Concerned residents in Joshua Tree have sued a developer in San Bernardino County Court to stop a master-planned gated community from being built near the west entrance to Joshua Tree National Park.
LoveMore Ranch is a proposed 64 houses on 18.49 acres along Alta Loma Drive, a road that connects to Park Boulevard leading to Joshua Tree National Park. It is billed as “a sustainable community,” and developer Axel Cramer says the project will preserve more natural landscape than comparable developments, with stylish architecture, rooftop solar and an onsite wastewater-treatment facility.
But the Morongo Basin Conservation Association and a community group called Joshua Tree Village Neighbors oppose the project. Their suit alleges violations of the California Environmental Quality Act around the county’s initial study, as well as violations of county code.
Legal arguments aside, the project has struck a nerve with locals concerned about the area’s cultural and ecological future, and how the project could change the community’s character. They’re also skeptical that Cramer and his team have done enough to inform residents about the project’s particulars during the planning process.
LoveMore Ranch would be the first gated homeowners’ association in the Joshua Tree area. Neighboring properties along Alta Loma are now dotted with yard signs saying “Stop LoveMore Ranch” and “Protect Joshua Tree,” plugging a website that lays out the concerns about the project.
“Sixty-four homes on 18 acres have never been approved before in Joshua Tree,” the group said in an online statement. “This will set a dangerous precedent for future Wall Street developers to swoop in and overdevelop our rural desert community.”
Cramer, owner of the property, declined the Independent’s interview request. But in public presentations, he and his team have emphasized how this development differs from other master-planned communities.
The 64 proposed homes are well under the 114 that current zoning allows. And the plans call for preserving 20% more of the natural landscape than similarly zoned projects.
“With lower temperatures and lower prices in the High Desert compared to the low desert, among many other compelling factors, it is very likely that the population will increase in years to come,” LoveMore Ranch’s website says. “Our project addresses this growth by providing a model for sustainable development, which the county can use as a precedent for future housing plans.”
Cramer, for his part, hasn’t lived in the area permanently, but he’s a fifth-generation Southern Californian who has traveled through Joshua Tree and is a rock climber who has visited the national park. He has said in public meetings that he intends to live in LoveMore, and wants to distinguish the project by prioritizing nature and the precious desert landscape.
LoveMore’s project documents paint a picture of luxurious, design-forward indoor-outdoor living. Single-story low-slung homes with wall-sized glass windows would have two to four bedrooms, situated on lots ranging from 7,000 to 13,000 square feet. The plan calls for multiple community gathering spaces, as well as community gardens, a fitness center and a pool.
But some Joshua Tree residents are concerned about the scope of the development—and what it means for the environment. As one resident wrote in response to a recent survey, the project “is simply too large for our community to absorb responsibly.” Said another comment: “I feel dismayed that the county would approve this huge build without the input of people that will be directly affected by it.”
Beyond the homes themselves, LoveMore will require significant infrastructure—and that brings its own set of concerns. Joshua Tree does not have a community sewer system; residents instead use septic systems. The proposed tract map for LoveMore calls for an onsite waste-treatment plant, and neighbors are concerned about the smell, noting that homes that are less than 100 feet away. The lawsuit alleges that the county’s initial study on the project failed to adequately assess the impact of this facility and a proposed detention basin.
From an economic development perspective, LoveMore is positioned to be a boon to the county coffers. Developers anticipate it would generate around $2.2 million in permit and development fees, plus $1.5 million in annual recurring revenue from increased property taxes. The property will also bring more than $3 million in off-site infrastructure like roads, sidewalks, signage and other area improvements, per LoveMore’s estimates.
LoveMore Ranch’s team members have said they aim to get shovels in the ground by the end of 2026, and open by 2028.
The Approval Process
County records show discussions about the project area and a previous 75-lot proposal dating back to 2022. But tensions have mounted over the past year as plans for the 64-lot development have started moving forward in earnest, culminating in the May 9 lawsuit.
In August 2024, Cramer held a public meeting that drew more than 70 residents, many of whom spoke out against the concept. As radio station Z107 reported, one resident said: “We think this is a disgusting money grab of a development.”
Despite these concerns, when San Bernardino County’s Planning Commission in January approved the tract plan, no one spoke in opposition. With two commission members absent, the project was OK’d with a unanimous 3-0 vote from commissioners who praised the design, as well as the outreach plans.
Following that vote, the Morongo Basin Community Association and Joshua Tree Village Neighbors appealed the decision. They argued the approval was based on a flawed planning review that violated CEQA, because it did not consider the hydrological impacts of the project. The groups also raised concerns about the impact on traffic.
More broadly, the appeal argued that the community didn’t have enough time to weigh in; the groups said people simply didn’t know the vote was happening until it was too late to go to San Bernardino for the meeting. Public records show that 63 public notices were sent to neighbors, though MBCA’s survey of about 28 local residents showed only two said they received them.
The notice of hearing for the January meeting was sent to the San Bernardino Sun—which is billed as “a newspaper in general circulation in the project area,” though it is unclear what the paper’s circulation is in the Morongo Basin.
The Board of Supervisors denied the appeal at its regular meeting in April. In the lawsuit, the MBCA and Joshua Tree Neighbors Group say they want the approval voided.
A Debate About the Future of Joshua Tree
In a video message posted on the LoveMore Ranch website, Cramer addresses concerns that the project paves the way for future development.
“If we’re not the benchmark or there isn’t a precedent, the county or the jurisdiction is going to look at what else has been done,” he said. “You’re going to find a big time developer who is going to try to squeeze every drop of profit out of the development.”
Some residents have spoken up in favor of the project. Pamela Garcia attended the January Planning Commission meeting and praised Cramer for his vision, citing her experience as a real estate professional.
“This development will help meet the demand for growing choices in community living, and offer a much-needed alternative to the housing currently available,” she said.
However, the voices who oppose the project are louder—and willing to go to court.
Stacy Doolittle, a volunteer with the Morongo County Conservation Association, said the project still seems too sprawling for the area. She’s concerned that the houses will be too expensive for existing residents, bringing wealthier newcomers to what is a gateway to a national park.
Doolittle said residents know that the area is growing and has a housing crisis, and aren’t flat-out opposed to any new homes. In its appeal to the county, the MBCA said more acceptable proposals would involve affordable housing, or even market-rate housing that doesn’t have a gated entry, with each house on one to two acres.
LoveMore, Doolittle said, simply doesn’t fit the high desert, rural-living mindset.
“This kind of development with this kind of housing density is not aligned with a rural community,” she said. “MBCA believes we can have sustainable development in the Morongo Basin and in Joshua Tree. But this isn’t it.”
This story is made possible in part by a grant from the IE Journalism Innovation Hub + Fund of the Inland Empire Community Foundation. To submit ideas, comments or questions to the Coachella Valley Independent about housing in the desert, head to this Google Form.