Supervisors uphold approval of 64‑lot Lovemore Ranch subdivision amid Joshua Tree opposition

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on a unanimous vote denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Lovemore Ranch tentative map, a proposal to subdivide an 18.49‑acre Joshua Tree parcel into 64 single‑family lots. The appeal was filed by the Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA).

The appeal and four‑hour public hearing focused on whether the map and the environmental review complied with county and state rules and whether mitigation measures and project notices had been adequate. County staff, led by Mark Wardlaw, director of Land Use Services, told the board the project had been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that an initial study produced a mitigated negative declaration, and that the proposal was consistent with the county general plan’s low‑density residential designation and applicable development standards.

Wardlaw said the applicant trimmed an earlier, denser proposal to the current 64‑lot design and that required studies addressed biological, cultural, paleontological and hydrologic issues. He explained the county’s role and the sequence of technical reviews: "An initial study mitigated negative declaration was prepared and circulated to comply with the CEQA mandated 30 day public review and comment period," and mitigation measures were included for biological and cultural resources.

Opponents led by Steve Bridal, identified in the record as president of the Morongo Basin Conservation Association, argued public notification was inadequate and that the initial study omitted or deferred key details about the wastewater treatment facility, stormwater detention, and grading. Bridal told the board the record provided to the Planning Commission was incomplete and that an errata posted shortly before the Board hearing materially changed hydrology conclusions. Engineer Nelson Day pressed the board on the wastewater plant’s design, operational costs and distance to nearby homes, asking, "Where will the 20,000 gallons of treated wastewater disappear to each day?" Residents including Elizabeth Cloud, Jennifer Goode and dozens of Joshua Tree homeowners warned of increased flood risk, traffic, light and noise, and the potential that the development could be operated as short‑term rentals.

Applicant Axel Kramer and his design team defended the project as lower‑end density within the allowable range, emphasizing 30% of the site would be protected or restored to native landscape, and describing proposed amenities such as a community wellness center and a botanical preserve. Kramer said the project was intended to be "a benchmark sustainable community" and added the team had produced more than 20 technical reports over four and a half years.

County legal counsel told the board that under the Housing Accountability Act the county must approve housing projects that comply with objective general plan and development code standards unless the decisionmaker can make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that specific public‑health or safety impacts could not be mitigated. The board heard that no such unmitigable public‑safety findings were supported in the record.

After public comment and board discussion, Supervisor Hagman moved and Supervisor Armendariz seconded a motion to deny the appeal. The motion passed 5‑0; the board announced: "With that, the motion to deny the appeal, is approved unanimously." The practical effect is that the Planning Commission’s approvals — the tentative tract map, the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program — stand, and the project can proceed to the subsequent, detailed permit and plan‑check stages.

What happens next: staff and applicants said that if the developer proceeds, the project will need subsequent technical permits and approvals including Environmental Health Services (EHS) review and Regional Water Quality Control Board permits for the wastewater system and additional detailed grading and hydrology design. The record shows the project remains subject to mitigation measures listed in the mitigated negative declaration and to conditions imposed by Land Use Services.

The hearing recorded numerous demands from residents for changes if the project proceeds, including (a) larger lot sizes (appellants asked for half‑acre lots to avoid a package wastewater plant), (b) a full, publicly noticed and reviewed wastewater design prior to tract approval, (c) an independent traffic and stormwater study and (d) stronger, documented notification procedures for affected neighbors.