Twentynine Palms reviews eGroup solar community benefit package for proposed north‑town site

Twentynine Palms city staff and developer eGroup PS presented a draft community benefits package for a proposed solar facility north of Two‑Mile Road at a council workshop, and asked the council for direction on the payment schedule and whether proceeds should be earmarked for specific projects.

City staff described the regulatory context and the package they negotiated with the applicant. “As soon as the project begins construction, they would be paying a $105,000. And then once they begin operation for 3 years, they pay the city a $120,000…up to $150,000 after year 5 with an annual CPI increase,” staff told the council during the presentation. Staff also noted the city’s existing moratorium on solar fields and said the matter could be routed through the state instead of local review if the applicant elects that path.

The package is intended to replace the typical development fees a commercial or residential project would pay; because the proposed solar installation does not generate the same kinds of impact fees, the developer has negotiated an alternative payment plan. Robert Smith, representing eGroup PS, told the council the developer “supports staff’s proposal” and said the company altered its initial offer after a year of negotiations so the project still “finance[s].”

Why it matters: state law has created a pathway for utility‑scale solar projects to be processed by the state under AB 205, which can limit local zoning control. Council members and members of the public framed the negotiation as a local attempt to secure community benefits if the project proceeds locally rather than under state review.

Public comment split along expected lines. Proponents told the council the site is well‑suited and that the revenue could fund local needs. George Malopoulos, who identified himself as manager of Proactive Properties (the parcel owner), described the project as a “184 acre project 50 megawatt installation” and said it would “generate enough clean renewable energy to power roughly 8,000 homes.” Opponents raised environmental and nuisance concerns: Steve Bardwell of the Morongo Basin Conservation Association urged study of dust impacts and cited Owens Lake as an example of wind‑driven dust problems; Kurt Kepler, who said his home lies at the edge of the proposed facility, said he “strongly oppose[d] the construction of an industrial scale solar farm on uneven and rocky terrain” and warned of erosion and fugitive dust.

Speakers also questioned the project’s size and AB 205 applicability. Multiple commenters and speakers offered differing acreage and generation figures during the meeting: staff at one point referenced roughly 477 acres for the broader property, while members of the public and the property owner repeatedly referred to a 184‑acre project footprint and a 50‑megawatt generation figure. Staff acknowledged those differences would be clarified in the project application and the environmental impact report (EIR), which was still being prepared at the time of the workshop.

Council action: Council did not vote on the project tonight. Staff reported they were seeking direction; after public comment and discussion, the council indicated support for the negotiated financial package and told staff they had the direction to continue negotiations and to return with formal items and public hearings when the EIR and application are ready. The city attorney reminded council that the workshop was for input only and that any formal positions must wait until noticed public hearings.

What’s next: The EIR is still being prepared and staff gave no firm date for release. Planning commission hearings and formal council actions will follow the environmental review; the state process (AB 205) remains a potential alternative route if the applicant or the state pursues it.

Ending: Council members and the applicant said they would continue negotiating details of the development agreement and mitigation measures, including desert tortoise mitigation cited by the applicant as a roughly $1 million line item required by wildlife agencies, and return with formal staff recommendations and the EIR for public review.