AGENDA PREVIEW: Twentynine Palms Planning Commission, February 17, 2026
Staff recommends approval of the E-Group Solar Project
Desert Trumpet Editor Cindy Bernard summarizes solar farm issues.
The approval of entitlements and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the controversial E-Group Solar Project adjacent to the Harmony Acres neighborhood in Twentynine Palms is the primary item on this week’s agenda. A 369-page Staff report was released on Thursday, February 12, and replaced on the the 13th by a 383-page document, a substantial revision1. Staff is recommending approval of the project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
After Planning Commission announcements, attendees can comment on items not on the agenda. Public comments on agenda items will be requested when the item is discussed. Fill out a green comment sheet for public or agenda item comments and hand it to the staff, usually sitting at the desk at the front of the room on the right side. Residents have three minutes to make comments.
You may also email comments to Planning Commission members and Community Development Director Keith Gardner and request that comments be read at the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of the minutes from the January 20 and February 3 meetings. Noted is that the February 3 meeting was primarily a closed session on “Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation,” and the minutes indicate no reportable items.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 - E-Group Solar Project
It’s taken two and one-half years for the E-Group Solar Project to wind its way to the Twentynine Palms Planning Commission for initial approval. The project is also known as the Geneva Solar Project and the Harmony Acres Solar Farm. The complete DEIR is available on the City website for the project. The staff report describes the location:
The project is located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0612-201-01 and 0612-201-05 (the “Property”), which are north of Two Mile Road, south of the City Limits, west of the northerly extension of Noel’s Knoll Road, and east of the northerly extension of Canyon Road.
The meeting is certain to have a full house, and if you plan to comment, be prepared to cut remarks to less than three minutes because the Chair will sometimes limit speaking times to accommodate demand.
Background
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 and pursue state-level permitting because of the urgency of climate-friendly energy solutions.
However, California cities are pushing back against AB-205: In May 2024, 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. The project was halted on December 22, 2025, by the developer because they deemed the project not to be viable due to energy market and location concerns.
The Twentynine Palms solar farm is a project of E-Group PS LLC, originally a Delaware-based limited liability corporation, now located in California. There are two Temecula-based principals—Tomas Oresansky and Martin Melicharek—along with agent Peter Bobro, who lease the residentially zoned parcels from Las Vegas based Proactive Properties LLC. George Mulopolus, a frequent supporter of the project and of loosening development regulations at city meetings, is a principal of Proactive Properties.
Per a website promoting the project, E-Group has two active solar fields, one in Popesti, Romania, producing 12 megawatts of energy and another in Izmail Harbor, Ukraine, producing 10 megawatts of energy. In the staff report, the Twentynine Palms field, which is considerably larger, is projected to produce 51 to 63 megawatts. However, those numbers have been disputed in public comment, with residents claiming the actual output falls below the minimum threshold of 50 megawatts for AB-205 to apply. Again, according to the E-Group website, the overseas projects produce power for their respective national power grids, while the local project connects to Souther California Edition and delivers “renewable energy to the state’s power grid.”
This will be a brief overview because Desert Trumpet has covered this proposal extensively. Here’s a list of highlights:
• ON THE AGENDA: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 23RD (May 21, 2023)
• Heads-up: Solar Field Scoping Meeting to Be Held, Thursday, March 21 (March 7, 2024)
• 29Palms Solar Project: Who Benefits? (March 20, 2024)
• RECAP: 29Palms Solar Project Meetings (March 25, 2024)
• 2024 Development Recap (December 27, 2024)
• ON THE AGENDA: Twentynine Palms City Council, June 24, 2025 (June 22, 2025)
• Public Comment Period Open for E-Group PS Solar Project in Twentynine Palms (December 17, 2025)
• 2025 Development Recap (January 11, 2026)
Thanks to our new paid subscribers, we are at $8,985 in subscriptions, just $1,015 short of our $10,000 goal. Upgrade your subscription from free to paid today for just $50 per year or $5 per month.
Want to make a one time donation or are you able to give more than $100? Donate via Paypal!
What General Plan and Development Code Amendments Will Be Considered on Tuesday?
Several applications for general plan and development code amendments need to pass for the project to move forward. They are:
General Plan Amendment No. GPA23-000001: Amends the General Plan to establish a new “Renewable Energy” land use district specific to the 241 acres where the solar field is located, referred to elsewhere in the Staff Report as “Renewable Energy ‘E’ zone.”
Rezone No. REZ23-000001: Rezones the site from Low-Density Residential Development—5 acre minimum (RL-5)—to the new Renewable Energy “E” zone.
Development Code Amendment No. DCA23-000016: Establishes development standards and permitted uses for the new E zone district.
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP23-000009: Authorizes the development of the project on the northern 185 acres: “160,000 solar panels arranged into rows of approximately 720 ground-mounted solar panel racks each 104 feet wide and 252 feet long, separated by 20-foot wide service/maintenance drives” with power routing to the substation located on the south side of Two Mile Road, east of Canyon Road.
Outline of community benefits package, page 3 of proposal package. Development Agreement No. 23-000001: “Providing Developer with a vested right to develop the Solar Project on the Property and establishing the Community Benefits provided by Developer to the public.”
General Plan Amendment No. GPA24-000001: The first of two items needed to comply with SB 330, which requires the loss of residentially zoned parcels to be offset by an increase in residential zoning elsewhere in city limits. This amends the general plan to up-zone 60 acres of RL-5 to RS-1, increasing residential density from 12 units to 60 units, see “Exhibit 1” image above.
Rezone No. REZ 24-000001: The applies the general plan amendment discussed in item 6 to the development code.
E-Group PS Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2024021042 and Associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: The certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Arguments For and Against the Project
Missing from the proposal packet are the 47 comment letters received to date, making this statement from the Staff Report difficult to evaluate:
The City received 47 comment letters on the DEIR. The applicant has provided preliminary responses to those comments, which have been included in the agenda packet. Based upon a preliminary review of the public comments, Planning staff does not believe that there are any significant issues that have not been addressed in the Draft EIR or that there are any comments that would require recirculation or significant revision of the Draft EIR.
The Staff Report fails to quantify how many of the letters were for or against the project or were neutral. The applicant’s responses, which includes excerpts from some of the comment letters, begins on page 161 of the proposal package. Because the letters are missing, and the Staff Report as a whole argues for project approval, we requested an opposing view from the Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA), which we’ve included for download below. Additional letters submitted to the City but excluded from the packet are available for download here. The Desert Trumpet also published a public comment that was submitted as a letter to the editor on January 20.
The City’s argument in favor is summarized on page 5 of the package:
CEQA requires a decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. Thus, in considering the statement of overriding considerations, the Council will be required to determine whether the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. As discussed above, the Project would provide substantial community benefits. It would also provide substantial environmental benefits, as it would expand the amount of renewable energy available to the City and region and reduce local and state dependence on fossil fuels, which would support the State of California’s renewable energy objectives. Thus, staff believes the benefits of the Project are more than sufficient to justify adoption of a statement of overriding considerations.
The City also cites a primary argument against on page 5:
The EIR concluded that Aesthetic impacts are significant and unavoidable. Specifically, the Project would substantially degrade the visual character and quality of public views of the Project site and its surroundings. While the implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would lessen these impacts, the significant grading of the Project site and transformation of the Project site from expansive undeveloped land to a solar farm would significantly impact the visual character of the Project site and public views of the Project site.
As resident Peter Lang pointed out at the February 10 City Council meeting:
This is also a direct threat to tourism and to the brand of 29 Palms. We are not an industrial zone. We are a desert town and a gateway experience. What happens to the visitor experience and the identity we built when the view becomes an industrial power facility instead of open desert? Once that character is lost, it’s gone forever.
Opponents of the project also point to grading that will destroy the desert crust and produce dust clouds similar to those at the Cascade Solar plant in Joshua Tree. Additionally there is concern about the destruction of valuable habitat for a host of endangered and threatened species including the desert tortoise and burrowing owls as well as disturbing the animals that currently live there. Opponents also point out that solar farms are currently banned within the City limits.
Final Questions
Most agree that renewable solar energy is important. Is opposition a case of
NIMBY-ism or does the E-Group Solar Project pose genuine tourism, health, and environmental concerns? Will approval of this project open the floodgates for other solar farms in Twentynine Palms? What use is a general plan it is so easily ignored?
The equally complex Ofland Resort was given scant consideration by the Planning Commission prior to approval, landing it in court2. Whether or not proponents and opponents of the E-Group Solar Project agree about the merits of this project, they should concur that it deserves serious consideration and discussion from the Planning Commission.
This report draws on previous articles by Jonathan Hume, Kat Talley-Jones, and Natalie Zuk.
Heading 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!
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.
Thanks for reading! This post is public, so feel free to share it.
The 2nd agenda release quoted changes as “REVISED ERRATA MEMO AND ORDINANCE”
See Lawsuit Filed Against the City of Twentynine Palms to Challenge the Approval of the Ofland Resort, published on August 20, 2025
yes.....just when the public comment began after e-group representative spoke. frustrating and detracts from the impact of these meetings. i'm watching the video now, but this has happened before, especially when the public comments commence. a real shame
the recording of these meetings often loses video and audio is only heard. greatly reducing the enjoyment of watching these meetings . please fix this recurring problem !!