Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents urge Twentynine Palms to revisit Flock surveillance contract and oppose proposed eGroup solar farm
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents told the City Council they oppose the city’s Flock automated-license-plate system and object to a proposed 185-acre eGroup utility-scale solar project, citing privacy, public-health and tourism concerns and arguing the city should uphold its 2012 ban on utility-scale solar within city limits.
Dozens of residents and local stakeholders used the public-comment period at the Twentynine Palms City Council meeting on March 9 to press the council on two recurring concerns: the privately owned Flock automated license‑plate reader system the city approved in late 2024, and a proposed eGroup 185‑acre utility‑scale solar project sited near residential areas and tourism gateways.
Public commenters said the Flock contract was approved with insufficient public engagement and that the system represents unnecessary, continuous surveillance. Jess Drake (speaker 17) said concerned residents have asked for dialogue after the December 2024 approval and noted petitions and a poll indicating community opposition. Booker Harp (speaker 24) and other speakers voiced constitutional and liability concerns, raised questions about data ownership and sharing, and urged the city attorney to verify breach protocols and insurance coverage.
On the solar project, opponents repeatedly cited the city’s 2012 ban on utility‑scale solar inside Twentynine Palms’ limits, arguing eGroup’s project would require significant grading and pose environmental and public‑health risks (including dust and valley fever exposure). Hannah Romsburg (speaker 16), who said she has worked as an archaeologist in the Mojave Desert, warned of “complete decimation” of the desert landscape and respiratory risks from dust during grading. Other commenters, including Jeff Johnson (speaker 14), Gina Cohn (speaker 20), and Gretchen Grama (speaker 9) raised tourism and property‑value concerns tied to visibility of a fenced solar field along key approach corridors.
Some residents challenged claims made by the developer about AB 205 (a California Energy Commission process that can preempt local authority for very large projects). Elliot Baldwin (speaker 26) and others said AB 205 applies only to projects of 50 MW AC or greater and asserted the eGroup project is 38 MW AC and therefore would not qualify; Baldwin read a letter from the California Energy Commission staff that stated the 50‑MW threshold refers to AC generating capacity.
Speakers cited examples of other jurisdictions that have ended Flock pilots or canceled contracts (examples offered by speakers included Mountain View, Flagstaff and others), and urged the council to host an informational session. City Manager Dr. Stone James (speaker 11) said he would contact the sheriff’s department to arrange a briefing; Mayor Pro Tem Scott (speaker 3) explicitly requested that follow-up.
No formal vote on the Flock contract or the proposed eGroup solar project was taken at the meeting; several speakers asked the council to place the topics on a future agenda, and multiple commenters asked for transparent assessments of environmental, health and liability impacts before any land‑use or contract actions.
