.

To start off, here are some of the solar farm’s specs:

• The solar farm will connect to the Southern California Edison (SCE) network at the Carodean substation, about a half mile from the site. An easement will be needed along Two Mile Road for transmission lines to connect the solar farm to the substation.

• Construction is proposed to begin in a year or so and take six months to a year to complete.

• The lifespan for the facility is estimated to be 35 years.

• E-Group plans for 720 ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) arrays, each 104 feet wide and 252 feet long.

• A seven-foot-tall fence surrounding the solar field will have “eco-passages” for wildlife.

• The Project will generate approximately 50 megawatts of electricity per year (although the documents are confused), which they claim would be enough to power 8,000 households.

Who Are the Landowners and Developers? How Do They Benefit?

The owner of the parcels for the proposed solar farm is Proactive Properties, LLC, based in Las Vegas, and owned by George Mulopulos, a Las Vegas radiologist whose limited liability corporation owns many parcels in Twentynine Palms. Dr. Mulopulos frequently emails comments to be read at City Planning Commission meetings encouraging the City to maintain a business-friendly climate.

The solar farm parcels are being leased by E-Group PS LLC based in New Castle, Delaware, with a branch registered in Temecula. E-Group PS has no website, very little online presence or evident track record, but it represents itself in the PowerPoint deck it presented to the City as having been founded in 2008. It now manages $1.2 billion in assets.

K&L Gates, an international law firm,1represents E-Group PS in its interactions with the City. Staff lawyer Robert M. Smith communicates with the City and presented the project to the City Council in May 2023.

Energy produced by the 29Palms Solar Project will be sold by the developers to Southern California Edison (SCE) for distribution through its grid. The price SCE pays is dynamic and varies during the day; at mid-day on March 19 the price was $0.03365 per kilowatt hour.2 If we assume that the solar farm will produce 50 megawatts a year (a megawatt is one million watts), the developers and landowners could receive $1,600,000 or more a year from SCE for energy from the sun beating on the City’s desert slopes.

Project costs are not included in the materials the Desert Trumpet obtained in its public information request so it is not possible to offset costs against profits.

Alternately, the developers and landowners could sell the solar farm to a mega-energy corporation like Duke Energy, which acquired the Highlander 1 solar farm on Lear Road from SolarWorld, the developer, in 2013.

What Are the Potential Adverse Impacts? What Are the Benefits?

Moratorium. Currently, the City's Development Code does not allow for commercial solar farms (19.18.030 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements). It banned utility-scale solar facilities in 2012, shortly after the Highlander 1 Solar Field became operational. The Planning Commission stated:

Commercial Solar Fields can be shown to have direct, adverse impacts to the aesthetic quality of the desert vistas the community now enjoys, deleterious effects to the tourist industry that the community depends on, potential adverse impacts to property values for the properties adjoining or surrounding such facilities, potential decreases in the quality of life for those individuals that reside with properties adjacent to or surrounding such facilities, and potential serious impacts to the biologic, cultural and social resources of our community.

In a May 17, 2023, letter to the City, the K&L Gates law firm representing E-Group PS said that it was aware of the moratorium.

“In the event that the City elects to maintain its current moratorium and not work with E- Group, E-Group will pursue approvals through the permitting process recently established through Assembly Bill 205, which is intended to facilitate the approval of renewable energy projects by the State without any local approval. If approved by the State, the City will have far less control over project design and conditions of approval and would receive substantially less in public benefits. While this is not E-Group’s preferred outcome, it is willing to vigorously pursue this route if needed.”

Per California AB-205 signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022, local governments have limited authority to ban or place burdensome approval conditions on large solar power developments. One California law firm outlines the conditions to receiving state-level permitting, including demonstrating:

• that a skilled and trained workforce is hired

• a net positive economic benefit to the local government that would have had authority over the project

• that it has entered into an enforceable community benefits agreement with one or more community-based organizations, such as labor unions, environmental groups, local government, social justice advocates or California Native American tribes. 

• circulation of a draft environmental impact report for a period of not less than 60 days.

The parcels proposed for the 29Palms Project are zoned Single Family Residential RL5. In addition to overriding the City’s moratorium, E-Group will be seeking a development code amendment, general plan amendment, and zone change to permit the project on the site.

Public Benefits. Power generated by the 29Palms Project would be sold directly to SCE and distributed to their grid. In a May 23, 2023, presentation to the City Council, Robert Smith with K&L Gates said, “we can negotiate a deal that actually provides the power directly to the City.” Then-City Manager Frank Luckino mentioned a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) package that allows cities to purchase and/or generate electricity from investor-owned utilities.

Other benefits to the City outlined by E-Group PS include:

• Property and production taxes paid to the City

• Production of 101 GWh a year (see footnote 2), which could power all households in the City

• 200 construction jobs and 300 total jobs over the life of the project3

In May 2023, City Manager Frank Luckino requested $50,000 from the developers. “With the City starting to spend legal, environmental, and staff time on this project, can you please issue a deposit towards the entitlement process ASAP.” These funds were received and helped cover the City’s costs.

The City’s initial study cites the possibility that up to 120 single-family homes could be built on the southern half of the property not used by the solar panels. This would provide much-needed housing but would also have environmental consequences with increased traffic and emissions associated with houses and vehicles.

What Are the Environmental Impacts?

The City’s initial study, filed February 21, cites the possibility of these negative environmental impacts:

• substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of public views;

• creation of a new source of light or glare;

• emissions affecting air quality will take place during construction;

• a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species including the desert tortoise and the burrowing owl;

• a possible impact on migrating birds;

• a need to assess cultural resources, although the Project site is not located near water sources used by the Serrano or Chemehuevi—however, such resources occur throughout Twentynine Palms.

In the May 2023 City Council meeting, counsel Smith reported that the parcel is flat. The Aquatic Resources Delineation Report prepared by Dudek acknowledges what anyone driving along Samarkand Road can see—that the land slopes, steeply in places, 300 feet to the north and has several washes cutting across it.

The site will be graded to accommodate the rows of panels. The grading plan submitted with the Project estimates about 501,100 cubic yards of fill, and 501,500 cubic yards of cut, for a net export of 400 cubic yards. As a result, the completed Project has the potential to result in soil erosion, both from water and wind.

In addition to the public scoping meetings, the Desert Trumpet has learned that E-Group PS had scheduled a meeting with residents of Harmony Acres for Wednesday evening. We’ll be reporting on both meetings.

By Laura Hauther

Ofland, recently rebranded from Yonder, once again faced residents of the Twentynine Palms neighborhood of Indian Cove on February 28 to pitch their 130-cabin resort as a win for the community.

Director of Acquisitions Luke Searcy said he was there to hear from the community in hopes of finding a way forward, but over a nearly two hour meeting, the 45 community members asked pointed questions and conveyed distress over the development and what it will mean for their remote and quiet neighborhood.

Responding to pushback from participants at November’s community meeting, all Ofland staff and consultants sat at the front, and community members were able to address the whole room. Community members objected to what Searcy had called “divide and conquer” tactics at the last meeting when he directed people to individual stations to ask questions.

The land is currently in escrow but Ofland is moving full steam ahead with planning the resort. Searcy said Ofland will request the rezoning to comply with the city’s requirements in two areas; Tourist Commercial for the resort and Open Space Residential for the boundary area.

Yonder Ofland Development Pre App 11 29 23 Redacted

2.04MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Yonder Ofland City Feedback 1 4 24

330KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The company’s plans are essentially what they were in November: the resort will consist of 130 cabins, 320 sq. feet each, a main lodge with a lobby and grab-and-go market, an open to the public fast-casual restaurant, a secondary lodge, a back-of-house building, star gazing areas and employee housing. The scale of both lodges, the back of house building, the food and beverage “concept” and the employee housing have been reduced by 10% to 25%. Ofland plans to build on about 50 acres of their 152-acre property, allowing them to leave a 500 ft. buffer between the resort and the closest neighbor.

“We have around 100 acres of excess land,” Searcy said, ”and all of that will be conserved through deed restrictions and conservation easements to make sure that it's never developed in perpetuity.”

Searcy said they are still planning on playing  “soft background music” throughout the resort from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. but they are willing to lower the volume or end at 8 p.m. to be “a good neighbor.”

Ofland is also sticking with its plan to have a 16 ft movie screen, but shielding has been added to be more dark-sky friendly. Guests will listen to the movie over small FM transmitters instead of speakers but residents pointed out that even at low volume 100 radios and the light from the screen could interfere with the dark skies and quiet desert nights they moved here for.

Searcy tried to make the case for the benefits for the city: the creation of 40-50 jobs, a $5 per guest fee that would be earmarked for local nonprofits, an average of $209 spent in town per visitor each day, an estimate drawn from their guests at their Escalante, UT, resort. The company is also reaching out to local businesses to figure out how to best support them.

Indian Cove resident Dana Longuevan pointed out that a lot of those tourist dollars may not wind up in Twentynine Palms:

“This resort is in between two towns. And everybody knows that the Joshua Tree entrance is the more popular entrance. So how are you going to, like how is this location helping the actual city of Twentynine Palms? It's still 10 miles from the city.”

Several residents asked if Ofland had considered moving east, away from residential neighborhoods to abundant commercial space near town, where tourists could walk to amenities while being closer to the less congested eastern entrance to the national park.

Nicole Criste, a consultant from Terra Nova Engineering, was asked to clarify her report of 269 additional trips by car per day for the resort over residential use. The Terra Nova number estimated an increase over the number of trips generated if 60 homes were built on the land the resort will occupy, the maximum allowed on that parcel. The number of trips with the Ofland resort up and running is estimated to be an increase of 840 per day from current traffic levels.

“Eleven feet from my home where my grandchildren sleep!” John Vigar, a neighborhood resident, said.

A number of people pointed out that moving the resort’s main access road to the east would mean far less traffic flowing by their homes.

In one of the few moments of agreement at the meeting, Searcy acknowledged this might be a better solution:

“Y’all are right. That’s something we’ll definitely consider.”

Ofland would still be required by the city to pave Lear to Sullivan, Searcy said, even if the entrance and exits were altered. Road improvements are required by the city's general plan for larger developments in certain areas.

Worries about protection for endangered species like the desert tortoise and burrowing owls were brought up by several speakers. Searcy said a biological study was done and found no evidence of these species, but another study is required prior to any construction. When asked for details about the study, Criste said WSP Environmental surveyed around October or November.

Indian Cove resident Cindy Bernard pointed out that tortoises hibernate during colder months, and many in the crowd raised their hands when Bernard asked who had recent pictures of the tortoise around their land.

“I have three active burrows on my property,” Bernard said, “and their range is over a mile.”

When asked about an Environment Impact Report (EIR) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, Criste said the pre-application did not require one, but the required CEQA document will be included with the application, adding, "We expect that will result in a mitigated negative declaration."

A mitigated negative declaration would allow Ofland to avoid a costly EIR report.

Several speakers brought up the planned onsite package wastewater treatment plant and the possibility of the smell of waste generated by the resort. Similar treatment plants in Twentynine Palms are notorious for noxious odors.

Vickie Bridenstine, an associate with NV5 civil engineering, said she is aware of the issues with those treatment plants, saying the Turtle Rock plant was not built by a professional and doesn’t work properly. The Hi Desert Medical Center uses also uses a package plant, Bridenstine pointed out, but it was engineered properly and odors aren’t an issue.

The water will be treated to a high level, Bridenstine said, “(This package plant will be) engineered to the point where the water quality control board is content with the quality of the water that goes back into the groundwater.”

Whether Ofland representatives are able to quell the concerns of Indian Cove residents remains to be seen.

Editor’s note 3/5/24: We replaced the phrase “Except for trimming the size of several buildings” with a list of the buildings that were adjusted and the percentage range of the scale change.

Desert Trumpet staff members Cindy Bernard, Heidi Heard and Kat Talley-Jones are residents of Indian Cove.

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

Subscribing is always free. We are grateful to our paid subscribers; thanks to them, we’ve met $1,540 of our $10,000 goal! Thanks to the subscriber who took us over $1500! Help us reach our 2024 goal by upgrading to a paid subscription or donating!

Subscribe now

By Laura Hauther

This is a part of our coverage of commercial resort and camping development proposals in residential zoning in the Morongo Basin. Twentynine Palms continues to be impacted by similar proposals. Yonder has submitted a pre-application for its 130-cabin development in Indian Cove and is actively lobbying local businesses. The City’s Planning Department is writing regulations that would allow Hipcamp-style camping rentals on unbuilt parcels in rural living residential zoning. - Editor

At a sometimes-contentious meeting at the Landers Community Center Tuesday, January 9, Calvin and Adriana Clark, creators of the proposed off-grid Eco Dome campground near the Integratron, addressed a group of about 50 concerned locals.

The couple discussed recent changes to their plans in response to community concerns, describing the current measures put in place to stave off potential issues.

The project consists of six steel-tube domes with covers designed to withstand the desert’s harsh winds, a large center communal dome, and a solar panel-covered parking lot with eight parking spaces. The domes would be hooked up to water provided by the Bighorn Desert View Water Agency, and septic tanks will accommodate flushing toilets. A graywater system would be used to water landscaping, and dark sky-friendly lighting would be installed throughout the project.

The site would accommodate as many as six guests and two dogs per dome for a total of 36 guests and 12 dogs across the six planned domes.

A biological survey showed no endangered wildlife on the 2.5 acre parcel, and the Clarks plan to have another survey done 14 days before construction begins. A few neighbors refuted this finding, saying they often see desert tortoises and their burrows in the area (the travel range for a desert tortoise is one to two miles).

Responding to community feedback after the last meeting on October 30, the Clarks cut back the project’s scope by eliminating the gas-powered backup generator, jacuzzis, a pool, firepits, and all outdoor game amenities. The central communal dome might also be on the chopping block in response to complaints the structure would be an eyesore blocking the view toward Goat Mountain.

The Clarks’ plan is to have a manager on-site to check in each guest, a minimum booking age of 25, and no group camping. The manager will be local but will not live on-site.

Despite the changes and assurances, many community members remained unconvinced that the Eco Dome site would not cause problems. Residents said the sound of conversation carries as much as a half mile away, and the headlights from guests going in and out of the area could interfere with stargazing and local astronomers. Neighbors also raised concerns about guests wandering and trespassing in what seems to them like an open desert landscape.

Nancy Karl, one of the owners of the Integratron, said she stopped allowing overnight guests when it became clear people were not acting responsibly:

 “People check-in, and then the property manager leaves, and it’s party time....People come to the desert to trip their brains out, and it puts us at huge risk.”

The Clarks are far from being the deep-pocket companies trying to push through large desert glamping projects in other areas of the Morongo Basin, but like those developers, they are learning that desert dwellers are very protective of their rural lifestyle.

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

Subscribe to the Desert Trumpet—it’s free!

Subscribe now

Share this article—it’s free too!

Share

By Laura Hauther

The Flamingo Heights community won a years-long battle when the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors (BOS) voted to deny the controversial Flamingo 640 project their Tuesday, December 19th meeting.

RoBott Land’s Steve Botthof and Larry Roth brought the appeal to the Board after the San Bernardino County Planning Commission failed to move the project forward at their March 9 hearing.

In the community comment period at the BOS meeting, a well-organized group of area residents expressed myriad concerns about the impact the glamping resort would have on their neighborhood, the delicate desert environment, and local fauna. Many worked with Save Our Deserts, a group created by Justin Merino, a Landers resident, and President of the Landers Community Association, to present an organized opposition that would fully address their reasons for pushing back on RoBott Land’s plan to develop the glamping resort on the 640-acre parcel of land.

The group cited light and noise pollution, lack of suitable local infrastructure; destruction of Joshua Trees and other native plants; disturbing habitat for tortoise and other species; and additional traffic on already dangerous Old Woman Springs Road.

RoBott Land, the developer, said they had made an alternate plan that would scale down the project considerably, including eliminating all but one main fire pit and replacing them with local sculptures. The new plan would have also cut back the size of both the restaurant and bar, and consolidate some of the other structures in response to community concerns.

The proposed changes were not enough to sway the community or most of the BOS.

Dawn Rowe came out strongly for the community she represents, saying Robott made a mistake by not addressing the community at the start of their planning, stating, “…I would encourage anyone who wants to have a project here to engage with these community groups and residents early in the process.”

Rowe also pointed out that the commercial zone set up along the north end of Flamingo Heights, in the area around Dollar General and other businesses, would be a more appropriate site for this type of venture.

Rowe then led the vote for the denial, joined by Supervisors Baca and Cook, with Supervisors Hagman and Armendarez voting against.

In an email letter celebrating this victory, Merino acknowledged the work of fellow activist Caroline Partamian, member of the Morongo Basin Glamping Taskforce and creator of a Change.org petition that helped build support for the opposition to the project.

Merino also clarified the group’s stance on tourist development in the Morongo Basin: “While we stood in opposition to (this) project…We recognize the complexities involved in such a project and remain hopeful that future initiatives in unincorporated rural areas and the broader High Desert will more closely reflect community values, fostering sustainable and harmonious development.”

Share your thoughts in the comments below or in our live chat in the Substack app. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments—include your first and last name in your profile before commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Subscribe to the Desert Trumpet—it’s free!

Subscribe now

Share this article—it’s free too!

Share

By Laura Hauther

As far back as 2015, Joshua Tree emerged as a darling of travel writers from New York to L.A. In that year, it was noteworthy that tourist numbers increased from 1.4 million to 1.6 from 2013 to 2014. By 2021, that number had nearly doubled to more than 3 million.

Autocamp, a tourist village offering 47 Airstream trailers, opened in 2022 and stands as the only completed tourist development project to date. Now there are four more major proposed projects throughout the Basin, from Landers to Twentynine Palms. All have met with vehement objections from local activist groups fighting to keep a leash on what they see as unsustainable and damaging projects threatening the unique desert landscape that draws tourists to the area.

While some concerns were raised about Autocamp, the location near Highway 62 and Joshua Tree's business district raised fewer objections than for these current projects planned in neighborhoods in areas zoned rural living or residential.

Eco Domes echoing the Integratron
On Monday, October 30, Justin Merino, creator of the advocacy group Save Our Deserts, spoke to a packed house at the Landers Community Center, eager for information about the Eco Dome project. Merino, joining forces with the Morongo Basin Glamping Taskforce and the Stop The Wonder Inn Project, hoped to get more comments on the project submitted before the San Bernardino County deadline on November 1^st. Merino requested an extension after discovering the plan now includes a pool and six hot tubs, but the County denied the request.

The proposed Eco Dome project is right next to Lander's most prominent historic structure, the Integratron, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.   

The plan submitted to the County is for a campsite set in two and a half acres featuring six geodesic domes that are twenty-four feet in diameter, plus a central communal dome with a full kitchen. Each dome accommodates up to six people and two pets and includes a full bathroom, an outdoor deck, and a hot tub. The common area includes a pool, horseshoe pit, bocce ball court, and a separate utility building. The manager would live locally but not on-site.

Although there is no indication in the submitted plan the Eco Domes will be an off-grid campsite, the infrastructure list includes a "backup generator" and an "Invertor/electrical room" along with E.V. charging stations with a solar canopy.

Nancy Karl, one of the three owners of the Integratron, said one of her most significant concerns is the solar panels on top of the parking structure.

"What are they going to do at night? They're going to run generators."

Karl emphasized the nature of their business—the sound baths offered in the domed upper floor of the Integratron—would suffer from the noise of a campsite offering outdoor activities with as many as 36 guests and their pets.

Comment letters submitted to Jim Morrissey of the San Bernardino Land Use Planning Department from the Morongo Basin Historical Society, Karl and Merino, all address an array of concerns summed up in the Homestead Valley Community Council’s submission:

“We oppose the approval of a conditional use permit for this project based on the impacts on adjacent and neighboring properties (through increased traffic, dust, and light and noise pollution), the dangers of being situated in a wash, the disruption of wildlife habitat, and the disintegration of local historical landmarks.”

The Integratron is not the only historic structure in the area. The Charlie Reche Rock House's remains and the original wells supplying water to the Integratron are directly adjacent to the Dome project.

The letters assert the resort site is in a dangerous flash flood wash, with a history of washing out fences and flipping cars, and is "directly in the center of a major wildlife corridor" with locals spotting desert tortoises, foxes, bobcats, and other species.

Increased traffic would mean more accidents in an already accident-prone area where Linn turns into Belfield on a tight curve that can be hard to see, especially for tourists unfamiliar with the roads. Karl said it's not unusual to see as many as six to eight accidents a year.

The Eco Dome project plan claims the “defined watercourse" is west of the project site, and there are no known animal habitats or historical features directly on the site.

Indian Cove residents prefer that Yonder would head over yonder

On Wednesday, November 1, Director of Acquisitions and Asset Management for Yonder Development, Luke Searcy, spoke to a packed room about Yonder's proposed tourist resort in Twentynine Palms’ Indian Cove neighborhood. Yonder attempted to avoid objections by pleading their case directly to locals—a strategy that might spring from watching the recent battles over other tourist developments in the Morongo Basin or the company's current struggles trying to get a similar resort built in Townsend, Tennessee. The objections in Townsend mirror many of the issues locals are concerned about here: traffic, light pollution, noise, environmental damage, and altering the character of surrounding neighborhoods.

Yonder is also developing a 36.59-acre tourist resort in Yosemite and has another location already up and running in Escalante, Utah.

Searcy emphasized the low-impact and dark sky design, support for local nonprofits, significant conservation easements, and the boost to the local economy in an attempt to sway attendees.

Plans show the resort will span 152 acres, with a 500 ft buffer on the west, north, and south and an 800 ft buffer to the east. Those buffer areas—totaling about 100 acres—will be part of a conservation easement to "make sure it remains natural in perpetuity," according to Searcy.

Guest housing consists of 130 cabins with solar panels and overhangs to reduce energy usage—each single-story cabin is 320 sq ft. There is a main lodge area where guests will check in featuring retail space, a pool, and an oversized hot tub; an informal “grab and go” type food service area open to guests and the general public; and another smaller lodge with a pool.

Employees will be housed on-site, Searcy said, to alleviate pressure on the already tough rental market and make sure there are people on-site to deal with any emergencies. They expect to employ about 50 people.

Movies will be presented on a sixteen-foot-tall outdoor screen with the soundtrack transmitted only to radios or apps, and two lodges will play background music outdoors from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Searcy said Yonder expects to generate $150,000 a year for local nonprofits through a community fee charged to guests. Property taxes and transient occupancy tax (TOT) will mean more than $850,000 to the city of Twentynine Palms per Searcy. Yonder calculates tourist spending at around $200 a day per cabin, generating four million dollars annually.

After Searcy's presentation, he directed people to tables in the back of the room to speak to several specialists. Many objected to not having questions asked and answered as a group, and echoing Searcy’s own words, called it a divide-and-conquer tactic.

Nicole Sauviat Criste of the planning and research firm Terra Nova said an environmental survey will happen this month. However, the famously elusive desert tortoise, a keystone species currently listed as threatened, is most active in temperatures between 79 and 93 degrees.  Criste indicated Yonder would alter the site plan if listed species like the desert tortoise are found.

When asked about wastewater infrastructure, Searcy said the site of the septic system has not yet been decided. A source familiar with local regulations told Desert Trumpet that a project of this scale would require sewer lines and a small package treatment plant.

Many were concerned about Yonder addressing necessary road improvements if the project progresses. The City General Plan requires the extension of Lear to Sullivan, a potential improvement to Shoshone Valley Rd, and an improvement to Sullivan triggered by development in that area.

With so many unanswered questions, locals are wary of a development this large in what is now open land in a residential area. Searcy said the company only settled on the site after two years of looking for a suitable location that would work for the Yonder brand.

Many Indian Cove residents are settling in for a long fight and connecting with activists fighting the Yonder project in Tennessee to see what may lie ahead for their neighborhood.

Share your thoughts in the comments below or in our live chat in the Substack app. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure to include your first and last name in your profile before commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

By Laura Hauther

In 2021, the year after the Covid shutdown, the number of guests coming to the park pushed past three million for the first time. The numbers hit that mark again in 2022. Even with the post-pandemic ability to travel widely, the endless string of headlights caused by the “Perseidapcocylpse” this August is further proof of the park’s continued popularity.

On September 27, Mojave Desert Land Trust hosted a forum on the effect of so many people visiting Joshua Tree National Park and the impacts on the sensitive natural environment within the park and the surrounding community.

Chris Clarke1 of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) helmed the panel, featuring Jane Rodgers, the newly minted superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park; Steve Bardwell, President of the Morongo Basin Conservation Association; and John Garder, Senior Director of Budget & Appropriations at NPCA.

Rodgers kicked off the forum with the harrowing tale of dealing with the tsunami of visitors during the Perseid meteor shower—a yearly event—which went from an expected uptick in visitation to an unmanageable surge.

Bigger visitor numbers didn’t necessarily come as a surprise—the number of park visitors looking to experience the beauty of dark skies jumped from 5% to 48%—but this year it became the thing to do.  A big chunk of the 23 million people living within the three-hour travel window to the park decided Joshua Tree was the place to be.

The plan in place for increased visitation for the event, Rodgers said, simply could not anticipate what happened this year. Four park staff members at the park’s entrance booths collected $160,000 dollars before the line of cars backed up, creating traffic snarls in town. At that point, it was decided to let people enter the park without collecting fees.

The West entrance let in 700 cars an hour, while the usually less popular Cottonwood entrance pushed that number to 820 cars an hour.

Rodgers said she deems any unexpected event like this one in which park resources are overwhelmed a “super event.” This year’s Perseids fit the bill. In a post-game strategy meeting, park staff examined the challenges caused by the sudden massive influx of tourists and analyzed how well their responses worked to reduce the harm to the park and the surrounding community.

Many park staff were furloughed during the slower summer season while some were sent to help out after the fires in Hawaii; the hiring challenges of the past couple of years also contributed to lower-than-normal staffing levels. Social media, influencers, and celebrity interest can all cause an otherwise unexpected surge of visitors.

JTNP was deliberately designed to be rustic and remote, Rodgers said, and self-reliance is key to staying out of trouble in an area with very little cell service and no water or other resources.

For the best, trouble-free park visit experience, Rodgers recommends using the official National Park Service app. The app is a surefire way to get accurate and current information on hiking trials and other park info. That can help guests avoid potential dangers while trying to find hikes or attractions featured on random hiking websites or apps.

Local Housing and Tourist Accommodations

Steve Bardwell focused on the housing crunch in the Morongo Basin and the complexity of developing enough housing stock to meet the needs of residents and tourists in an area of limited infrastructure in a delicate natural environment. Bardwell outlined several barriers to more housing construction, including the lack of sewer systems in most areas and access to water. Stricter rules around digging wells make building in some remote areas more complicated.

A change in local ordinances allowed homestead and recreational cabins to be converted to a single-family dwellings when the county dropped the requirement of a 750 square feet minimum space. The current code says ADU's have no minimum size, State codes, however, have a 150 sq. ft. minimum.

The surge in short-term rentals (STRs) created to accommodate park visitors wasn’t the only reason for the local housing shortage, but it had a significant impact. In counts of available housing units done by the county up until recently, STRs were counted as vacant units, distorting the actual numbers. Program 4, a section of the housing element of the San Bernardino County Wide Plan, may focus on the impact of STRs on local housing stocks on a community-by-community basis.

Development of large campgrounds with permanent structures in unincorporated County areas zoned as Rural Living (RL) should be considered resorts, Bardwell said.2 These glamping projects have permanent structures with plumbing, bars, restaurants, and other amenities. Bardwell says tourist accommodations like these can be built to minimize the impact on the environment and local communities, emphasizing the possibility of carbon-smart planning—concentrating this type of tourist housing in areas that will reduce miles driven and building with sustainable construction.

The Autocamp glamping resort, Bardwell said, is an example of good planning—it’s in a commercial zone near Highway 62. Instead of disturbing pristine land and native flora and fauna, it’s in an area with easily accessible services close to the park, minimizing tourist driving.

Bug Your Elected Officials

John Garder addressed concerns around the recent, narrowly averted government shutdown and the ongoing fight for federal resources for the nation’s parks. Garder works directly with Congress to advocate for support for the nation’s parks.

The threat of a shutdown is not over—the continuing resolution passed to keep funds flowing is a temporary stopgap. A shutdown is still possible right before Thanksgiving if there is no agreement on the budget, according to Garder’s latest NPCA blog post.

During the last government shutdown, national parks were ordered to stay open despite a lack of personnel, resulting in millions of dollars in damage to national parks and park resources.

The government shutdown is not the only threat to our parks, Garder said; the House of Representatives is considering a bill that would include “deep, historic cuts” of 12.5% of the current budget, totaling $433 million dollars. What that means on the ground is fewer personnel, possible closure of facilities, or reduced hours and furloughs of current personnel.

Even with the budget increases last year garnering money for 500 more park rangers nationwide, staffing levels were still 2,600 people short of staffing levels throughout the national park system a decade ago.

We need citizen advocacy, Garder said, “implore your member of Congress…they will listen to you if you take the time to call or meet with them at their local office. Write a letter to the editor, consider writing an op-ed in your local paper…to send a very clear message the park service needs their help.”

Share your thoughts in the comments below or in our live chat in the Substack app. 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