Twentynine Palms City Council
July 22, 2025

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

Lear Avenue & Sullivan Road / South Project Access (#4) • Install a stop control on the southbound approach.
• Provide a westbound shared through-right turn lane.

In addition, the Project is to construct the following site-adjacent roadways:
• Construct Lear Avenue along the site’s westerly edge to its ultimate halfsection plus 10 feet of pavement west of the centerline as a Collector between Twentynine Palms Highway (SR-62) and Sullivan Road. • Construct Sullivan Road along the sites southerly edge to its ultimate halfsection plus 10 feet of pavement south of the centerline as a Local Street between Lear Avenue and the South Project Access.

Monitoring:

TRANS.A All improvement plans for the proposed Project shall be prepared to include the roadway and access improvements cited in Mitigation Measure TRA-1.

Responsible Parties: Project applicant, City Engineer, Planning Department.

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Source: Twentynine Palms General Plan; Twentynine Palms Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.

Environmental Setting
Domestic Water (please also see Hydrology and Water Resources) The proposed Project is located within the Twentynine Palms Water District (TPWD) boundaries for domestic water services. The District’s water supply source is 100 percent groundwater produced from District-owned and operated wells. The District provides water service to approximately 6,800 households in their water service area15.

Wastewater Treatment
The only Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in the region is located at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC). The City, including the Project area, does not have a sanitary sewer system and currently operates with septic tanks and projectspecific sewage package plants. The Project proposes an on-site wastewater package plant.
15 Twentynine Palms Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

Flood Control/Drainages
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBFCD) is responsible for managing regional drainage within and in the vicinity of Twentynine Palms. The City works with SBFCD to manage local drainages in the City, which are divided between well-defined drainage courses (some have been channelized) and areas of wide sheet flow.

Development that may alter the direction of flow onsite are conditioned per standard City and County practices to maintain the existing site drainage patterns at inlets and outlets.

Solid Waste
Burrtec Waste Industries provides solid waste pick up and disposal, as well as recycling services in the City. Solid waste disposal and landfill siting is managed by the County of San Bernardino, Solid Waste Management Division. The Project will utilize commercial dumpsters for waste removal.

Other Utilities
The electrical energy to the City is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Natural gas service is provided to the City by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).

Telephone service is provided by a number of companies, including both land lines and cellular services.

Discussion of Impacts
a-c) Less Than Significant Impact.

Water
The Twentynine Palms Water District (TPWD) will provide water for the Project.

The Project will connect to existing water infrastructure in Lear Avenue, and loop a water line through the Project development area. According to the 2020 Twentynine Palms UWMP, the Twentynine Palms Water District’s (District) projected 2025 water demand is 2,660 AFY, and the projected 2045 water demand is 3,200 AFY (UWMP Table 2-8). The projected 2025 water production is 3,048 AFY, and the projected 2045 water production is 3,660 AFY (UWMP Table 2-9).

The proposed Project’s water demand (33.7 AFY) represents 1.3% of the projected 2025 water demand and 1.05% of the projected 2045 District water supplies. The Project’s projected water demand is well within the District’s projected water supply projections for 2025 and 2045.

Therefore, the Project will not substantially decrease local groundwater supplies.

Buildings will be equipped with water efficient fixtures in compliance with Building Code requirements to reduce water consumption. The Project includes irrigation requirements, including the use of water-efficient fixtures and drought-tolerant landscape materials, which will help reduce water demand over the long term.

Impacts will be less than significant.

Wastewater
Neither the City nor the Twentynine Palms Water District (TPWD) have a municipal sewer system. All development within the proposed Project will be connected to the package plant that will be constructed on-site. To estimate the amount of

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

wastewater generated by the Project, the City’s Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) wastewater generation rate of 175 gallons per day16 was applied to the hotel and employee housing.

An EDU for a hotel is 0.5 EDU per room, or 87.5 gallons per day per hotel room.

The employee housing units are considered 1 EDU each. Per this calculation, 100 hotel units at 87.5 gallons per day, and 25 employee housing units at 175 gallons per day would generate a total of 13,125 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). The package plant will be designed to treat all of the sewage on-site, and maintain the plant consistent with state law. The proposed treatment plant will be required to meet or exceed RWQCB waste discharge standards, and comply with all local, regional and state regulations relating to waste discharge. As a result of existing law and standard requirements, impacts associated with wastewater will be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
The Preliminary Drainage Study determined that the 100-year, 24-hour peak discharge values at the most downstream point for the off-site basin is 487 cfs (cubic feet per second), and runoff would impact the Project site along the southerly boundary of the property. The proposed Project will not discharge into either regional or local drainage systems. Rather, it will manage stormwater onsite. A final hydrologic analysis will be required to demonstrate that the Project meets the City’s standards for on-site stormwater retention (please see Hydrology above). These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with storm water retention remain less than significant.

Other Utilities
The proposed Project will require construction of on-site electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure to connect to the existing infrastructure located in the Project vicinity. The Project would not result in the construction of new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities off-site that could cause significant environmental effects.
d,e) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operations-related solid waste from the Project will be collected and disposed by Burrtec, a regional commercial vendor that serves the City by hauling solid waste to transfer and recycling centers and landfills. Trash generated by the project will be hauled to the Twentynine Palms Transfer Station, east of the City, and then transported to Landers Landfill, a regional landfill located approximately 30 miles northwest of the City. Twentynine Palms Transfer Station has a permitted throughput of 1,200 tons per day. Landers Landfill had a remaining capacity of 13,983,500 cubic yards and is estimated to close in 2072.
16 City of Twentynine Palms Schedule of Feeds, amended by City Council June 14, 2022. Sewer Fees.

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

Table 15
Estimated Solid Waste Disposal at the Project Buildout
Land Use CIWMB Disposal
Rates Proposed
Solid Waste
Disposal (pounds
per day)
Solid Waste
Disposal (tons
per year)
Residential 12.23
lbs./household/day 25 units 305.75 55.8
Hotel/Motel 2 pounds/dwelling
unit/day 100 rooms 200 36.5
TOTAL 92.3
TOTAL (with 50% diversion) 46.15
*Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates by CalRecycle,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, Accessed December 2024.

The Project will be required to comply with state law, which requires the reduction of solid waste streams by 50% through recycling of materials. The City and Burrtec will require that the Project provide recycling facilities on-site as part of the trash maintenance system. At buildout, the proposed Project will contribute less than

0.001% of the Landers landfill’s remaining capacity. Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facilities for recycling and reuse.

Burrtec is responsible for maintaining standards that assure that all waste is handled in a manner that meets local, state and federal standards. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with solid waste disposal remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Monitoring: None required.

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
Sources: Twentynine Palms General Plan; Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP) maps, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Environmental Setting
Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition resistant. A wildland-urban interface is an area where urban development is located in proximity to open space or “wildland” areas. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels or designated fire severity zones.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of the state into different Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. The subject property is not located in or near a state responsibility area or designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

According to the General Plan, the site is not located in a fire hazard zone (Exhibit SF-2).

The site is not located adjacent to forested areas, and the site does not support significant vegetation.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project does not propose major long-term changes to circulation in the Project area other than providing direct access to the subject property. Project construction could result in temporary lane closures or detours, particularly as new driveway and intersection improvements are completed; however, potential disruptions to emergency access would be temporary and coordinated with and approved by the City through the preparation of a traffic management plan. The Project will not alter the physical orientation of the area and would not interfere with the City’s emergency response or evacuation procedures in the event of a wildfire. The Project does not propose changes to existing emergency response facilities or personnel. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, nor is it adjacent to these zones. The foothills of the Little San Bernardino Mountains are located 0.7 miles south of the site, and occupants of the Project may be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire in the mountains.

However, the Little San Bernardino Mountains are characterized by rocky terrain and sparse vegetation, and wildfire risks have been historically very low. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area or classified as a Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of wildfire infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks or result in adverse environmental impacts. Impacts related to infrastructure are expected to be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site has very low potential for landslide and post-fire slope instability given its generally flat terrain. The Project site is located in flood Zone X, an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Map No. 06071C8175H). Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to expose people or structures to significant risks such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Monitoring: None required.

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XXI MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Biological Resources
No special status species were detected during the field survey; however, there is the potential for five plant and six wildlife special status species including invertebrates, reptiles, mammals, and birds to occur within the Project’s area. To ensure impacts to special status species are reduced to the greatest extent, the Project will be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-5 to protect the desert tortoise, migratory birds, burrowing owl, American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse. Additionally, the Project will be required to adhere to any applicable City ordinance regarding the conservation of biological resources and species. In accordance with these standards and mitigation measures, the Project’s development is not expected to pose a significant threat to the native and mitigatory species occupying the wildlife corridor. As such, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

Cultural Resources
The Project is located on a culturally sensitive site, therefore mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are provided to require the protection of two “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” which are located outside the development boundary during construction and to require archaeological monitoring during earth-moving operations associated with the project. Mitigation measures provided in this document will ensure that impacts to cultural and/or tribal resources are less than significant.

Overall, there will be no significant environmental impacts to biological and cultural resources which cannot be mitigated. Project related impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project, in conjunction with related projects, would result in impacts that would be less than significant when viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together. Here, however, the impacts of the proposed Project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. Although the Project proposes a GPA, DCA and REZ from Single-Family Residential Estate to Tourist Commercial and Open Space Conservation, the development intensity and deep setbacks of the proposed hotel and employee housing are consistent with the scattered residential uses in the Project area, and would not substantially increase density in the area. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Project would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures included herein, and when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not be significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not pose environmental effects that would cause direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings.

The Project will be developed in accordance with applicable requirements set forth in the Twentynine Palms Municipal Code, in addition to federal, state, and regional requirements, and the mitigation measures defined in this document reduce any potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels.

City of Twentynine Palms
Ofland Hotel Initial Study

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CalEEMod Outputs
APPENDIX B: Biological Resources Assessment Report
APPENDIX C: Jurisdictional Delineation
APPENDIX D: Historical/Archaeological Report
APPENDIX E: Geotechnical Report
APPENDIX F: Preliminary Drainage Report
APPENDIX G: Noise Study
APPENDIX H: Traffic Report
APPENDIX I: VMT Screening
Available on the City of Twentynine Palms Website:
www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us

• Chapter 19.21 - Open Space - Conservation (OSC)
• 19.21.010 - Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to describe the character and intent of the Open Space Conservation Land Use District, identify allowed uses and establish development standards for the district.
• 19.21.020 - Description and Intent of Land Uses
This district is intended for properties which are intended to be preserved in natural open space in perpetuity. Open Space Conservation-designated lands may be publicly or privately owned, but are intended to be set aside for environmental conservation purposes. Only minimum land development is allowed in this District, and would be limited to utilities, streets, and flood control measures only.
• 19.21.030 - Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Allowed uses and permit requirements for the Open Space Conservation Land Use District are listed in Table 19.08.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements). The table lists all userelated permits for primary and accessory uses that are permanent in nature. Additional permit requirements are listed in Chapters 19.28 through 19.64 related to permits and procedures.

Allowed temporary uses are listed in Chapter 19.34 (Temporary Use Permit and Standards).

Allowed accessory uses are listed in Chapter 19.70 (Accessory Uses and Structures).

Table 19.08.030-1
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
Allowed Use OSC
Public safety uses and facilities SPR
Utility and Service Uses and Related Structures SPR
Flood control / drainage control facilities SPR
Trails / passive recreational uses requiring less than
500 cubic yards of grading
SPR

19.20.040 - Development Standards
All new land uses and structures or alterations to existing land uses and/or structures in the Open Space Conservation Land Use District shall be designed, constructed and established in compliance with the development standards in Table 19.08.040-2 (Development Standards).

Table 19.08.030-2
Development Standards
Standard OSC
Allowed Density (Dwelling Units per Gross Acre)
Minimum 0
Maximum 0
Lot Size and Dimensions
Minimum Lot Size 0
Minimum Lot Width 0
Minimum Lot Depth 0
Minimum Width to Depth Ratio none
Minimum Setbacks 0
Front, First Story and Above 0
Side, First Story 0
Street Side, First Story and Above 0
Rear, First Story and Above 0
Distance Between Buildings None
Lot Coverage
Maximum 0
Building Height
Maximum 0
Unit Size
Minimum n/a

(f/i ROOFMECH, LOINEREDSCREEN MAXMECH/UlIL ROOFHEIG_HT
+25'—0'
‘ INTERIORFF
MAXMECHIU'|_'|L ROOFHElg'IT
*2550" METALROOF METALFLASHING] DETAILING
ROOFA _
— — METALCORRUGATEDSIDING
+11‘-6"AFF FIBERCEMENTEXT.SIDING WOODEXT.SIDING
- 'I WOODEXT.SIDINGACCENT
INTERIORFF . m:-
’ FB—1 FABRICSHADE
7w
'
' TL-1 TILEEXT.SIDING
SC~1 STUCCOSIDING
CC—I CONCRETE1 MAINLODGE/CLUBHOUSE,EAST NOTE:ALLMATERIALSDESIGNEDTo BLENDWITH ADJCACENTSTRUCTURESANDDESERTTONES. (CREAM/SANDrrANI DARKBROWNS!CHARCOALwrr MN}MECH’UmROOEHE'GHT_ SOMEACCENTCOLORSLIMITEDTOSIGNAGE, +254)“ FABRICS,ETC) ROOFA:MECHB _ *15'0. AF; ROOFB +113. AFE

I INTERIORFF

MAINLODGE/CLUBHOUSE, NORTH
—
I-\ "I MAXMECI-iIUTIL ROOFHEIGHT 49+25%)" _¢ROOFA
new AFF— D I. 0 0 ———_

MEWS III-IIIIIIIIIIII
+0‘-O' NATURAL
Source: Boundary Works, 11.2024 MAINLODGE/CLUBHOUSE. SOUTH 12.05.24 r 1 Elevations: Main Lodge Exhibit ® Ofland Hotel L A TERRANOVA 7 PLANNING &RESEARCH, INC. Twentynine Palms, caIIfOrnIa

ROOF D _
‘ +1223“AFF
So5*". .

INTERIORFF
+0._0.. EMPLOYEEHOUSING— EAST
ROOFD _ ROOFD
+1223"AFF +12'S'AFT

INTERIORFF
+020" +0._0.. 7 NATURAL GRADES" ‘ NATURALGRApEr-rrr"”'" vanesEMPLOYEEHOUSING— NORTH EMPLOYEEHOUSING- SOUTH
LEGEND MT—1 METALROOF MT-2 METALFLASHING] DETAILING MT-3 METALCORRUGATEDSIDING CEH FIBERCEMENTEXT.SIDING WD-1 WOODEXT.SIDING
ROOFD _ ROOFD_ WD-2 WOODEXT.SIDINGACCENT T
”2.73, AFF 42-3" AFF F34 FABRICSHADE 5E
TL—1 TILEEXT.SIDING
SC—1 STUCCOSIDING
' CC—1 CONCRETE1 . INTERIORFF , ._ NOTE:ALLMATERIALSDESIGNEDTOBLENDWITH ADJCACENTSTRUCTURESANDDESERTTONES. (CREAM/SANDITAN/ DARKBROWNS] CHARCOALWIT PH2EMPHOUSING— WEST EMPHOUSING- BREEZEWAYNORTH ?ggggggigCOLORSL'M'

TEDTOS'GNAGE
Source: Boundary Works, 11.2024 12.05.24
r w Elevations: Employee Housing Exhibit
L 4 TERRA NOVA® Ofland Hotel
PLANNING &RESEARCH, INC‘ Twentynine Palms, California

PLANTING PALETTE NATIVE TREES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS ACACIA GREGGII CATCLAW ACACIA 24" BOX MULTI-TRUNK, DECIDUOUS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS DESERT WILLOW 24" BOX MULTI-TRUNK, DECIDUOUS, POLLINATOR PARKINSONIA FLORIDA BLUE PALO VERDE 24" BOX MULTI-TRUNK, SEMI-DECIDUOUS, POLLINATOR PROSOPIS GLANDULOSA HONEY MESQUITE 24" BOX MULTI-TRUNK, DECIDUOUS, THORNS, POLLINATOR YUCCA BREVIFOLIA JOSHUA TREE 24" BOX SINGLE OR MULTI-STEM ORNAMENTAL TREES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS PARKINSONIA PRAECOX PALO BREA 24" BOX MULTI-TRUNK, DECIDUOUS, POLLINATOR PINUS HALEPENSIS ALEPPO PINE NO. 15 CONT. EVERGREEN, PLANT AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT SOPHORA SECUNDIFLORA TEXAS MOUNTAIN LAUREL NO. 15 CONT. EVERGREEN, POLLINATOR, PLANT AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT PALMS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS BRAHEA ARMATA MEXICAN BLUE PALM 36" BOX SINGLE TRUNK, 5 FT. TRUNK HEIGHT WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA CALIFORNIA FAN PALM 36" BOX SINGLE TRUNK, 8 FT. TRUNK HEIGHT (NATIVE) DESERT ACCENT PLANTS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS AGAVE DESERTI DESERT AGAVE NO. 5 CONT. SINGLE OR CLUSTER, FULL IN CONTAINER (NATIVE) ASCLEPIAS SUBULATA RUSH MILKWEED NO. 1 CONT. EVERGREEN, POLLINATOR, PLANT AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT ECHINOCEREUS COCCINEUS SCARLET HEDGEHOG CACTUS NO. 5 CONT. POLLINATOR, PLANT AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT FOUQUIERIA SPLENDENS OCOTILLO NO. 5 CONT. PLANT AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT (NATIVE) HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA NO. 1 CONT. YUCCA SCHIDIGERA MOJAVE YUCCA NO. 5 CONT. NATIVE SHRUBS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS ENCELIA FARINOSE BRITTLEBUSH NO. 5 CONT. ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT NO. 5 CONT. NATIVE LARREA TRIDENTATA CREOSOTE-BUSH NO. 5 CONT. POLLINATOR (NATIVE) LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTENSCENS TEXAS RANGER NO. 5 CONT. SALVIA MOHAVENSIS MOJAVE SAGE NO. 5 CONT. EVERGREEN, POLLINATOR (NATIVE) SENEGALIA GREGGII ACACIA BUSH NO. 5 CONT. PREFERS ARROYOS SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS JOJOBA NO. 5 CONT. NATIVE SPHAERALCEA AMBIGUA DESERT GLOBEMALLOW NO. 5 CONT. POLLINATOR GROUNDCOVER / HERBACEOUS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS ABRONIA FRAGRANS FRAGRANT SAND VERBENA NO. 1 CONT. BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA DESERT MARIGOLD NO. 1 CONT. EPHEDRA NEVADENSIS MORMON TEA NO. 1 CONT. HESPERALOE PARVIFLORIA RED YUCCA NO. 1 CONT. MULENBERGIA RIGENS DEERGRASS NO. 1 CONT. OENOTHERA DELTOIDES DUNE PRIMROSE NO. 1 CONT. NATIVE VERBENA GOODDINGII SOUTHWESTERN MOCK VERVAIN NO. 1 CONT. ROCK & GRAVEL ACCENT BOULDERS LOCALLY SOURCED BOULDERS. SIZES VARY BETWEEN 18" DIA. - 36" DIA. NATIVE SOIL RAKE SMOOTH THROUGHOUT LANDSCAPE BEDS PATHWAY BOLLARD LIGHT SYMBOL MANUFACTURER TYPE ELEC. USE CCT DARK SKY COMPLIANT PERFORMANCE IN LIGHTING MIMIK 10 BOLLARD 1000 10.0 WATTS 3000 K YES VICINITY MAP SITE CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: - RCE - DATE NV5 42-829 COOK STREET, SUITE 104 (760) 341-3101 FAX (760) 341-5999 57142 BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS N Prosopis glandulosa (Honey Mesquite)
Agave deserti (Desert Agave) Yucca Brevifolia (Joshua Tree) Hesperaloe parviflora (Red Yucca) Erigonum fasciculatum (California Buckwheat) Yucca schidigera (Mojave Yucca) Larrea tridentata (Creosote Bush) Simmondsia chinensis (Jojoba) Salvia mohavensis (Mojave Sage) Spharalcea ambigua (Desert Globemallow) Abronia fragrans (Fragrant Sand Verbena)
Verbena gooddingii
(Southwestern Mock Vervain) OFLAND HOTEL CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 Pathway Bollard Light
Acacia greggii (Catclaw Acacia)
Sophora secundiflora (TexasMountain Laurel)

Omo n———--———-—
h—_----_--
_ mm-m
I. nosmmEmzo: 2.0m
ounce... .Nm
mea:
._.<<m3<:.:m .um_3m I<<< .4 Shoshone Valley .4-

pg. 1
City of Twentynine Palms
Conditions of Approval
Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Code Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit, GPA24-000002, REZ25- 000001, and DCA25-000004, and CUP24-000003, Ofland Resort Location: South of Twentynine Palms Highway and East of Lear Avenue PC Resolution No. 24-__
CC Resolution No. 24-__
CC Ordinance No. 24-__
Applicant: Ofland Hotels

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional approval is granted by the City Council, acting as the Approval Authority, for

1. A General Plan Amendment (GPA24-000002) to create the Open Space Conservation (OS-C) land use designation, re-designating the land use designation from Single-Family Residential - Estate (RS-E) to CommercialTourist (C-T) and OS-C, and to remove Shoshone Valley Road from Sullivan Road to the Twentynine Palms Highway from the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

2. A Rezoning (REZ25-000001) to redesignate the zoning on the subject site from RS-E to C-T and OS-C.

3. A Development Code Amendment (DCA 25-00004) to create the Open Space Conservation zone, including development standards.

4. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-000003) to allow the development of the resort on the Tourist Commercial portion of the property.

The development of the project includes:

General Description
The development of a luxury resort with 100 units and amenities including two lodges, pools and spas, recreational areas, playgrounds, food and beverage services, and 25 employee housing units. The Project may be developed in two phases. Each unit (100 units) will be approximately 384 square feet (SF) with an outdoor patio for a total of 38,400 SF. The main lodge is 4,590 SF located near the center of the resort, and includes pool and spa, lounge areas, retail space, offices, food and beverage space, restrooms and changing areas. The secondary lodge is 1,800 SF located north of the main lodge and includes a pool, lounge

pg. 2
space, restrooms and changing areas. Other recreational space includes an outdoor movie screen approximately 16 ft in height with an outdoor seating area, a stargazing area, gathering space, a garden, and playground area. The 25 employee housing units will be sited in three buildings totaling 5,945 SF located at the southwest quadrant of the property. The units will be a mix of manager suites and split units and include a shared community room and kitchen.

Employee housing includes one general manager suite with private living space and restroom, six manager suites with private restrooms, and 18 split employee units with one shared restroom per two units. Back of house facilities total 3,575 SF and include housekeeping storage and laundry room, and maintenance and equipment room. The Project also includes a private wastewater treatment package plant to provide on-site wastewater treatment service totaling 100 SF that will be located approximately 300 feet north of the northernmost unit.

The Project will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes 75 units, the main lodge, and 19 employee housing units. Phase 2 includes the remaining 25 units, secondary lodge, and 6 employee housing units.

The project is located at the southeast corner of Twentynine Palms Highway and Lear Avenue and is also identified as APN: 0614-121-15.

APPROVAL DATE:

EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL, IF NO CONSTRUCTION OCCURS: (two years after approval date)

GENERAL CONDITIONS
G1. All conditions are continuing conditions. Failure of the applicant and/or operator to comply with any of the said Conditions at any time may result in the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit and/or citation for code violation.

G2. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all applicable fees, including reimbursement for all city expenses in ensuing compliance with the Conditions of Approval.

G3. The applicant shall provide a signed copy of the Conditions of Approval to the Planning Division within ten (10) days of approval.

G4. No implementing permits (i.e. grading or building permits) will be issued or processed by the City of Twentynine Palms until all of the legislative actions associated with this development have been fully adopted.

G5. The applicant shall, at its sole cost and expense, indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by the City), release, and hold harmless the City and any

pg. 3
agency or instrumentality thereof, including any of its officers, employees, commissions, and agents (hereinafter the “Indemnities”), from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceedings, of any type or nature, arising out of or in any way relating to the processing and/or approval of this Project. The obligations set forth in this Condition shall include, but not be limited to, suits, damages, judgments, costs, expenses, liens, levies, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity against the Indemnitees, arising out of or relating to the processing or approval of this Project, without regard to any allegations of fault on the part of the Indemnities. In the event the obligation to defend or indemnify the Indemnitees as set forth herein should arise, upon demand by the Community Development Director the applicant shall within 10 calendar days, deposit an amount with the City which the Community Development Director reasonably deems necessary to secure such obligation. This deposit may be used by City to pay the defense or indemnification obligations arising hereunder; and, further, should any such amounts be utilized by the City the deposit shall be replenished by the applicant within 10 calendar days of any demand by the Community Development Director to do so. The amount of the deposit required hereunder may be increased or decreased at any time by the Community Development Director, in his discretion, based upon his determination as to the funds reasonably necessary at any given time to ensure compliance with the obligations hereof, and any demand to increase the deposit shall be complied with within 10 calendar days. Any amounts deposited and ultimately not utilized shall be returned to the applicant.

G6. The Applicant shall ascertain and comply with requirements of all State, County and Local agencies as are applicable to the proposed project.

G7. The applicant is required to obtain and maintain a current City of Twentynine Palms Business License.

G8. This Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void if construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the date of approval. Three two-year extensions of time may be granted by the City Council, in conformance with the City of Twentynine Palms Development Code. The applicant is responsible for the initiation of an extension request.

G9. On-site utilities shall be underground pursuant to Chapter 19.94 (Utilities) of the City’s Development Code, or as amended by City Council.

G10. Parking and on-site circulation shall be provided and maintained as identified on the approved site plan. Areas reserved for access drive aisles and or fire lanes shall be clearly designated.

pg. 4
G11. A minimum of one hundred thirty-two (132) parking stalls are required at full build out. Of those, 6 shall be handicapped (ADA) compliant, 6 shall be electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces, and another 19 shall be EV capable. All paved parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines with the two lines being located an equal 9 inches on either side of the stall sidelines. All regular parking stall shall be a minimum of 9’ x 19’ in size.

G12. All marking to include parking stalls, directional designation, no parking designation and fire lane designations shall be clearly defined and said marking shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

G13. The applicant shall install two trash enclosures sized to accommodate a trash container, recycling container and an organics recycling bin in conformance with Chapter 19.92 of the City’s Development Code. Trash enclosure shall be ADA compliant with pedestrian access.

G14. The property owner/applicant shall keep the property neat, clean, and in good physical condition including open spaces, sidewalks, lighting, driveways, parking areas, and landscaping.

G15. All outdoor lighting shall conform to Development Code Chapter 19.78 (Lighting Standards), shall be Dark Sky approved and shall be designed to not glare or reflect onto neighboring properties or public rights-of-way.

Outdoor lighting shall be shielded and limited to that required for security and safety purposes.

G16. All construction and improvements shall comply with Encroachments into Yards or Setbacks standards established in the Development Code for the underlying land use district.

G17. A sign permit shall be required for all exterior signage including wall and monument signage.

G18. No Special Events, Room Rental, or Temporary Use Permits will be issued until the project has been completed and provided full occupancy.

G19. The applicant shall submit final Landscape Plans to the Planning Division showing size, type and location of all plants and irrigation system.

Landscaping shall be installed at the quantity and quality that is presented on the plans. These plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.

G20. Outdoor sound amplification shall not conflict with the City’s noise ordinance and shall respect the quiet hours of 10p.m. to 7a.m.

pg. 5
G21. Outdoor lighting of any kind (including movie screens, televisions, projections, etc) shall be shielded and/or face downward to minimize light pollution and to comply with the City’s lighting ordinance.

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS – GENERAL
EG1. The project shall comply with all applicable City ordinances and resolutions.

EG2. All road easements required shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers.

All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances.

EG3. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, landscaping, utilities, etc., shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. No structures shall be placed on any part of the easements except those directly related to the purposes of said easements.

BUILDING AND SAFETY
B1. Applicant shall provide plans and obtain the required permits that comply with applicable provisions of the 2022 California Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes, the 2022 California Green Building Standards, and Title 24 Energy Code, Part 6
B2. All plans shall be stamped and wet signed by a California Licensed Engineer or Architect.

B3. Provide required ADA access plan (parking, path of travel, building access, restroom, ADA workspace, etc.) per 2022 CBC.

B4. Obtain San Bernardino County Fire approval for building and site improvements.

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS – PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE Drainage
E1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage plan with street layouts shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer showing provisions for receiving and conducting offsite and onsite tributary drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. This plan shall retain onsite drainage flows from a 100-year design storm, or as approved by the City Engineer.

pg. 6
E2. The final design of drainage improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

Grading
E3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer's engineer shall submit a comprehensive grading plan in conformance with, California Building Code and the requirements of the City.

E4. A grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer prior to any grading or other work done on the site.

E5. A preliminary soils report and a current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Engineering Department concurrently with the grading plan. The soils report shall include stability of the site as well as the grading requirements. The Soil Engineer shall state the "R" value (soils resistance) for the site, based upon a "TI" value set by the City Engineer.

Street Improvements
E6. A 60’ foot half-width street dedication along SR 62 shall be dedicated to the City prior to Grading Permit Issuance.

E7. A 30’ half-width street dedication along Shoshone Valley Road shall be dedicated to the City prior to Grading Permit Issuance.

E8. A 66’ full-width street dedication along Sullivan Road shall be dedicated to the City prior to Grading Permit Issuance.

E9. A 66’ full-width street dedication along Lear Avenue Road shall be dedicated to the City prior to Grading Permit Issuance.

E10. The following conditions denoted with an (*) are unique conditions for this project:
a) * An in-lieu street improvement fee for the improvement of SR 62 shall be required prior to building permits. The fees shall be approved by the City Engineer, based on an engineer’s estimate.
b) *Lear Avenue shall be constructed to the City of Twentynine Palms’ full-width Collector Street Standards. Improvements shall include curbs and gutters and sidewalks.
c) *The construction of Shoshone Valley Road is not required. Full width construction for Lear Avenue meets the nexus for this project.

pg. 7
d) *Sullivan Road shall be constructed to the City of Twentynine Palms’ full-width Local Road Standards from Lear avenue to the midpoint between Lear Avenue and Shoshone Valley Road. Full width construction for Sullivan Road meets the nexus for this project.

E11. The minimum structural section of all public streets shall be four (4) inches of asphalt concrete over compacted native soil. A soils report containing a design structural section based on a traffic index assigned by the City Engineer shall be submitted prior to the approval of street improvement plans.

E12. An encroachment permit separate from the grading onsite permit shall be obtained from the City of Twentynine Palms, prior to any construction occurring within the public right-of-way.

E13. Development Impact Fees (DIF) shall be paid by the developer prior to the issuance of building permits as per City enactment.

E14. Final improvement plans and profiles shall indicate the location of any existing utility which would affect construction and shall provide for its relocation at no cost to the City.

E15. All proposed construction of utilities adjacent to and onsite shall be underground.

E16. Any required street striping shall be thermoplastic as approved by the City Engineer.

E17. Soil percolation testing for the subsurface disposal system shall meet the standards of the San Bernardino Environmental Health Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City.

E18. The plans and specifications for the sewage disposal system, shall be approved the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to grading plan issuance.

FIRE DEPARTMENT
See attached Conditions of Approval letter from San Bernardino County Fire Department.

MDAQMD
See the attached Conditions of Approval letter from Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.

ENVIRONMENTAL – PRIOR TO GRADING PERMITS

pg. 8
BIO-1: Desert Tortoise
Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit on the Project site, pre-construction surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFWS 2019, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii).”
If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise is found onsite during construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps. No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without prior authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.

BIO-2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act
If possible, the removal of vegetation preparatory to construction shall occur
outside the nesting season (February 1 to August 31).

If avoidance of the nesting season is not possible, a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to construction activities. If no nests are found, construction may proceed. If active nests are found, a buffer zone of 500 feet for birds of prey and/or 300
feet for other unlisted birds will be put in place around the nest until the young have fledged.

BIO-3: Burrowing Owl
Two pre-construction avoidance surveys shall be performed prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. An initial avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to commencing ground-disturbance activities and a final survey carried out within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. Should the species be identified on the site, a qualified biologist shall consult with CDFW on the development and implementation of a comprehensive burrowing owl mitigation plan.

BIO-4: American Badger and San Diego Pocket Mouse
If American badger or San Diego pocket mouse is found onsite, and if impacts to the species cannot be avoided, work in the area shall cease, and a qualified biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a mitigation program.

BIO-5: Construction Worker WEAP Program

pg. 9
Implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be required to educate the construction crew of potential special status species present on the project site. The WEAP shall be conducted within one week of the initiation of construction, and shall be repeated as new workers/trades come onto the site. A recording of the original WEAP can be used for subsequent training.

CUL-1: Historic Site Preservation
The two prehistoric sites in the Project area identified as 4064-7 and 4064 18 shall be placed in clearly demarcated Environmentally Sensitive Areas during project construction. No construction activities shall be permitted in these areas.

CUL-2: Native American Monitoring
Earth-moving activities, including grading, grubbing, trenching, or excavations at the site shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and, if requested, a Native American monitor. The monitoring program should be coordinated with the Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, who may wish to participate. If any cultural materials more than 50 years of age are discovered, they shall be recorded and evaluated in the field. The monitors shall be prepared to recover artifacts quickly to avoid construction delays but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for controlled archaeological recovery if a substantial cultural deposit is encountered. The monitors shall determine when excavations have reached sufficient depth to preclude the occurrence of cultural resources, and when monitoring should conclude.

HYD-1 : Final Drainage Studies / Design
To assure that on- and off-site drainage do not redirect storm flows or cause surface water pollution, the following actions will be required in final Project design:

1. Proposed finished floor elevations for the development shall be determined by the Final Drainage Study. Finished floors elevations for the proposed buildings should be located at a minimum of 1’ above the highest ground elevation beneath the building footprint.

2. A Final Drainage Study shall address any modification or changes for the offsite and onsite drainage conditions. The Preliminary Drainage Study only addresses the existing offsite watershed basins.

pg. 10

3. Proposed retention basin design will be determined during final design based upon the final drainage study. Proposed retention basins should be sized to retain, at a minimum, the incremental increase in storm water runoff volume.

4. Runoff should follow existing drainage patterns when leaving the site.

TRA-1: Site Adjacent and Site Access Improvements
The Project shall adhere to the site adjacent and site access recommendations set forth in the Traffic Impact Analysis:

Lear Avenue & North Project Access (#5)
• Install a stop control on the westbound approach.
• Provide a westbound shared left-right turn lane.

Lear Avenue & Sullivan Road / South Project Access (#4) • Install a stop control on the southbound approach.
• Provide a westbound shared through-right turn lane.

The undersigned verifies that he/she has read the Conditions of Approval, understands each Condition, and agrees to adhere to the Conditions of Approval. ______________________________
Applicant Signature
______________________________
Applicant Name
______________________________
Date

San Bernardino County Fire Department
San Bernardino Office
SBGC
North Desert Office
HDGC
South Desert Office
(909) 387-4140 (760) 995-8201 (760) 995-8201
Date:

Project Name: Ofland Resort
Project Description: 100 detached hotel rooms plus 2 lodges and recreational facilities on 152 acre parcel.

Permit Number: FPLN-2025-00037
Location: , TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA
APN: 0614-121-15-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
City Project Proposal: Phase 1 to construct 75 383SF cabins, a 2450SF back of house structure, a 19 unit 4685SF employee housing
and 4590SF main lodge. Phase 2 to consist of 25
383SF cabins, a 700SF back of house, a six unit 1260SF
employee housing and a 1800SF lodge.

Sincerely,
The Office of the Fire Marshal
Community Safety Division
San Bernardino County Fire Department
Dear Applicant,
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the San Bernardino County Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in accordance with applicable local ordinances, codes, and/or recognized fire protection standards.

The Fire Conditions Attachment of this document sets forth the FIRE CONDITIONS and STANDARDS which are applied to this project.
05/08/2025

FIRE CONDITIONS ATTACHMENT
Date: 05/08/2025
Permit Number: FPLN-2025-00037
Location: , TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA
APN: 0614121150000

FIRE CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS
F01 Jurisdiction
The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Fire Department herein “Fire Department”. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current California Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, and standards of the Fire Department.

F02 Fire Fee
The required fire fees shall be paid to the San Bernardino County Fire Department/Community Safety Division.

F03 Fire Condition Letter Expiration
Fire Condition Letters shall expire on the date determined by the Planning Division or Building and Safety.

F06 Inspection by Fire Department
Permission to occupy or use the building (Certification of Occupancy or Shell Release) will not be granted until the Fire Department inspects, approves and signs off on the Building and Safety job card for “fire final”.

F09 Building Plans
Building Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

F10 Combustible Protection
Prior to combustibles being placed on the project site an approved all-weather fire apparatus access surface and operable fire hydrants with acceptable fire flow shall be installed. The topcoat of asphalt does not have to be installed until final inspection and occupancy.

F11 Combustible Vegetation
Combustible vegetation shall be removed as follows: a. Where the average slope of the site is less than 15% - Combustible vegetation shall be removed a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from all structures or to the property line, whichever is less. b. Where the average slope of the site is 15% or greater - Combustible vegetation shall be removed a minimum one hundred (100) feet from all structures or to the property line, whichever is less.

County Ordinance #3586

F14 Private Road Maintenance
The applicant shall construct and maintain all such roads. In addition, the applicant shall provide to the Fire Department a signed maintenance agreement as detailed in the General Requirement conditions for ongoing road maintenance and snow removal (where applicable). This shall include all primary and secondary access routes that are not otherwise maintained by a public agency.

F15 Access – 30% slope
Where the natural grade between the access road and building is in excess of thirty percent (30%), an access road shall be provided within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of all buildings. Where such access cannot be provided, a fire protection system shall be installed. Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.

F16 Access
The development shall have a minimum of two points of vehicular access. These are for fire/emergency equipment access and for evacuation routes. a. Single Story Road Access Width. All buildings shall have access provided by approved roads, alleys and private drives with a minimum twenty-six (26) foot unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height. b. Multi-Story Road Access Width. Fire apparatus access roadways serving buildings that are three (3) or more stories or thirty (30) feet or more in height shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height.

F16(a) Street Parking
Parking of vehicles shall not be allowed to obstruct fire apparatus access at any time. The following criteria shall be used to determine parking allowed on fire access roadways:
a) Parking is not permitted on roadways that are less than thirty-two (32) feet in width. b) Roadways that are a minimum of thirty-two (32) feet in width but less than forty (40) feet in width may have parallel parking on one (1) side of the roadway in accordance with County or City Standards. c) Roadways that are a minimum of forty (40) feet in width may be designated to have parallel parking on both sides of the roadway. For higher density development, public or private streets that are a minimum of thirty-six (36) feet in width may be allowed to have parking on both sides of the street with the approval of the Fire Code Official, taking into consideration additional access provisions and other factors. d) In addition, parking that is perpendicular or diagonal to the edge of the roadway shall not obstruct the required minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet for fire access.

F17 Access Road Grade
Fire access roadways shall not exceed a maximum of twelve (12%) percent grade at any point. Fire access roadways or driveways may be increased to fourteen (14%) percent grade for a distance not to exceed five hundred (500) feet.

Fire access roadways providing access to no more than two (2) one or two-family dwellings may be increased to a maximum of sixteen (16%) percent grade not to exceed five hundred (500) feet. Grades across the width of a fire access roadways shall not exceed five (5%) percent. In order to accommodate proper angles of approach and departure, gradient shall not exceed five (5%) percent change along any ten (10) foot section.

F19 Surface

Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Road surface shall meet the approval of the Fire Chief prior to installation. All roads shall be designed to 85% compaction and/or paving and hold the weight of Fire Apparatus at a minimum of 80K pounds.

Currently the proposed internal roadways show as "compacted base". An "Alternative Means and Methods Request" shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any building plan approval justifying the use of compacted base in place of paving/asphalt.

F20 Access – 150+ feet
Roadways exceeding one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be approved by the Fire Department. Roadways shall be extended to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building.

F22 Primary Access Paved
Prior to building permits being issued to any new structure, the primary access road shall be paved or an allweather surface and shall be installed as specified in the General Requirement conditions including width, vertical clearance and turnouts.

F23 Secondary Access Paved
Prior to building permits being issued to any new structure, the secondary access road shall be paved or an allweather surface and shall be installed as specified in the General Requirement conditions including width, vertical clearance and turnouts.

F24 Fire Lanes
The applicant shall submit a fire lane plan with the building construction plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Fire lane curbs shall be painted red. "No Parking, Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on public/private roads in accordance with the approved plan.

F25 Street Sign
This project is required to have an approved street sign (temporary or permanent). The street sign shall be installed on the nearest street corner to the project. Installation of the temporary sign shall be prior any combustible material being placed on the construction site. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of the first structure, the permanent street sign shall be installed.

F26 Fire Flow Test
Please provide a fire flow test report from your water purveyor that has been completed in the last six months demonstrating that the fire flow demand is satisfied.

F27 Water System
Prior to any land disturbance, the water systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using California Fire Code. The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 2,000 GPM for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow is based on a 4,590 sq.ft. structure.

F28 Water System Commercial
A water system approved and inspected by the Fire Department is required. The system shall be operational, prior to any combustibles being stored on the site. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet apart (as measured along vehicular travel-ways) and no more than three hundred (300) feet from any portion of a structure.

F35 Hydrant Marking
Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by the Fire Department. In areas where snow removal occurs, or non-paved roads exist, the blue reflective hydrant marker shall be posted on an approved post along the side of the road, no more than three (3) feet from the hydrant and at least six (6) feet high above the adjacent road.

F36 Sprinkler Installation Letter
The applicant shall submit a letter to the Fire Department agreeing and committing to installation of a fire protection system prior to the building inspection for drywall and insulation.

F37 Fire Sprinkler-NFPA #13
An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA Pamphlet #13 and Fire Department standards is required.

The applicant shall hire a licensed fire sprinkler contractor. The fire sprinkler contractor shall submit plans with hydraulic calculations, manufacturers specification sheets and a letter from a licensed structural (or truss) engineer with a stamp verifying the roof is capable of accepting the point loads imposed on the building by the fire sprinkler system design to the Fire Department for approval. The contractor shall submit plans showing type of storage and use with the applicable protection system. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

F40 Roof Certification
A letter from a licensed structural (or truss) engineer shall be submitted with an original wet stamp at time of fire sprinkler plan review, verifying the roof is capable of accepting the point loads imposed on the building by the fire sprinkler system design.

F41 Fire Alarm
A manual, automatic or manual and automatic fire alarm system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all applicable codes is required. The applicant shall hire a licensed fire alarm contractor. The fire alarm contractor shall submit detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

F45 Fire Extinguishers
Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department.

F46 Hood and Duct Suppression
An automatic hood and duct fire extinguishing system is required. The applicant shall hire a licensed fire protection contractor to submit detailed plans with manufactures’ specification sheets to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

F47 Above Ground Storage Tank
Above Ground Storage Tank plans shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County Fire Department for review and approval prior to any installation on-site. The required Fees shall be paid at time of plan submittal.

F48 Material Identification Placards
The applicant shall install Fire Department approved material identification placards on the outside of all buildings and/or storage tanks that store or plan to store hazardous or flammable materials in all locations deemed appropriate by the Fire Department. Additional placards shall be required inside the buildings when chemicals are segregated into separate areas. Any business with an N.F.P.A. 704 rating of 2-3-3 or above shall be required to install an approved key box vault on the premises, which shall contain business access keys and a business plan.

F51 Commercial Addressing
Commercial and industrial developments of 100,000 sq. ft or less shall have the street address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum eight (8) inches in height and with a one (1) inch stroke. The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be electrically illuminated (internal or external). Where the building is two hundred (200) feet or more from the roadway, additional nonilluminated address identification shall be displayed on a monument, sign or other approved means with numbers that are a minimum of six (6) inches in height and three-quarter (¾) inch stroke.

Individual cabins shall be addressed in accordance with SBCoFPD standards.

F54 Illuminated Site Diagram
The applicant shall install at each entrance to a multi-family complex an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex, which shows the location of each unit and each fire hydrant. Plans for the illuminated site diagram shall be submitted on the construction plans
F55 Key Box
An approved Fire Department key box is required. In commercial, industrial and multi-family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Lock (Knox ®).

F56 Override Switch
Where an automatic electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch (Knox ®) is required.

F66 Compressed Gasses/Beverage
Dispensing
A submittal of compressed gasses in storage or use including asphyxiant, irritant, and radioactive gasses complying with the California Fie Code, California Mechanical Code, and NFPA is required. The applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to submit plans for review and approval by the fire department. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

F69 Haz-Mat Approval

The applicant shall contact the San Bernardino County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division (909) 386- 8401 for review and approval of building plans, where the planned use of such buildings will or may use hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste materials.

F71 Proposal Changes
Any changes to this proposal shall require new Fire Department condition letter.

038. 95 Emma:RH 955% EmsmmaBoaGiana Agmaos rmmHanoiam9a W358; m3 3395 mo”Em038$ :29 38. and. 1:6 0335 ESQ @3688 En 9292553 omm3st » 2:: 3o :55 mag83958 Banana 25 Emma?woo;mummum?808303: 93mm, wma?amgmoonman333% mazmoamu 85 NmoBEo?orosmmbmSam. 125 38. 09 55% ca 65on
5 25 3558. ‘28 32% <3: 08% o: 3 moaom3 En 839. omEa GPmoHo£8. 1:5 50? :o moan? 2E commmwmsmm :5 OR: mumoo 0030230: mommmsmmos 8 38036 26 a mm $58 3 Hungarian
8 9:8on 35 mega? £883 2&3 955m
mama/amama 05:883. moH38. 0on <38

8.0on 8»: 960mm man:mow—m885m:
adism <38
mmSEENEm88Hommam/i25 cm
$58358 @0603?
8 mHERBS: ommoE,mama
3038”mg: 3833: 90 2:5
328E. Ham«Sum masowsm

38.007%?”meEgomwom:
23 :5 9.8.02 mm@3683 man633 on :5 53330: 33520 8 8 m:”Em ? 89.53 :5» $5 0250106239.385
mEmma0352 En: AUOEmew90
o”. 125 Boa 9583 Cam”005:2 Em: #3838305? 85 Dam”005:2 Em:

WES @3353 02:8:st Um<£ouBaE Q8063 Emsbwsmacz?smawnmmmaQ 9Q omaéasQEso wEBm 3mm >930 Womm HéasQEBm was? 0? Swan o
2:: Win #8 >amoraoa
wmg:
g @8089
a one:9E 03 a8
9m: :5 833058503 _<_o_.m<m Ummmz>= 05:2 EmsmmmBm?2min" wanvomqmmu mxmncgm 9329 Kwom um} ><m:cm. SnHoEEPn> mmwmwhwpo wmobnmpmmp ohm<m 324 3:. 095.2% 0 gmaoumamznUmmnqmnu Q00 ae. Q .0 . o/ Q»
. . 60 \m96
m 035m msgacn Ne avg—Em0:35 ?ag— 093 Ummao? Saran” EEE.Z_U>D_<_Uhm.mo< o @§U>D_<_U 88

>2 3358558 35 mooamm339:3 8QO gm wmawwsm 883 mg: UmmHmUENom<39 0:950? ma?a:OH 33550 E3303 $399: 8 0:358 Sago Ema/5mam”9.08 <oronmH$29 35 2:5 985:. 1—138monoa8 3963 38.03-8589 ~30on 058 R23 2:989 35 05m: 3% 9.8.09-8589 Quowo? €35: mg325. >= 092 $35: mcammomm 2:3: 9m 38.a3 mammg: comHmUENaQ3 5:5: 3 w?wmm?om <wmm§z8=V 0033030? 05932: 3 099. 385m 2333: 8 6335: Sago mamaé mam”#05 o 0E3: Emma“:69.85 mo””5%5300:3505 308mm 3:633: 9m: 55% no" Go$83? 559 DEER Wan N3 EoEQEmug: :2 55:3 8” 5838 OoBUcmao:msmwsom 2::
m Bussmmo?amwBmowCB oosassocmgnaw$8813: 3 8 mo3me arm—Env5: m3Ea 8603:st 8 8392 mamEmsism909553. E, was:96 m3 £5303 ?ammawsm”EmKnob£850 8ng Ba 3 303 $3.33“ @838: :39 OH waamsaQ8032 0 2:: m:$965835 58m
5 W55 A8 I ?ammadymESQ 09$.on O: .m
> 2.8: mumEH No$55 0385 WomenNowmI $588?“

City of Twentynine Palms Project #24001838: General Plan Text and Map Amendment, Development Code Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, CUP24-000003, GPA24- 000002, REZ25-000001 and DCA25-000004
Response to Comments
The City received 33 letters and/or emails during and after the public review period for the Ofland Hotel Project. Responses to those letters are provided below in the order received. The comment is first duplicated verbatim, and a response provided on a topical basis. Please note that typographical, spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected. The letters are provided in Appendix A.

1. Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
Letter dated May 14, 2025
Comment 1.A.

The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (District) has received the Request for Comments for the Ofland Hotel Project. The Ofland Hotel proposes the development of a luxury resort with 100 units and amenities including two lodges, pools and spas, recreational areas, playgrounds, food and beverage services, and 25 employee housing units. The Project may be developed in two phases. The hotel will occur on 42 acres at the center of the 152-acre site. The balance, 110 acres, will be assigned the Open Space Conservation designation to preserve the land as open space in perpetuity.

Response 1.A.

The comment describes the proposed project, and requires no further response.

Comment 1.B.

We have reviewed the project as proposed and based on the information available to us at this time, the District requires that the owner/operator obtain a Dust Control Plan (DCP) for the planned project. The most current Dust Control Plan Requirements and Dust Control Plan Submission Form are available at https://www.mdagmd.ca.gov/permitting/compliance-forms.

Other District requirements include:
• Signage compliant with Rule 403 Attachment B shall be erected at each project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.
• Use a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes to minimize visible fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.
• All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The owner/operator shall maintain the wind fencing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule or project-specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

• All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces, and clean any project-related trackout within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion. • Obtain District permits for any miscellaneous process equipment that may not be exempt under District Rule 219 including, but not limited to: Internal Combustion Engines with a manufacture's maximum continuous rating greater than or equal to 50 brake horsepower. • Comply with all applicable provisions listed in Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust Control Response 1.B.

The comment lists the District’s requirements, and provides guidance to the City and the applicant regarding District permitting standards. As described on pages 22 through 27 of the Initial Study, the project will be required to comply with District requirements throughout its construction and operation. The standards and requirements listed by the commenter are consistent with the analysis in the Initial Study.

Comment 1.C.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this planning document. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (760) 245-1661, extension 1846, or Bertrand Gaschot at extension 4020.

Response 1.C.

The City thanks the District for participating in its CEQA process for this project.

2. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
Email dated May 14, 2025
Comment 2.A.

We received the notice of intent for the Ofland Project. Thanks for keeping us in the loop, we’ll reach out if we have any questions or comments. I’ll be out the next two weeks, so Nicole or Erin can help field any questions May 17 through 1 June.

Response 2.A.

The City thanks the Marine Corps for acknowledging receipt of the Initial Study, and notes that no further correspondence was received.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

3. Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
Email dated May 14, 2025
Comment 3. A.

Thank you for contacting the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) regarding the above referenced project. YSMN appreciates the opportunity to review the project documentation, which was received by our Cultural Resources Management Department on May 14th, 2025, pursuant to CEQA (AB 52) and CA PRC 21080.3.1. However, we were unable to open the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the Tribe’s security measures. Would you please upload the Initial Study to this folder so we can review the document?
Thank you again. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you have trouble opening the link.

Response 3.A.

The City provided the Tribe with the Initial Study as requested.

4. Yahaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
Email dated May 15, 2025
Comment 4.A.

We have received the documents that were uploaded this morning. However, we did not receive the proposed project plans showing the depth of the development.

We are also requesting copies of the DPR forms for the newly uncovered cultural resources from the survey (Appendix 3).

Furthermore, based on reading the cultural report, the number of pre-contact resources, and our knowledge of the area and our concerns expressed in our initial communication, YSMN has determined that there is a high probability of encountering Tribal Cultural Resources. As a result, YSMN requests that the following language be made a part of the project/permit/plan conditions:

CUL-1 Monitoring and Treatment Plan
A Monitoring and Treatment Plan that is reflective of the project mitigation (“Cultural Resources” and “Tribal Cultural Resources”) shall be completed by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency for dissemination to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN, also known as San Manuel Band of Mission Indians). Once all parties review and approve the plan, it shall be adopted by the Lead Agency – the plan must be adopted prior to permitting for the project. Any and all findings will be subject to the protocol detailed within the Monitoring and Treatment Plan.

CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
Due to the heightened cultural sensitivity of the proposed project area, an archaeological monitor with at least 3 years of regional experience in archaeology shall be present for all grounddisturbing activities that occur within the proposed project area (which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching,

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], and archaeological work). A sufficient number of archaeological monitors shall be present each work day to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage.

CUL-3 Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to project initiation, a qualified archaeologist should be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The training should be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Tribal representatives from the Consulting Tribes, such as Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN, also known as San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) will be allowed to attend and/or participate in the WEAP training should they elect to and will be given ten days' notice prior to the training. Archaeological sensitivity training should include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find.

TCR-1 Tribal Monitoring
Due to the heightened cultural sensitivity of the proposed project area, at the discretion of the consulting tribe(s), Tribal monitor(s) authorized to represent YSMN shall be present for all ground disturbing activities that occur within the proposed project area (which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], and archaeological work). At the discretion of the consulting tribes, a sufficient number of Tribal monitors shall be present each work day to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage. A Monitoring and Treatment Plan that is reflective of the project mitigation (“Cultural Resources” and “Tribal Cultural Resources”) shall be completed by the archaeologist, as detailed within CUL-1, and submitted to the Lead Agency for dissemination to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN). Once all parties review and agree to the plan, it shall be adopted by the Lead Agency – the plan must be adopted prior to permitting for the project. Any and all findings will be subject to the protocol detailed within the Monitoring and Treatment Plan.

TCR-2 Treatment of
Cultural Resources During Project Implementation
If a pre-contact cultural resource is discovered during project implementation, ground-disturbing activities shall be suspended 60 feet around the resource(s), and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed.

The Project Archaeologist shall develop a research design that shall include a plan to evaluate the resource for significance under CEQA criteria. Representatives from YSMN, the Archaeologist, and the Lead Agency shall confer regarding the research design, as well as any testing efforts needed to delineate the resource boundary. Following the completion of evaluation efforts, all parties shall confer regarding the resource's archaeological significance, its potential as a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR), and avoidance (or other appropriate treatment) of the discovered resource. Removal of any cultural resource(s) shall be conducted with the presence of a Tribal monitor representing the Tribe, unless otherwise decided by YSMN. All plans for

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the applicant and YSMN prior to implementation, and all removed material shall be temporarily curated on-site.

It is the preference of YSMN that removed cultural material be reburied as close to the original find location as possible. However, should reburial within/near the original find location during project implementation not be feasible, then a reburial location for future reburial shall be decided upon by YSMN, the landowner, and the Lead Agency, and all finds shall be reburied within this location.

Additionally, in this case, reburial shall not occur until all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project have been completed, all monitoring has ceased, all cataloguing and basic recordation of cultural resources have been completed, and a final monitoring report has been issued to Lead Agency, CHRIS, and YSMN. All reburials are subject to a reburial agreement that shall be developed between the landowner and YSMN outlining the determined reburial process/location, and shall include measures and provisions to protect the reburial area from any future impacts.

Should it occur that avoidance, preservation in place, and on-site reburial are not an option for treatment, the landowner shall relinquish all ownership and rights to this material and confer with YSMN to identify an American Association of Museums (AAM)-accredited facility within the County that can accession the materials into their permanent collections and provide for the proper care of these objects in accordance with the 1993 CA Curation Guidelines. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository shall be developed between the landowner and museum that legally and physically transfers the collections and associated records to the facility. This agreement shall stipulate the payment of fees necessary for permanent curation of the collections and associated records and the obligation of the Project developer/applicant to pay for those fees.

All draft records/reports containing the significance and treatment findings and data recovery results shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency and YSMN for their
review and comment. After approval from all parties, the final reports and site/isolate records are to be submitted to the local CHRIS Information Center, the Lead Agency, and YSMN.

TCR-3 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains
If human remains are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

Response 4.A.

The City will, as requested by the Tribe, include the conditions of approval listed in the comment in the project’s conditions of approval. The City reserves the right to eliminate redundancies in the language when preparing the conditions of approval, and also notes that as it relates to the discovery of human remains, the City will comply with California law. The comment does not provide any additional information relevant to cultural or tribal cultural resources, and no further response is required.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 4.B.

Jason Laid, the Cultural Lands Manager and Ethnobotanist (cc’d), can provide more information and contact information for San Manuel-approved Tribal monitors.

Also, we would like the IS/MND to be changed to reflect Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation interaction with this project, including YSMN ini2a2ng Tribal consulta2on and requesting more information on February 12, 2025.

Please provide a draft and the final copy of the project/permit/plan conditions so that YSMN may review the included language. If you should have any further questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience, as I will be your Point of Contact (POC) for YSMN with respect to this project.

Response 4.B.

The City will provide the contact information to the applicant regarding monitors, and will provide the Tribe with the conditions of approval for the project. Finally, the Tribe’s participation in the Tribal Consultation process is incorporated into the record by this reference.

5. Kerrie Aley
Email dated May 18, 2025
Comment 5.A.

It seems to me that the Notice of Intent and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Ofland Resort are incomplete, per CEQA as it does not include the environmental impact of the contingent proposed Solar Plant/ upzoning to comply with SB330 Housing Crisis Act.

An agency is generally not permitted to ,'segment" of "piecemeal" a project into small parts if the effect is to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts. This rule arises from the definition of "proiect" under CEQA which includes the phrase "whole of the action." The project definition and Negative Declaration of both projects should be rewritten to reflect the entirety of these projects which both are proposed to be codependent on receiving discretionary approval.

Response 5.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, the two projects are independent of each other, and neither relies on the other for implementation. The description in the Initial Study is intended to demonstrate that the City is complying with SB 330, and is not the only means available to it in complying with the law. This is a land use policy issue, and not strictly a CEQA issue. The Initial Study demonstrates that the City has identified an option to assure compliance with law. The City will consider compliance with SB 330 as part of the policy analysis that is considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. The discussion in the Initial Study is provided in the context of land use policy for the project, and is not tied to the solar project which is proposed elsewhere in the City.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

The environmental impacts associated with the solar project are being analyzed separately, as is appropriate and correct under CEQA. Should that project not be approved, the City will be responsible for identifying another site under SB 330.

The Initial Study correctly analyzes the impacts of the project on the environment, as required by CEQA. No further analysis is required.

Comment 5.B.

Are there other cumulative impacts unaccounted for from the 29 Palms Downtown Master Plan, other development projects and the commercial use of homes as Airbbnbs? Response 5.B.

The cumulative impacts of the project are addressed throughout the Initial Study as appropriate.

The comment’s overbroad statements do not provide substantial evidence that either the Downtown Specific Plan, located 5 miles to the east, or the location of “air bnbs” in the City would have any impact on the proposed project or the City as a whole.

Comment 5.C.

Another issue- Has 29 Palms updated their General Plan/Land Use Element. The last I heard this effort was delayed. If so there are other unaddressed egal issues with this the proposed.rezoning and General Plan Land Use Amendments.

Response 5.C.

The comprehensive updating of the City’s General Plan has no impact on the proposed project.

The proposed project includes General Plan amendments to create a new Open Space designation to assure conservation in perpetuity of 100 acres of the project site. The City has legislative authority, granted under California Government Code, to modify its General Plan periodically for specific proposals, and is not required to comprehensively update its General Plan on a particular schedule, with the exception of its Housing Element. The City’s Housing Element is currently certified by the State, and the General Plan is in full force and effect. The commenter does not identify any environmental impacts which could result from their comment, and no additional analysis in the Initial Study is required.

6. Antony Van Couvering
Email dated May 20, 2025
Comment 6.A.

I am writing as a resident of Twentynine Palms with my strong concerns about the Ofland development in Indian Cove.

The resort is planning to make a lot of money. That’s fine, but they should be held to the same standards the rest of us are. I didn’t notice any special dispensations when I apply for permits from the city. Rather the opposite — I had to replace an entire wall just to rewew my vacation rental permit, a wall that had never cause an issue before..

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

No corners were cut with my permit — why the special treatment here? Response 6.A.

The comment is noted, but is overbroad and does not specify what “special treatment” the commenter is referring to. The City has prepared an Initial Study under CEQA, which includes mitigation measures where required to assure less than significant impacts on the environment.

The City will also prepare conditions of approval with which the project must comply if approved.

No further response to this comment can be made.

Comment 6.B.

This is especially shocking because the things you are considering waiving — an environmental review— concerns our endangered desert tortoises, as much a symbol of our desert as Joshua Trees are.

Recently the County of Sen Berarndino rejected a proposal for a resort in Wonder Valley because they found that there were in fact desert tortoises burrows on the property despite all the assurances (and private “studies”) that didn’t show any.

What this shows is that self-assessment cannot be trusted.

Response 6.B.

The commenter is incorrect in their statement that an environmental review has not been undertaken. The City prepared an Initial Study, and determined that the project’s impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. The Initial Study correctly discloses that although the professional biologist who surveyed the site did not identify either individual desert tortoise or their sign, the site does provide suitable habitat for the species, and imposes Mitigation Measure BIO1 to assure that impacts to the species are reduced to less than significant levels (page 32). The mitigation measure specifically requires pre-construction surveys, the cessation of construction activities if a member of the species is found during construction on the site, and compliance with federal USFWS protocols for the desert tortoise, consistent with the Endangered Species Act.

This mitigation measure will assure that impacts to the species, should they occur on the site, will be reduced to less than significant levels.

As it relates to actions by the County of San Bernardino, the City has no authority in this regard, and is undertaking its own public review and public hearing process to consider the project that has been proposed.

Comment 6.C.

Why are you planning to skirt the regulations when the desert is our most precious resource? I will make my voice loudly heard to make sure that for-profit enterprises that degrade our environment must follow the rules like everyone else.

Please respect the will of the electorate and make sure that this planned resort follow the law.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 6.C.

Please see Responses 6.A. and 6.B. The City has complied with CEQA in considering the impacts of the proposed project, and will impose conditions of approval on the project, should it be approved. The City has, and will continue to comply with the requirements of law in processing the project.

7. Cynthia Stoddard
Email dated May 23, 2025
Comment 7.A.

Why are you and city officials so dead set on ruining what charm our city has? Indian Cove is an exclusive and lovely neighborhood. To the south, is the national park and speaking as a retired park archaeological technician, it is an area that annually floods and carries important archaeological artifacts to the north every time it rains.

I certainly hope you have addressed this important issue in your environmental impact statement.

What is the point of zoning neighborhoods “ residential” when you allow big commercial hotels under the guise of air B&B’s into our best neighborhoods? Thanks for ruining our best neighborhoods, City Council! Response 7.A.

The Initial Study includes a comprehensive cultural resources report (Appendix D), and a summary of the findings of that report in the text of the Initial Study. As described on pages 34 through 38 of the Initial Study, two prehistoric sites were identified by the project archaeologist, and are required to be clearly demarcated and excluded from construction activities (Mitigation Measure CUL-1, page 37). In addition, all construction activities must be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor (Mitigation Measure CUL-2, page 37-38). These mitigation measures will assure that impacts to cultural and Tribal resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. Also please see Response 4.A., above, which assures that cultural resources will be protected in the project’s conditions of approval, as requested by the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

As it relates to the commenter’s opinions regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment and the protection of residential neighborhoods, this is a policy issue which will be addressed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Also please see Response 5.C.

8. California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Letter dated May 23, 2025
Comment 8.A.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from the City of Twentynine Palms (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub.

Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G.

Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Ofland Development
Objective: The Project proposes to develop a luxury resort with 100 units, 2 lodges, pools, recreational areas, playgrounds, beverage services, and 25 employee housing units on undeveloped land. The Project is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase 1 will construct 75 units, the main lodge, and 19 employee housing units. Phase 2 will construct 25 units, secondary lodge, and 6 employee housing units. The Project proposes roadway improvements along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road. Lear Avenue will be extended south approximately 0.5 miles in length and Sullivan Road will be extended approximately 550 feet in length. All access roads and driveways will be paved with asphalt. The Project will be constructed on approximately 42 acres at the centermost location of the approximate 152-acre site. The remainder of the approximate 110 acres will be designated as “Open Space Conservation” and will be preserved in perpetuity as open space. The Open Space designation will form a buffer on all sides of the parcel as follows: 500 feet in depth (west); 800 feet in depth (east); 600 feet in depth (north); 500 feet in depth (south). Currently the approximate 152-acre parcel is designated as “Single-Family Residential-Estate” under the City’s General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map, but the Project proposes to zone approximately 42 acres in the centermost of the parcel as “Tourist Commercial”, and approximately 110 acres on all sides of the parcel as “Open Space Conservation”, allowing the development of the hotel and associated structures and the Open Space designation.

Location: The Project is located within the Mojave Desert in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, State of California at the southeast corner of Lear Avenue and Twentynine Palms Highway, at Assessor’s Parcel Number 0614-121-15.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Timeframe: Construction of the Project is proposed to occur over a 1-year period, starting in June 2025 and ending in June 2026.

Response 8.A.

The comment provides a description of the Department’s role and the project’s plans, and requires no further response.

Comment 8.B.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Twentynine Palms in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document.

COMMENT #1: Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)
Section IV. Biological Resources; Page 30
Issue: The Project has the potential to result in permanent and temporary loss, degradation, and impacts to desert tortoise habitat. The Project may result in the take of desert tortoise, a CESA listed threatened and candidate endangered species, during construction of the Project and the life of the Project. California Fish and Game Code Section 86 defines "take" as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”.

Specific impact: Project related activities may result in direct or indirect take of desert tortoise by reducing/eliminating habitat for the species, restricting species movement, or causing injury or mortality.

Why impact would occur: The MND indicates that the Project site contains suitable habitat for desert tortoise but their sign was not observed at the time the surveys were conducted on October 26, 2023. CDFW would like to note that desert tortoise could have moved into the Project area since the site was last surveyed and be present at the time of construction. Additionally, the general biological resources assessment that was conducted on October 26, 2023 did not follow the 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) survey guidance2, which is the CDFW recommended protocol, and thus focused surveys for desert tortoise are needed to appropriately assess presence/absence of desert tortoise.

Evidence impact would be significant: Desert tortoise was recently proposed to be uplisted from a threatened to endangered species under CESA, signifying the continued need to conserve the species and the importance to avoid impacts to the species and its habitat. Desert tortoise populations have declined significantly in recent decades as a result of human activities in desert tortoise habitat including land development, off-road vehicle use, overgrazing, agricultural development, and military activities (USFWS 2011)3. In addition, predation from ravens and the spread of invasive plant species also pose a threat to desert tortoises. The desert tortoise population in the western Mojave Desert has declined by 90% since the 1980s. Desert tortoises

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

can take up to 20 years to reach sexual maturity, which limits their ability to recover from even small losses in population numbers (USFWS 2011).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) to Reduce Impacts to Less than Significant: CDFW appreciates that the draft MND provided a mitigation measure, BIO-1, to minimize the Project’s impacts to desert tortoise. CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-1 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) for inclusions in the final MND.

Mitigation Measure: BIO-1; Desert tortoise
Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit and any ground disturbing activities occurring on the Project site, pre-construction surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFWS 2019, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii).” shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise or its sign is found onsite during surveys construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps and the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts to desert tortoise. If impacts to desert tortoise cannot be avoided, nNo take of the tortoise(s) shall may occur without prior authorization (i.e., ITP) from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.

Response 8.B.

The commenter accurately describes that the site provides suitable habitat for the desert tortoise, and that the Initial Study addresses impacts to the species in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The edits to BIO-1 proposed by the commenter are generally clarifications of the text, and will be incorporated into the final Initial Study as follows.

Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit and any ground disturbing activities occurring on the Project site, pre-construction surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFWS 2019, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii).” shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If a desert tortoise is found during surveys, the applicant shall secure an Incidental Take Permit from the appropriate regulatory agencies.

If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise is found onsite during construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without an Incidental Take Permit from the appropriate regulatory agencies. prior authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.

These changes provide clarifications to the mitigation measure, and do not significantly change or add to the information provided in the Initial Study. These changes continue to reduce impacts to desert tortoises as a result of the proposed project.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 8.C.

COMMENT #2: Nesting Birds
Section IV. Biological Resources; Page 31
Issue: The Project may have impacts on nesting birds, including CESA-listed birds, Species of Special Concern (SSC), and common birds that are subject to Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Specific impact: The Project could result in direct take associated with grading, vegetation removal, and vehicle and equipment strike and indirect take associated with Project operations such as attracting predators and displacement. Further, the Project may lead to the reduction of habitat and habitat quality. For example, the Project is likely to permanently remove avian species’ foraging and nesting habitat.

Why impact would occur: The MND states that the Project site contains suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a CDFW SSC. Additionally, CDFW determined that the Project site has the possibility to support LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). LeConte’s thrasher is a CDFW SSC and a yearlong resident in southern California, but neither the MND nor the Biological Resources Assessment analyzed potential impacts to LeConte’s thrasher.

Additionally, the October 26, 2023 survey was conducted outside of the time of year when bird activity is high; for example, when birds are mating/nesting in addition to foraging. Therefore, CDFW is concerned that impacts to bird species were not properly assessed. Furthermore, mitigation measure BIO-2 requires only a nesting bird pre-construction survey if vegetation removal is occurring between February 1 and August 31. CDFW would like to clarify that a preconstruction nesting bird survey is needed prior to construction regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided. This is considering that the timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.).

Evidence impact would be significant: It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to avoid take of all nesting birds. Fish & G. Code § 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish & G. Code § 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Fish & G. Code § 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) to Reduce Impacts to Less than Significant: CDFW appreciates that the MND provided a mitigation measure to minimize the Project’s impacts to nesting birds. CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-2 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) for inclusions in the final MND.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Mitigation Measure: BIO-2; Migratory Bird Treaty Act
If possible, the removal of vegetation and grading preparatory to construction shall occur outside the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season is not possible, A a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to construction activities. If no nests are found, construction may proceed. If active nests are found, a buffer zone of 500 feet for birds of prey and/or 300 feet for other unlisted birds will be put in place around the nest and work within the buffer shall be avoided until the young have fledged as determined by the qualified biologist.

Response 8.C.

The comment is noted. As described in the Initial Study, the project has the potential to impact migratory birds. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 protects these birds, and assures that nesting birds will be protected. The edits to the mitigation measure proposed by the commenter do not change the intent or implementation of the measure, and are not necessary to protect migratory birds. No change to the Initial Study is required.

Comment 8. D.

COMMENT #3: Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Section IV. Biological Resources; Page 31
Issue: The Project site has the potential to provide suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for burrowing owl, a CESA candidate species. Based on review of the MND and Biological Resources Assessment, no habitat assessment nor focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted within or surrounding the Project site. Despite this, the Biological Resources Assessment identifies suitable habitat for burrowing owl on site.

If the Project, including Project construction or any Project related activity during the life of this Project, could result in the take of a CESA-listed species, CDFW recommends that the Project proponent seek appropriate authorization prior to Project implementation.

Specific Impact: The Biological Resource assessment recommended a focused survey for burrowing owl consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation4 in consideration that burrowing owl habitat is present on site. The survey conducted on October 23, 2023 was not focused in nature; therefore, the presence of burrowing owl across the Project was not properly analyzed and impacts to burrowing many be significant if burrowing owl is present.

Furthermore, mitigation measure BIO-3 only requires two surveys prior to ground disturbing activities when breeding surveys according to the 2012 Staff Report should be conducted to appropriately identify burrowing owl.

Why impact would occur: Impacts to burrowing owl may be significant if burrowing owl and their sign are not properly identified through protocol level surveys. Burrowing owls have a high potential to move into suitable habitat prior to and during construction activities. Burrowing owls also frequently move into disturbed areas since they are adapted to highly modified habitats (Chipman et al. 2008; Coulombe 1971)5&6. Potential Project impacts to burrowing owl include take of burrowing owls, their nests, or eggs and the destruction of nesting, foraging, or overwintering habitat.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Evidence impact would be significant: On October 10, 2024, the Fish and Game Commission determined that burrowing owl warrants protection as a candidate species under CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). During the candidacy period, burrowing owl is afforded the same protection as a threatened and endangered species under CESA. The Project, as described, may result in injury, direct mortality, indirect mortality, disruption of breeding behavior, and/or may reduce reproductive capacity of the species. CDFW considers the direct and indirect take of burrowing owl, and the loss of the species’ habitat as a significant impact, unless mitigated to a level of less than significant and in compliance with State (i.e., Fish and Game Code sections 3503.5, etc.) and Federal laws (i.e., Migratory Bird Treaty Act). If Project activities could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) to Reduce Impacts to Less than Significant: CDFW appreciates that the MND provided a mitigation measure to minimize the Project’s impacts to burrowing owl. CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-3 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) for inclusions in the final MND.

Mitigation Measure: BIO-3; Burrowing Owl
Prior to the initiation of Project activities, a Qualified Avian Biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for burrowing owl that is consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the habitat assessment identified burrowing owl habitat or sign (e.g., feathers, pellets, prey remains etc.), the Project proponent shall have the Qualified Avian Biologist perform breeding season surveys for burrowing owl consistent with the 2012 Staff Report.

In addition, tTwo pre-construction avoidance surveys shall be performed prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site to confirm presence/absence of burrowing owl following previous surveys. An initial avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to commencing ground-disturbance activities and a final survey carried out within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance shall be conducted. Should the species be identified on the site through any of the surveys, a qualified biologist shall consult contact with CDFW and the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts to burrowing owls on the development and implementation of a comprehensive burrowing owl mitigation plan. If impacts to burrowing owl cannot be fully avoided, the Project proponent should obtain a California Endangered Species Act incidental take permit pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2080.

Response 8.D.

The Initial Study correctly describes that suitable habitat occurs on the project site for burrowing owl. It also acknowledges that impacts to the species would be significant, and provides for preconstruction surveys to assure that the species does not occur when construction is proposed.

Given that neither the species nor its sign was identified on the project site, and that preconstruction surveys are required, the Initial Study assures that there will be no impact to burrowing owl, by requiring surveys immediately prior to construction. Conducting additional surveys for burrows now would not change the suitability of the site for the species, nor would it change the need for preconstruction surveys. Given that the project’s construction schedule is not known, and that the species could come and go at any time on the site, additional surveys would not inform the protection of the species, where preconstruction surveys will. However, for clarity, the Mitigation Measure is hereby amended as follows:

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

BIO-3: Burrowing Owl
Two pre-construction avoidance surveys shall be performed prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site conforming with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. An initial avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to commencing ground-disturbance activities and a final survey carried out within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

Should the species be identified on the site, a qualified biologist shall consult with CDFW on the development and implementation of a comprehensive burrowing owl mitigation plan.

Comment 8 E.

COMMENT #4: American Badger (Taxidea taxus) and Pallid San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus)
Section IV. Biological Resources; Page 30
Issue: The Project may result in significant impacts to special status mammals, including American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse.

Specific Impact: The staging of construction equipment, vehicles, grading, and foot traffic may result in the collapse of occupied burrows or dens and result in direct mortality and/or injury to American badger or pallid San Diego pocket mouse.

Why impact would occur: The Project site is suitable for denning by American badger and foraging by pallid San Diego pocket mouse. Additionally, as stated in the Biological Resources Assessment, pallid San Diego pocket mouse has been observed approximately 2.5 miles south of the Project according to CNDDB. Although the Project site does not contain gravely and rocky substrates for this species, it does contain desert scrub, which is suitable for foraging by the species. As stated in the Biological Resources Assessment, no suitable burrows for American badger were observed throughout the Project site. CDFW would like to note that American badger may reuse old dens or dig new dens every night (Messick and Hornocker 1981)7 and the October 26, 2023 survey may not reflect the current status of American badger on the Project site.

Furthermore, mitigation measure BIO-4 does not include pre-construction surveys to avoid potentially significant impacts to American badger or pallid San Diego pocket mouse.

Evidence impact would be significant: Pallid San Diego pocket mouse is listed by the NatureServe8 as a ‘vulnerable’ species and is defined as a species that is at moderate risk of extirpation within California due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. American badger is a SSC. A SSC is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:
• Is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role;
• Is listed as ESA-, but not CESA-, threatened, or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed;

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

• Is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; and/or;
• Has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for CESA threatened or endangered status. CEQA provides protection not only for ESA and CESA-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15380).

Impacts to special status species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Without an accurate baseline of candidate, sensitive, or special status species that are present on site that is based on protocol level surveys, it is unclear if the Project proponent will avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts to a level less than significant.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) to Reduce Impacts to Less than Significant: CDFW appreciates that the MND provided a mitigation measure to minimize the Project’s impacts to American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse. CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-4 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) for inclusions in the final MND.

Mitigation Measure: BIO-4; American Badger and San Diego Pocket Mouse Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing Project activities, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys throughout the Project area to determine if potential American badger dens or sign (e.g., tracks, scat, prey remains) is present on site and whether pallid San Diego pocket mouse or its sign is found. If a den or burrow is suspected to be occupied or used by either American badger or pallid San Diego pocket mouse or sign of either species is found, the Qualified Biologist shall conduct nighttime surveys during the appropriate weather to determine species presence. If American badger or San Diego pocket mouse is found onsite, and if impacts to the species cannot be avoided, work in the area all Project activities shall immediately cease, and a the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a mitigation program to fully avoid impacts to American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse.

Response 8.E.

As stated in the Initial Study, the potential for either American badger or San Diego pocket mouse is low, because of lack of recorded sightings and poor habitat conditions. The Initial Study, however, provides Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which assures that if the species are identified, they will not be impacted. In addition, given that the project biologist will be conducting preconstruction surveys for other species, they would also identify these species if they were to be sighted during these surveys. The Initial Study correctly identifies the low probability for the species, and correctly mitigates for its potential occurrence. No change is required to the Initial Study.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 8.F.

COMMENT #5: Special Status Plants
Section IV. Biological Resources; Page 30
Issue: The Project may result in significant impacts to special status plant species.

Specific impact: The IS/MND does not propose a mitigation measure to avoid impacts to special status species despite stating that there is a moderate probability for numerous plant species to occur throughout the Project area. The Biological Resource Assessment did not conduct focused plant surveys staggered throughout the early, mid, and late blooming season that could have determined the presence of special status plant species within the appropriate blooming periods.

Therefore, Project implementation, including grading, vegetation clearing, and construction may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of sensitive plant communities.

Why impact would occur: The MND states that a total of 10 special status plant species have a potential to occur throughout the Project area and of those 10 plant species, 5 have the moderate potential to occur throughout the Project site. The following species were identified in the MND and the Biological Resource Assessment to have a moderate potential to occur throughout the Project area: Joshua tree poppy (Eschscholzia androuxii), Utah vine milkweed (Funastrum utahense), Parish’s club- cholla (Grusonia parishii), little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus (Linanthus maculatus ssp. maculatus) and Hall’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus hallii). All of these species are listed under the Rare Plant Inventory by the California Native Plant Society9.

Additionally, 3 observations for the little San Bernardino Linanthus were observed within the vicinity of the Project area at approximately 0.79 miles (2008), 1.64 miles (2008), and 1.59 miles (2011) from the Project site according to CNDDB records.

Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts to special status plant species should be considered significant under CEQA unless mitigated to a level less than significant. Without an accurate baseline of candidate, sensitive, or special status plant species present on site based on protocol level surveys and absent a mitigation measure for special status plants, the Project proponent will likely not avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to a level less than significant.

Impacts to special-status plant species may be significant if focused surveys that utilize species specific methodologies are not a requirement prior to any ground disturbing activities and specialstatus plants are not identified properly.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) to Reduce Impacts to Less than Significant: CDFW recommends that the following mitigation measure be included in the final MND to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to special status plants.

Mitigation Measure: BIO-6 (NEW); Special Status Plants
Prior to any ground disturbing activities, a Qualified Botanist shall conduct focused plant surveys that are consistent with the 2018 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities9. The surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of year when plants are both evident and identifiable (usually, during flowering or fruiting) and in a manner that maximizes the likelihood of locating special-status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. If any sensitive or special-status plant species is identified, the Qualified Botanist

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

shall delineate a buffer around the plant(s) and impacts shall be fully avoided. If complete avoidance is not feasible, the Project proponent shall mitigate the loss of the plant(s) through the purchase of mitigation credits from a CDFW-approved bank and/or land acquisition and perpetual conservation and management thereof as determined by CDFW after Project analysis. If full avoidance of any California Endangered Species Act listed plant species is not feasible, the Project proponent should not commence Project activities and should obtain an incidental take permit from CDFW.

Response 8.F.

The comment is noted, but provides no evidence that the plants cited occur on the property, or that their loss would significantly impact the viability of the species in their habitat and lead to its permanent loss. None of the species which have the potential to occur are listed as threatened or endangered. There is no evidence that their loss, if it were to occur on the project site, would result in impacts to the species’ survival in their ranges. No significant impact would occur, and no change to the Initial Study is required.

Comment 8.G.

COMMENT #6. Fish and Game Code 1602 Resources Section IV. Biological Resources;

Issue: The Project as described may result in substantial impacts to unnamed ephemeral desert washes located across the Project area.

Specific impact: The Project may result in significant impacts to and the loss of Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources
Why impact would occur: The MND states that 1.01 acres of non-wetland and ephemeral drainages occur on the Project site. The IS/MND states that the Project will not impact the drainages identified on site. However, based on Figure 7 of the Jurisdictional Delineation it appears that Project activities may encroach onto Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources.

Additionally, through aerial imagery, numerous channels traverse the Project site and may be substantially impacted by Project activities. Furthermore, the MND does not provide a mitigation measure to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources.

Evidence impact would be significant: Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following:

Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or Deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) to Reduce Impacts to Less than Significant: Considering all the above, CDFW recommends that the following mitigation measure be included in the final MND.

Mitigation Measure: BIO-7 (NEW); Fish and Game Code section 1602 Resources

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Prior to construction activities, mapping of stream resources in the Project area shall be conducted to identify all streams on site. If Project construction activities occur within a stream or associated habitat, then the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be notified pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602. If CDFW determines that the Project may substantially affect fish and wildlife resources, then CDFW shall issue a Streambed Alternation Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement shall include measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources.

Response 8.G.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but the Initial Study clearly states that project construction is proposed entirely outside areas identified as waters of the State. As shown in Figure 7 of the Jurisdictional Delineation (Appendix C), and as described on page 31 of the Initial Study, the project will not impact any waters of the State, and has been designed specifically to avoid these areas. As a result, the project will not require a Streambed Alteration Agreement, and impacts to waters of the State will be less than significant. The analysis and findings in the Initial Study are correct, and no change to the document is required.

Comment 8.H.

Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Invasive and Special Status Species Awareness Education Program Through the implementation of the Project, invasive species may be introduced to the surrounding undeveloped areas and may encroach on native plant species. Therefore, CDFW suggests the incorporation of a worker awareness education program to educate everyone, prior to working on the Project site, regarding invasive species as well as special status species that occur or may occur on site, and any measures required to address these species if found.

Response 8.H.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but they provide no evidence that invasive species will be introduced into the project site. The City will review and approve the project’s landscaping plan, which focuses on native and desert-adapted plants, and will assure that invasives are not planted within the site. No change to the Initial Study is required.

Comment 8.I.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants- andAnimals.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Twentynine Palms in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Emily Leon, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected] or at (760) 644-5976.

Response 8.I.

Responses 8.A. through 8.I. above clearly demonstrate that the Initial Study is complete and accurate, as amended. No further modification of the document is required. The City thanks the Department for its comments and will continue to assure that it and its applicants comply with Department requirements and State law.

9. Emily Christianson
Email dated May 26, 2025
Comment 9.A.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Response 9.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 9.B.

1. Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Response 9.B.

The comment is noted, but the assumption of “stronger scrutiny” not being applied to the Initial Study is incorrect. The project biologist applied the same stringent level of analysis in the field survey for a threatened species as would be applied to an endangered species, particularly since the federal protocols for desert tortoise have prohibited take of the species for many years. As correctly stated in the Initial Study, the site provides appropriate habitat for the species, and the potential for its occurrence exists. The Initial Study also provides feasible mitigation (BIO-1, page 32) which will assure that impacts to the species will be less than significant. Since this mitigation measure reduces impacts to less than significant levels, and would assure that there will be no take of the species, the Initial Study correctly concludes that impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts to the species would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

Comment 9.C.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized. The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 9.C.

The Initial Study clearly describes that 14 of the 19 documented artifacts are isolates, and do not qualify as historic resources under CEQA. The Initial Study and the cultural resources report (Appendix D) clearly describe the remaining sites, and how they do or do not qualify as cultural resources. The Initial Study clearly states that the City conducted Tribal consultation as part of the project review, and that archaeological and Tribal monitoring will be required for all project construction activities (Mitigation Measure CUL-2). The Initial Study further requires the protection of the two identified prehistoric sites (Mitigation Measure CUL-1), which occur outside the development boundary, in the area proposed for conservation in perpetuity. The commenter provides no evidence that onsite monitoring or protection of the two identified sites would not reduce impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels. An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts to cultural resources would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 9.D.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy. The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Response 9.D.

Please see Response 5.A. The commenter’s opinion is noted, but they provide no substantial evidence that the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow 42 acres of Tourist Commercial land surrounded by 110 acres of Open Space Conservation land would result in substantial environmental impacts. An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts to land use and planning would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

Comment 9.E.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads. Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Response 9.E.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but they provide no substantial evidence that the traffic analysis, or the Initial Study, incorrectly studied traffic impacts. The traffic analysis was conducted to widely accepted standards, including those of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the City’s standards for the preparation of traffic analyses. The paving of local streets is a standard requirement that the City imposes on new development throughout the City when it is proposed.

These improvements, including paving and curb and gutter, improve roadway access for vehicles and reduce impacts associated with dust generated by unpaved roads. As shown in the Initial Study and the traffic analysis (Appendix I), current conditions on studied intersections are at acceptable levels of service, as determined by General Plan policy. The addition of the project, with the required paving of the streets and required improvements contained in Mitigation Measure TRA-1, will result in Level of Service C or better in opening year at all studied intersections.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

The VMT screening analysis was conducted in conformance with the City’s requirements, and determined that VMT impacts would be less than significant.

An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts associated with traffic would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

Comment 9.F.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 9.F.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but the Initial Study provides both short and long term quantified supply and demand for the Twentynine Palms Water District, based on their Urban Water Management Plan, which they are required to prepare and update regularly under State Water Code. This analysis shows that the District has excess supply when compared to demand in both short term and long term conditions. Further, the Initial Study quantifies project water demand for all onsite uses(page 57-58 and page 92), including both indoor and outdoor (landscaping) demand, and demonstrates that the project will generate 1.3% of the short term and 1.05% of the long term District supply. Impacts to water supply are identified as less than significant, and there is no evidence that the project would significantly impact water supply.

Finally, the requirements for a water supply assessment, under State Water Code, are for projects which result in 500 residential unit equivalents. The proposed hotel does not generate water demand equal to or greater than 500 residential units, and therefore is not subject to a water supply assessment.

An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts to water supply would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

Comment 9.G.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 9.G.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but as shown in Responses 9.A. through 9.F., the project has been fully analyzed under CEQA, and an EIR is not required, nor does the commenter provide substantial evidence that any impact of the project would be significant.

10. Jeanine Gonzales
Email dated May 26, 2025
Comment 10.A.

My name is Jeannine Gonzales. I have lived in Indian Cove for 36 years, at 6926 Indian Cove Rd.

I am writing to let you know that the attached letter was never sent to me. I happened to see it on Facebook. I'm wondering if letters were sent to all Indian Cove residents. I want to know who received these letters and why some residents seem to have been excluded. I have spoken with several neighbors concerning this, who informed me they have not received letters either. I would request that letters be sent to all Indian Cove residents, as the Ofland project will have a major impact on all of Indian Cove.

On a personal note, I want you to know that I am not in favor of this resort, additional traffic and noise, of course, the environmental impact on our desert, and the animal life here, not to mention the impact on water and sewers. It's difficult to understand why you would choose to avoid doing a full Environmental Impact Report. If the Ofland developers and owners insist on building a resort in our beautiful residential neighborhood, then the least they could do is an EIR. I believe that not only is an EIR necessary, but it should be required. Thank You For your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Response 10.A.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. As regards notification regarding the project, the City provides public notice regarding CEQA documents by posting on the City’s website, publishing in the newspaper, and posting with the County Clerk. There is no requirement under CEQA for notification of individuals, unless that individual has requested notification, which the commenter had not. The City will also notify surrounding property owners of public hearings for the project, pursuant to its Municipal Code requirements.

As regards the commenter’s request for an EIR, please see Responses 9.A. through 9.G. It should also be noted that there are no sanitary sewers in the area of the proposed project, and that the impacts of construction of an on-site sewer plant have been analyzed throughout the Initial Study.

An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts of the project would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

11. Lawrence Schuessler
Email dated May 26, 2025
Comment 11.A.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Response 11.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 11.B.

1.Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Response 11.B.

Please see Response 9.B.

Comment 11.C.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized.

The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency.

An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 11.C.

Please see Response 9.C.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 11.D.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy.

The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Response 11.D.

Please see Response 9.D.

Comment 11.E.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads.

Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Response 11.E.

Please see Response 9.E.

Comment 11.F.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 11.F.

Please see Response 9.F.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 11.G.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Response 11.G.

Please see Response 9.G.

12. Anne Graham
Email dated May 27, 2025
Comment 12.A.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Response 12.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 12.B.

1.Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Response 12.B.

Please see Response 9.B.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 12.C.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized.

The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency.

An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 12.C.

Please see Response 9.C.

Comment 12.D.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy.

The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Response 12.D.

Please see Response 9.D.

Comment 12.E.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads.

Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 12.E.

Please see Response 9.E.

Comment 12.F.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 12.F.

Please see Response 9.F.

Comment 12.G.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Response 12.G.

Please see Response 9.G.

13. Adriene Jenik
Letter dated May 27, 2025
Comment 13.A.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 13.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 13.B.

1.Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Response 13.B.

Please see Response 9.B.

Comment 13.C.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized. The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 13.C.

Please see Response 9.C.

Comment 13.D.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy. The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Response 13.D.

Please see Response 9.D.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 13.E.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads.

Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Response 13.E.

Please see Response 9.E.

Comment 13.F.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 13.F.

Please see Response 9.F.

Comment 13.G.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Response 13.G.

Please see Response 9.G.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

14. Jenny Groener
Email dated May 27, 2025
Comment 14.A.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Response 14.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 14.B.

1.Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Response 14.B.

Please see Response 9.B.

Comment 14.C.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized. The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 14.C.

Please see Response 9.C.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 14.D.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy.

The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Response 14.D.

Please see Response 9.D.

Comment 14.E.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads.

Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Response 14.E.

Please see Response 9.E.

Comment 14.F.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 14.F.

Please see Response 9.F.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 14.G.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Response 14.G.

Please see Response 9.G.

15. Lori Thomas
Email dated May 27, 2025
Comment 15.A.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Response 15.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 15.B.

1.Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Response 15.B.

Please see Response 9.B.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 15.C.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized. The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 15.C.

Please see Response 9.C.

Comment 15.D.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy. The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Response 15.D.

Please see Response 9.D.

Comment 15.E.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads.

Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Response 15.E.

Please see Response 9.E.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 15.F.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 15.F.

Please see Response 9.F.

Comment 15.G.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Response 15.G.

Please see Response 9.G.

16. Melissa Grisi
Email dated May 27, 2025
Comment 16.A.

As a full-time resident of Twentynine Palms for 10 years, I'd like to express my concern that the City of Twentynine Palms wants to grant Ofland a Mitigated Negative Declaration and not require an EIR.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR.

Response 16.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided below.

Comment 16.B.

To begin, this project is being considered in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. Zoning changes will need to be granted for this project to come to fruition. As I am sure you are aware, the majority of

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Indian Cove residents (per social media polling) are against this project in the Indian Cove neighborhood. There needs to be an EIR to address this potential zoning change to explore the long-term effects of this project ON A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

Response 16.B.

The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to provide 42 acres of Tourist Commercial land surrounded by 110 acres of Open Space. The City is permitted to consider changes to land use designations as provided in California Government Code, and the policy decision will be made by the City Council.

The Initial Study considered the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change throughout its analysis, and in particular in the Land Use and Planning section on pages 62 through 67, and found that the requested change is consistent with the General Plan. The analysis resulted in a conclusion that impacts would be less than significant. The commenter does not provide an explanation or substantial evidence that the land use modifications would cause a significant impact, but the analysis in the Initial Study thoroughly reviewed General Plan goals and policies to come to its conclusion. Since impacts would be less than significant, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are the appropriate documentation under CEQA.

Comment 16.C.

An EIR IS warranted for this project. We have a variety of wildlife species who utilize the proposed plot of land as this is a wildlife corridor. I walk that area several times a week and have witnessed myself the abundance of wildlife in that specific location.

Let's not cheat the desert. It is this desert that people come to because it is quiet, peaceful and for the opportunity to see wildlife. It's what makes 29 Palms so special. Please do your due diligence as a City Official. Let's not make exceptions; let's be intentional, thoughtful and thorough.

Our city, its people and the wildlife deserve it.

Please require an EIR for the Ofland Project.

Comment 16.C.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. The Initial Study studied biological resources on the subject property, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce impacts to species identified as having the potential to occur on the property. These mitigation measures reduce the impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. Please also see Responses 8.A. through 8.H., and 9.B.

17. Sarah James
Email dated May 27, 2025
Comment 17.A.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Response 17.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 17.B.

1.Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Response 17.B.

Please see Response 9.B.

Comment 17.C.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized. The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 17.C.

Please see Response 9.C.

Comment 17.D.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy. The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 17.D.

Please see Response 9.D.

Comment 17.E.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads. Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Response 17.E.

Please see Response 9.E.

Comment 17.F.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 17.F.

Please see Response 9.F.

Comment 17.G.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Response 17.G.

Please see Response 9.G.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

18. Benjamin Goulet
Email dated May 28, 2025
Comment 18.A.

I live in 29 Palms full-time and have for a decade now.

I believe the city of 29 Palms should NOT grant Ofland a Mitigated Negative Declaration. An EIR needs to be required.

I am vehemently against this project. Residential neighborhoods like Indian Cove need to stay residential. The extra traffic, disruption to wildlife, light pollution, and ruined landscape is not worth whatever extra funds visitors might bring. It’s already been shown statistically that these visitors are far more likely to visit Joshua Tree to spend their tourist dollars, as opposed to going to 29 Palms.

Response 18.A.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. Although the commenter’s statement is overbroad and as a result cannot be responded to in detail, the Initial Study addressed the issues of:

1. Traffic at pages 83 through 90.

2. Wildlife at pages 28 through 33.

3. Light pollution at page 19.

4. Aesthetics at pages 16 through 19.

The Initial Study analyzed the facts associated with the project’s impacts in each of these areas, and determined that impacts associated with traffic and wildlife required mitigation measures.

With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Impacts associated with light pollution and aesthetics were found to be less than significant because of the City’s standards and requirements in these issue areas.

An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

Comment 18.B.

The city has enough hotels, AirBnB’s, VRBO’s, etc etc etc. When is enough, enough? What DOESN’T it have? Affordable housing for residents.

Here are the facts:

The economy will likely be in a recession by the end of 2025.

Local tourism has already plummeted and we are just at the beginning of what will be a major economic contraction, a possible stagflation scenario that’ll rival Japan in the 1990’s.

The City Council has admitted that 29 Palms is in the hole (and the recession isn’t even official yet).

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

What does all of this mean?
Ofland will fail, go out of business, and the residents of Indian Cove will be left to clean up the mess, a trashed, wrecked plot that won’t be unusable for what the city actually needs and what it’s zoned for: RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.

Response 18.B.

The commenter’s opinions regarding the state of the economy are noted, but are not a CEQA issue. The City Council will consider the economic issues associated with the project when it reviews the applications in public hearings.

19. Cassie Ingersoll
Email dated May 29, 2025
Comment 19.A.

In addition to the group letter, here are my questions and comments:

Where are they getting their water? The already stressed aquifer? Are they installing a plumbing system that routes grey water to a recycling system? What about sewage? Are they setting up their own system?
Response 19.A.

As described in the Initial Study, the project will connect to the Water District’s water system. Also see Response 9.F.

As regards sanitary sewage, the project includes an onsite treatment plant, whose impacts are addressed in the Initial Study. The project is not proposing a recycled water system.

Comment 19.B.

Will they provide their own security, hiring locally?
Are they subsidizing housing for employees? Will the employee housing be tied to employment, and will they be evicted when employment ends? How about requiring them to establish an occupant owned mobile home park?
Response 19.B.

As described in Response 18.B., economic issues are not a CEQA issue, and the City Council will address economic issues at its public hearings.

Comment 19.C.

Will it be electrically independent with solar, wind, and batteries? Will there be zero light pollution? Why aren't they buying land along the highway and to their land and install their own roads away from current residents?

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 19.C.

The project’s consumption of electricity is addressed in the Initial Study, pages 39 through 41.

The project will be required to implement Building Code requirements for energy efficiency, including solar energy generation. Lighting impacts are addressed on page 19. The project will be required to comply with City lighting standards.

The comment regarding land along the highway is unclear, as the project borders Highway 62.

The primary access to the project will be from Lear Avenue.

Comment 19.D.

How much of the profit will stay in the community? What are their pay scale? Will they subsidize apprenticeships for the construction? Will local companies be subcontractors for the construction? Will there be an on site shop offering local creations, rather than trinkets made overseas? Finally, we don't need more absentee landlords. How much of the profit stays locally, as opposed to going to the county? Will they offer a share in ownership to locals? Response 19.D.

Please see Response 19.B.

Comment 19.E.

I am writing to provide public comment on the City’s Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms project. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process, and I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens long-term economic resilience.

While the Initial Study concludes that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not warranted, I respectfully disagree with this finding and request that the City require a full EIR for the following reasons:

Response 19.E.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided individually below.

Comment 19.F.

1.Biological Resource Concerns: Desert Tortoise Now Listed as Endangered The Initial Study relies on a biological survey conducted in October 2023, which found no tortoises but acknowledged suitable habitat. However, since that survey, the Mojave desert tortoise has been uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered” by the California Fish and Game Commission (April 2024). This change in status demands stronger scrutiny under CEQA and updated biological assessments. The study does not account for this listing change, nor does it fully assess the cumulative impact of habitat fragmentation in this region. A full EIR should incorporate the updated legal and ecological context.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 19.F
Please see Response 9.B.

Comment 19.G.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites
The Initial Study acknowledges the discovery of 19 previously undocumented cultural resources, including prehistoric milling features and lithic artifacts. Their presence and density suggest that this site may be of greater archaeological importance than recognized. The area has historical ties to the Serrano and Chemehuevi peoples, and any development should proceed only with full tribal consultation, independent cultural review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

Response 19.G.

Please see Response 9.C.

Comment 19.H.

3. Land Use and Zoning Changes: Substantial and Precedent-Setting The scale and nature of the zoning change—transforming 42 acres of Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E) land into Tourist Commercial (TC), while creating a new Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation—represents a fundamental shift in the City’s land use policy. The fact that Twentynine Palms must concurrently rely on an unrelated, speculative solar project to offset SB 330 housing loss highlights the fragile basis for these changes. The current MND does not fully analyze long-term consequences of setting this zoning precedent. A full EIR should explore these implications in depth.

Response 19.H.

Please see Response 9.D.

Comment 19.I.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts: Incomplete Analysis The Initial Study states the project will generate 894 vehicle trips daily, including traffic along Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, currently unpaved or lightly developed. The proposed mitigation— adding paving and signage—will not be enough to address congestion, pedestrian safety, or wear on nearby residential roads.

Additionally, the contradiction between the developer’s claim of high off-site guest spending and the MND’s assumption of self-contained visitor traffic raises questions about the accuracy of traffic and vehicle miles traveled estimates. An EIR is necessary to reconcile these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 19.I.

Please see Response 9.E.

Comment 19.J.

5. Water Use and Sustainability: Not Fully Addressed
Given the desert environment, the resort’s water use (lodging, pools, restaurant, landscaping) should be analyzed with far greater rigor. The MND’s brief treatment of water use does not explore supply constraints, long-term aquifer health, or potential drawdown effects, especially during times of drought. A detailed water study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 19.J.

Please see Response 9.F.

Comment 19.K.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if approached with a clear understanding of its environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts. The Initial Study and proposed MND do not meet the threshold for responsible review. A full Environmental Impact Report is the only appropriate next step to ensure that this project, if approved, reflects the values, goals, and ecological stewardship of Twentynine Palms.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Response 19.K.

Please see Response 9.G.

20. Clay Noss
Email dated May 29, 2025
Comment 20.A.

I am writing with comments on the proposed Ofland Hotel development in the Indian Cove area of Twentynine Palms. I am a resident of Yucca Valley, hold a PhD in ecology and herpetology, am conducting ongoing analyses of desert tortoise ecology at MCAGCC and currently work in desert tortoise conservation. I am writing in my personal capacity and as a professional ecologist.

I have many concerns about the proposed development, including effects on quality of life for local residents and many species of plants and wildlife.

I would like to focus my comments, however, on the effects of the proposed development on the desert tortoise. In my professional opinion, the mitigation and minimization measures outlined in Appendix B, "recommended to ensure that any [my emphasis] potential impacts to the desert tortoise" are woefully insufficient. Simply surveying for desert tortoises, and presumably removing

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

any that happen to be found within the parcel, will not mitigate the myriad of negative effects that the proposed development will have on desert tortoises. Below, I outline some of my specific concerns and recommendations for actual mitigation of the effects of the proposed project on desert tortoises. Overall, however, the proposed project is fundamentally ill-conceived and will absolutely negatively affect desert tortoises both in Joshua Tree National Park and the surrounding region.

Response 20.A.

The commenter’s concerns are noted. Responses to specific issues are provided below.

Comment 20.B.
1) As WSP USA's Biological Resources Assessment Report correctly notes, ravens are amongst the primary threats to desert tortoises. Development strongly increases the raven threat for desert tortoises by A) artificially increasing the amount of structure available for raven nesting and perching, which inflates predation risk for tortoises and B) trash that is associated with developments provides food for ravens, which increases their populations and therefore predation risk for tortoises. Please see the attached scientific review (Berry and Murphy 2018, page 109.27) for more information.

The Ofland hotel development's mitigation measures must include raven control measures in order to eliminate impacts on desert tortoises. These efforts should include local raven population control (e.g. egg oiling to reduce reproduction, infrastructure that minimizes nest sites for ravens) and guarantees of effective trash control and cleanup, including maintaining closed dumpsters.

Response 20.B.

The commenter’s concerns are noted. The City’s solid waste provider supplies the dumpsters that will be used on the project, should it be approved and constructed. Commercial dumpsters are covered, and would therefore address the commenter’s concern for attracting ravens.

Comment 20.C.
2) My understanding is that the Ofland hotel is slated to develop 40-50 acres in the center of the 152 acre parcel. A more ecologically responsible design would be to develop the land adjacent to highway 62, leaving a larger continuous area of habitat undisturbed. This is in keeping with decades of conservation research demonstrating that concentrating development to already disturbed areas is much more ecologically responsible. On this note, developing any of the area would be highly irresponsible given its proximity to Joshua Tree National Park. Even developing closer to Highway 62 would limit tortoise movement through the area, such habitat fragmentation and loss is a leading cause of tortoise declines. Existing parcels closer to the urban core of Twentynine Palms would be much more appropriate and would actually minimize the ecological impact of the development.

Response 20.C.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. The Initial Study analyzed the impacts to desert tortoise, and found that the species does not occur on the project site. Should a member of the species occupy the site after construction is complete, the site will provide hundreds of feet on all sides which will be preserved as open space, allowing the species to travel across the site.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

The commenter’s opinion regarding changing the location of the project is noted, but the applicant does not control other properties, and the City is evaluating the impacts to the subject site.

Comment 20.D.
3) My understanding is that the Ofland Hotel would increase traffic in the local area by ~800 trips per day. Vehicle strikes are also amongst the leading causes of decline for desert tortoises (the attached Berry and Murphy page 109.21). To legitimately mitigate the effects of the project, Ofland Hotel should fund the construction of tortoise fencing and road crossings to minimize the effect of increased vehicular traffic on tortoises.

Response 20.D.

The commenter’s concerns are noted. The project occurs immediately east of an existing single family neighborhood, which utilizes Lear Avenue currently. The project’s access on Lear Avenue will be located opposite the existing Cactus Drive intersection, close to the Highway, thereby limiting project traffic on Lear Avenue. Given the existence of existing traffic for many decades on Lear, the project will not substantially change conditions or hazards for tortoise crossing the roadway. There is not substantial evidence that the project will have significant impacts on tortoise strikes on the roadway, and the implementation of tortoise fencing is not supported.

Comment 20.E.

I have many other concerns regarding the effect of the Ofland Hotel on desert tortoises besides those listed above. These include potential increases in coyote and dog populations due to trash subsidies, harassment through the increase in visitors to the area, increase in invasive plants in the area with increased visitors and the potential for fires starting from the property. The project should be soundly rejected by the city of Twentynine Palms - it is incredibly inappropriate to develop a resort so close to a national park, and the project will have a strong, negative effect on desert tortoises in our area.

Response 20.E.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but are not supported by substantial evidence. As described in Response 20.B., covered dumpsters will be provided, and access to trash will be limited. It is unclear how the commenter believes that increased visitors will bring increases in invasive plants.

The project’s landscaping is designed with native and desert-adapted species, not invasive plants.

The project will be reviewed by the Fire Department, and all Fire Code requirements implemented.

The Initial Study has addressed these issues and found that the project will have less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures.

21. Chris Tiffany
Undated letter, received May 29, 2025
Comment 21.A.

Please enter my following remarks in the Public Comments:

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

In reading the City’s interpretation of the proposed Ofland. Development, it appears that the Council’s opinion is that no “significant” impacts will occur from this proposed 100-unit luxury hotel resort, bypassing the need for an Environmental Impact Report and going forward with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. I disagree with this assessment.

Response 21.A.

The commenter’s concern is noted. Responses to specific issues are provided below.

Comment 21.B.
#1 The Indian Cove wash and adjoining acreage is a significant wildlife corridor, that, once interrupted with a large scale project like this one, will greatly impair, for the duration, the migration patterns that lead to the north, decreasing the viability of a healthy gene pool for our desert wildlife population. I am including photos of two tortoise burrows located on and to the south of this proposed site. And also a photo of a large tortoise spotted within a half mile of the area just this spring. Desert tortoise are commonly spotted in this area. *These photos will be sent as a separate attachment.

Response 21.B.

The project is not proposed to occur in the wash located on the site, and will only occur to its east, as described in the Initial Study. In addition, the project proposes the conservation of 110 of the total 152 acres as open space in perpetuity. The Initial Study analyzed impacts to migratory species on pages 31 and 32, and the project’s biological resources report. The analysis found that the preservation of 72% of the wildlife habitat on the property will reduce impacts to migratory species, and result in less than significant impacts. The photos provided are noted.

Comment 21.C.
#2 This land contains undisturbed native vegetation including creosote, echinacea, jojoba, yucca, and a particularly significant stand of native perennial grasses that have been greatly diminished in the 29 Palms area from indiscriminate grading. This vegetation holds the soil and prevents the dangers of microscopic particles of dust that comes with the disturbance of the delicate veneer of desert soils. Those of us who live in this area can attest to the lack of impact from the dust storms we witness to our north and east, where grading and degradation of desert soils from the College/Sunfair area to the west, across the Marine Corps Base and eastward into Wonder Valley have greatly impacted the air quality that has drawn generations of people with asthma and lung ailments to this area precisely because of the clean air quality of the High Desert. This development will significantly alter the soils for generations to come.

Response 21.C.

The proposed project will disturb 42 acres of the 152 acre site, as described in the Initial Study.

The balance of the site will remain undisturbed open space. The analysis of air quality impacts, including impacts associated with particulate matter, is provided on pages 22 through 27. As shown in the analysis, Tables 1 and 2, for construction and operational emissions respectively, the PM10 and PM2.5 generated from the site will be far below the threshold established by the MDAQMD, the agency with regulatory authority over air quality in the City. Furthermore, the MDAQMD will require the implementation of dust control plans to control dust on the project site,

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

and the City will require the stabilization of soil during construction and for long term operation of the project. The Initial Study considered the potential impacts of dust generated by the project, and found the impacts to be less than significant.

Comment 21.D.
#3. Light pollution will be a significant change, with interior lights glowing from 100 units where, from the Indian Cove wash which my property overlooks, is totally dark at night.

Response 21.D.

The commenter’s concern is noted, but is not supported by substantial evidence. The City’s lighting ordinance, as described in the Initial Study, limits the installation of light fixtures to only those that are shielded. In addition, the development of the project will be surrounded by open space, which will not include any lighting. Lighting will not impact surrounding properties, including the wash.

Comment 21.E.
#4. The problem of vehicle and foot traffic is one which will be unavoidable, with an anticipated large volume of 894 vehicle trips per day anticipated, not to mention hikers traversing willy-nilly across undisturbed landscape between the Ofland Resort and Indian Cove campground. I can attest to my 25 years of hiking in this area, there are few footprints visible on the land in this area at this moment in time.

Response 21.E.

The commenter’s concern is noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. The traffic analysis for the project, and the summary of this analysis in the Initial Study, demonstrate that traffic generated by the project will not exceed City policy thresholds. The level of service on Lear Avenue and surrounding intersections will not fall below the City’s standards.

As it relates to hiking and pedestrian movements, the Indian Cover ranger station can be accessed currently via existing City streets, both paved and unpaved. The commenter’s opinion that hotel guests will walk to the campground is noted, but its impact is unclear, given that access is currently possible.

Comment 21.F.
#5. This is a significant change in the zoning for the area, where to the east of Indian Cove Road, properties are a minimum of 2.5 acres up to 5 and 10 acres in area, with most residents leaving the native vegetation around their homes completely intact. In fact, that is why I chose to live in Sherman Highlands. Because the neighbors are conscientious about preserving the beauty, silence, night skies and wildlife in the desert that they love.

Response 21.F.

Please see Response 9.D.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 21.G.

On the surface this appears to be an “environmentally sound” project, mainly because of the conservation easement surrounding the built environment at the center. It is simply too large In scope. 100 units? Really? And a community center that for sure will create significant noise pollution. Sound echoes off of the surrounding hillsides magnifying the decibel level. Believe me, I notice the impact from just one Neighborhood Vacation Rental home across the way from my home, not to mention lights left on un-necessarily all night long.

This project needs to include an Environmental Impact Review to study all these lasting impacts.

Having been raised in 29 Palms since 1953, I know change is inevitable, but the City of Twentynine Palms must be a leader in thoughtful, desert conscious development, that thinks beyond today’s profit into the future safeguarding of our Home.

Response 21.G.

The potential impacts associated with the project have been comprehensively studied in the Initial Study. This comment does not provide any additional evidence that substantial impacts will occur relating to environmental issues. An EIR would be required only if the Initial Study determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is not the case here. No change is required, and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project.

22. Ed Larue
Undated letter received June 1, 2025
Comment 22.A.

The Desert Tortoise Council (Council) is a non-profit organization comprised of hundreds of professionals and laypersons who share a common concern for wild desert tortoises and a commitment to advancing the public’s understanding of desert tortoise species. Established in 1975 to promote conservation of tortoises in the deserts of the southwestern United States and Mexico, the Council routinely provides information and other forms of assistance to individuals, organizations, and regulatory agencies on matters potentially affecting desert tortoises within their geographic ranges.

Both our physical and email addresses are provided above in our letterhead for your use when providing future correspondence to us. When given a choice, we prefer to receive emails for future correspondence, as mail delivered via the U.S. Postal Service may take several days to be delivered. Email is an “environmentally friendlier way” of receiving correspondence and documents rather than “snail mail.”
We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the above-referenced project. Given the location of the proposed project in habitats likely occupied by Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (synonymous with Agassiz’s desert tortoise), our comments include recommendations intended to enhance protection of this species and its habitat during activities authorized by the City of Twentynine Palms, which we recommend be added to project terms and conditions in the authorizing document (e.g., Conditional Use Permit, development agreement, etc.) as appropriate. Please accept, carefully review, and include in the relevant project file the Council’s following comments and attachments for the proposed project.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 22.A.

The comment introduces the commenter’s organization, and provides a general introduction to the purpose of the letter. Responses to specific issues are addressed individually below. No further response is required.

Comment 22.B.

The Mojave desert tortoise is among the top 50 species on the list of the world’s most endangered tortoises and freshwater turtles. The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Species Survival Commission, Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, now considers the Mojave desert tortoise to be Critically Endangered (Berry et al. 2021), “… based on population reduction (decreasing density), habitat loss of over 80% over three generations (90 years), including past reductions and predicted future declines, as well as the effects of disease (upper respiratory tract disease/mycoplasmosis). Gopherus agassizii (sensu stricto) comprises tortoises in the most well-studied 30% of the larger range; this portion of the original range has seen the most human impacts and is where the largest past population losses have been documented. A recent rigorous rangewide population reassessment of G. agassizii (sensu stricto) has demonstrated continued adult population and density declines of about 90% over three generations (two in the past and one ongoing) in four of the five G. agassizii recovery units and inadequate recruitment with decreasing percentages of juveniles in all five recovery units.” This status, in part, prompted the Council to join Defenders of Wildlife and DTPC (Defenders of Wildlife et al. 2020) to petition the California Fish and Game Commission in March 2020 to elevate the listing of the Mojave desert tortoise from Threatened to Endangered in California. In its status review, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (2024a) stated: “At its public meeting on October 14, 2020, the Commission considered the petition, and based in part on the Department’s [CDFW] petition evaluation and recommendation, found sufficient information exists to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted and accepted the petition for consideration.

The Commission’s decision initiated this status review to inform the Commission’s decision on whether the change in status is warranted.”
Importantly, in their April 2024 meeting (CDFW 2024b), the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to accept the CDFW’s petition evaluation and recommendation to uplist the tortoise from threatened to endangered under the California Endangered Species Act based on the scientific data provided on the species’ status, declining trend, numerous threats, and lack of effective recovery implementation and land management. The Commission is expected to vote on uplisting the tortoise to endangered on June 12, 2025.

Response 22.B.

The comment provides a history of desert tortoise status and the recent listing of the species as endangered in California. No response is required.

Comment 22.C.

Description of the Proposed Project
The City of Twentynine Palms (City) has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. Ofland Development is proposing to develop, operate, and maintain a

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

glamping “hotel” with 100 units (individual cabins) and amenities including two lodges, pools and spas, restrooms, changing areas, recreational areas, playgrounds, food and beverage services, retail space, offices, 16-ft tall outdoor movie screen with an outdoor seating area, a stargazing area, gathering space, wastewater treatment facility, storage and laundry room, maintenance and equipment room, and 25 employee housing units. The project would offer lodging to visitors of nearby destinations, including Joshua Tree National Park (Figure 1).

The current land use designations would need to be changed – the site is currently designated “Single-Family Residential-Estate” (RS-E) on the City’s General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map.

The RS-E designation does not permit the proposed uses. The proposed General Plan Amendment and corresponding Development Code Amendment and rezoning would change the designation for 42± acres in the center of the parcel to Tourist Commercial (CT), and 110± acres on all sides of the property to Open Space Conservation (OSC) (Figure 2). The Open Space designation would form a buffer on all sides of the parcel, as follows:
• 500 feet in depth along the west side of the parcel;
• 800 feet in depth along the east side of the parcel;
• 600 feet in depth along the north side of the parcel; and • 500 feet in depth along the south side of the parcel.

The project is located on the west side of the City of Twentynine Palms in the Indian Cove area and bordered by 29 Palms Highway (State Route 62) on the north, Shoshone Valley Road on the east, Sullivan Road on the south, and Lear Avenue on the west. Access to the glamping hotel would be via Lear Avenue that would be paved to Sullivan Road, which would also be paved. The access road from Lear Avenue to the glamping hotel would cross the 110-acre Open Space Conservation Area on the west side of the glamping hotel.

Response 22.C.

The comment provides a description of the proposed project, and requires no further response.

Comment 22.D.

Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Question about the Northeast Corner of the Parcel
The northeast corner of the parcel appears to be excluded from the open space conservation area designation (Figure 2). We were unable to find the reason for this exclusion in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based on the location of the acreage, we wonder if the project proponent or the City have future plans that differ from the proposed project. Please include information in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document on what the planned use of this acreage is and why it is not included in the open space conservation designation.

Response 22.D.

The land northeast of the proposed project, at the southwest corner of Shoshone Valley Road and SR 62, is not part of the project, and is a separate legal parcel. No development is proposed on this parcel, which is owned by a third party.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 22.E.

Compliance with CEQA on Public Notifications
On August 21, 2024, Mr. Gardner and Ms. Olsen of the City of Twentynine Palms Planning Department were contacted with the following email request from Mr. Ed LaRue:
“Does the 29 Palms Planning Department maintain an active list of ‘Interested Parties’ or ‘Affected Interests’ with regards to development within the city limits? If so, I would like to have my email added to that list so that I can take opportunities to provide comments during public CEQA reviews. I am the chair of the Ecosystems Advisory Committee of the Desert Tortoise Council.

Last year, we wrote 92 comment letters, mostly to the Bureau of Land Management, for proposed projects that may affect the desert tortoise. I'm also on the distribution list for projects in San Bernardino County, receiving regular public announcements for county projects in tortoise habitats. I understand that there are several current projects in 29 Palms that may affect tortoises, including a solar development and a resort in Indian Cove [i.e., Ofland Hotel]. Again, I would like to be notified during public comment periods for these and other projects.” Section 15190.5 of CEQA says that “[n]otice shall be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing.” We consider the August 2024 email to be a request to receive public notice of the proposed project and all other proposed development projects within the City of Twentynine Palms. We are disappointed that neither Mr. LaRue nor the Council received notice of the proposed project, and question whether this perceived omission may have violated CEQA? Again, the Council requests that Mr. LaRue ([email protected]) and the Council ([email protected]) be notified of any proposed action that is authorized, funded, or carried out by the City that is subject to CEQA.

This includes categorical exemptions, negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, and environmental impact reports.

Please respond via email to the Council to let us know that you have received this second request for public notification of CEQA projects and will comply with it for all future CEQA documents.

Response 22.E.

As the commenter is aware, the City responded to the commenter via email on August 21, 2024.

The City has placed the commenter on the City’s CEQA distribution list.

Comment 22.F.

Environmental Factor IV – Biological Resources
Under the Biological Resources element in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City addressed the following questions:

A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game [sic] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

C. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
In this section of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (page 29), the City states that “[o]ngoing threats, including population loss, habitat degradation and fragmentation due to development have resulted in the desert tortoise being listed as a federal and state threatened species,” and that “CEQA further requires all new developments avoid potential impacts to the desert tortoise and any other federal, state, and/or local listed species” (page 29).

Questions A, D, and E relate to the tortoise.

Question A: The City states that “[a] site-specific biological resource assessment report was prepared on March 18, 2024, by WSP USA (WSP) (Appendix B). The report consists of a literature review, record search, and biological field survey to determine the Project’s biological impact onto the native habitat.” After a one-day field survey of the project site for all biological resources, the BRA [Biological Resources Assessment; Terra Nova Planning and Research 2024] Report provided the following determination and recommendation for the tortoise:
“the project site and surrounding area contains suitable habitat. For these reasons, desert tortoises may be currently present or may enter the project area in the future (emphasis added).

The following mitigation and minimization measures are recommended to ensure that any potential impacts to the desert tortoise are avoided:
1) Desert tortoise surveys should be conducted in accordance with the Preparing for Any Action that May Occur Within the Range of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (USFWS 2019).”
This was the only “mitigation and minimization measure” recommended in the BRA Report for the tortoise. We note that this is not a mitigation and minimization measure. Rather, it is standard operating procedure for projects with surface disturbance that occur in potential tortoise habitats including linkage habitats among tortoise populations. Conducting U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) presence/absence protocol surveys for the tortoise is the initial step that gathers baseline information to help determine whether the tortoise uses the project site and nearby areas. The presences of tortoises, tortoise sign, and other information is then compiled and analyzed to determine the extent of the direct and indirect impacts to the tortoise, if any, from the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project.

Response 22.F.

The commenter incorrectly cites both the author of the biological resources report and the mitigation measure. First, the biological resources report was prepared by a professional biologist with WSP USA. Second, the recommendation in the biological resources report, cited by the commenter, was expanded in the Initial Study to read:

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

BIO-1: Desert Tortoise
Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit on the Project site, preconstruction surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFWS 2019, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii).”
If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise is found onsite during construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps. No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without prior authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.

In addition, as stated in Response 8.B., the mitigation measure has been amended to read:

Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit and any ground disturbing activities occurring on the Project site, pre-construction surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFWS 2019, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii).” shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If a desert tortoise is found during surveys, the applicant shall secure an Incidental Take Permit from the appropriate regulatory agencies.

If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise is found onsite during construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without an Incidental Take Permit from the appropriate regulatory agencies. prior authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.

Comment 22.G.

From the information provided in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, we perceive that the City knows about the requirements under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) for listed/candidate species including the tortoise. This perception is based on the City stating that “ “the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have established regulations to allow development to occur within a strict framework that ensures potential impacts to the desert tortoise population and sensitive habitat are reduced to the greatest extent.” However, we were unable to find in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that these requirements are discussed or commitments are made by the City to follow them. In summary, we found no information on how the proposed project would comply with FESA or CESA. Please add this information to the CEQA document, as without it, the City may be approving a project that violates these laws.

Response 22.G.

Please see Response 22.F. As clearly shown in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, even before its amendment, the Initial Study clearly states that surveys for the tortoise will be required to follow USFWS protocol. Therefore, the Initial Study clearly enumerates how the City will require the project to comply with FESA and CESA, and no change to the Initial Study is required.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 22.H.

According to Terra Nova Planning and Research’s (2024) biological report, although the consultant spent 10 hours on the site surveying “meandering transects” in October 2023, they did not perform USFWS (2019) protocol surveys. It has now been a year-and-a-half since the survey was performed, and given the location we suspect that tortoises are present. In the following image provided by Circle Mountain Biological Consultants, Inc. (CMBC), the proposed project is located within the black circle. Those sites where CMBC found desert tortoise signs are shown in green, sites where no tortoise signs were found are shown in red, and the city limits are inside the heavy black line. One can see that all proximate surveys have detected desert tortoise signs:

Perhaps the recon surveys were by design pending completing a formal survey, which is stated in the conclusions on page 21 (Terra Nove Planning and Research 2024): “1) Carry out desert tortoise surveys in accordance with the guidelines provided in the document Preparing for Any Action that May Occur Within the Range of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (USFWS 2019). If desert tortoise is found within the project area, seeking guidance from the USFWS [and CDFW] is advised and necessary.”
This site must be resurveyed using the appropriate 2019 tortoise survey protocol and CDFW (2012) burrowing owl guidance, otherwise the City may approve a project that will result in the loss of tortoises and occupied habitat. In the absence of a formal protocol survey, the City would be remiss in approving this project without state and federal incidental take permits, which are required if even a single tortoise scat is found onsite. We also note that surveying meandering transects would not necessarily detect burrowing owl sign, and that point #3 on page 21 of the biological report also recommends focused surveys for owls. Burrowing owls are now a candidate species for state listing, so it is vital that the presence or absence of burrowing owls, which are also frequently found in the region, must be ascertained. As we understand it, a mitigated negative declaration should NOT be declared where threatened and candidate species would be affected.

Response 22.H.

The map prepared by the commenter’s consulting firm appears to show that the nearest sighted tortoise in their experience was 0.8 miles east of the project site. The project biologist completed a general biological survey to assess the potential impact of the project for CEQA purposes. The project biological resources report, and the Initial Study, both clearly state that suitable habitat occurs on the property for the species, and surveyed the entire site, with a focus on the proposed development area. The Initial Study further provides stringent mitigation requiring surveys prior to the initiation of construction, and further restrictions should the species be identified during construction.

As the commenter is aware, desert tortoise are mobile, and could move onto the property at any time, or not at all. The Initial Study assumes the potential for presence, and provides mitigation which will assure that potential impacts to the species will be mitigated at the time that they could occur (immediately prior to construction) to assure that should a member of the species move onto the development area, they are not impacted. The mitigation measure further requires that federal protocols be implemented, and that an Incidental Take Permit be secured if the species is identified on the property. The Initial Study has identified a potentially significant impact, and has mitigated that impact in a manner which will assure protection of desert tortoise, and as edited, to the satisfaction of the CDFW (see Comment and Response 8.B.)

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

As it relates to the commenter’s understanding that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be declared when a threatened or candidate species is affected, there is no such prohibition under either Fish and Game Code, or under CEQA.

As it relates to burrowing owl, see responses below directly associated with the species.

Comment 22.I.

Take under FESA and CESA: Both laws prohibit the take of a listed species for non-federal projects unless the project proponent first obtains an incidental take permit from the USFWS and CDFW authorizing this take. CESA extends this take protection to candidate species such as the western burrowing owl.

Under FESA, take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (Section 3(18), FESA). Harm is defined as “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter” [50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 17.3(c)]. Harass is defined as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR § 17.3). Consequently “take” includes modification of habitat that would result in harm, or human activities that modify a species’ behavior and create the likelihood of injury or mortality.

Presence/Absence or Pre-project Surveys for the Tortoise: To determine whether an incidental take permit is needed for a proposed non-federal project, the USFWS has developed a presence/absence survey protocol for the tortoise (USFWS 2019). For smaller projects this protocol requires 100% survey coverage of the action area (see below for definition of “action area”). CDFW has adopted the USFWS’s 100% coverage survey as the methodology1 to use to determine tortoise presence/use of the action area. These are the surveys that the BRA Report recommended.

As part of the presence/absence survey protocol, experienced desert tortoise surveyors and restricted transect widths for surveying the action area are necessary because (1) tortoises spend most of their time underground avoiding temperature extremes, (2) when aboveground they are cryptic and not easily seen, and (3) the survey includes searching for tortoise sign (e.g., shells, scat, tracks, etc.). Research has shown that experienced tortoise surveyors miss seeing tortoises and their sign when transects are wider than 15 feet on a side (USFWS 2025).

Conducting presence/absence surveys for the tortoise is a long-standing method for collecting data that are used to describe and analyze the potential direct and indirect impacts to the tortoise for any proposed project in tortoise habitat for federal and non-federal projects and to determine whether an incidental take permit is needed. The Council requests that the City coordinate with USFWS and CDFW to ensure that the City is implementing the appropriate methods to determine the presence of tortoises in the vicinity of the proposed project and fully assessing the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project to the tortoise/tortoise habitat.

Clearance Surveys for the Tortoise: The presence/absence surveys are different than clearance surveys (USFWS 2009). Clearance surveys require 100 percent coverage of the project area, with a focus on locating all desert tortoises above and below ground within the project area.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Clearance surveys are conducted only after incidental take permits are issued and immediately prior to initiating surface disturbance within the project area or following installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing that encompasses the project area to preclude tortoises from the project area.

Clearance surveys involve authorized tortoise biologists walking transects less than or equal to 15 feet (5-meters) wide under typical conditions. This is half the width of the presence/absence surveys. In areas of dense vegetation or when conditions limit the ability of the surveyors to locate desert tortoises, transects should be reduced in width accordingly. A minimum of two surveys is required. If desert tortoises are found during the second survey, the USFWS and CDFW may require a third survey. If any desert tortoises are found, they would be moved to another location according the requirements in the incidental take permits from the USFWS and CDFW.

Need for an Incidental Take Permit: Prior to conducting a clearance survey for non-federal projects, an incidental take permit under Section 10(a)(1)B) of FESA and Section 2081 permit under CESA are required. This is because biologists conducting the clearance survey will capture and remove all tortoises found in the development area of the proposed project, which is take.

Qualified Tortoise Biologists as Surveyors: Both the presence/absence and clearance surveys should be conducted using “desert tortoise surveyors with appropriate qualifications” (USFWS 2019). The need for experienced desert tortoise surveyors to conduct presence/absence surveys cannot be overstated. As relayed to Mr. Gardner and Ms. Olsen in the August 21, 2024 email, when the casino was built in the southern part of Twentynine Palms, “the initial consultant had not found any tortoises, but we [CMBC biologists] had found tortoise sign on two adjacent sites, so subsequent surveys by a knowledgeable biologist found several tortoises on the casino site.” Action Area: When implementing the tortoise presence/absence survey, the areas surveyed should cover the entire action area for the proposed action. The “action area” is defined by the regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations 402.02), as “areas to be affected directly or indirectly [emphasis added] and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” Action areas frequently include the project site, access routes, and the areas into which desert tortoises are to be translocated. The extent of the action area is not limited to the “footprint” of the action nor is it limited by the authority of the federal, state, or local agency or any other entity proposing the project; it will vary with each proposed action [proposed project]. The USFWS uses the action area to estimate the number of desert tortoises that may be affected by the proposed action. This and other information is used to determine the “impacts of the taking” for a proposed project and minimize and mitigate the impacts to the maximum extent practicable under FESA and fully mitigate the impacts under CESA.

We request the City include in the CEQA document the need (1) to coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW regarding the desert tortoise pre-construction surveys and, if needed, (2) to conduct clearance surveys after obtaining federal and state incidental take permits for tortoises prior to initiating any ground disturbance.

Response 22.I.

Please see Response 22.H. The City thanks the commenter for the description of standards and terminology associated with FESA and CESA as they relate to desert tortoise. It is not correct, however, that incidental take permits must be secured prior to surveys (as evidenced by the CDFW comment 8.B.). Should the species be identified in preconstruction surveys, all activity

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

would cease until that permit was secured, as is currently required and the standard practice for professional biologists. As described in Response 22. G., the CDFW has commented on the Initial Study, requested a change to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, and with that change finds the analysis of desert tortoise sufficient. No further change to the Initial Study is required.

Comment 22.J.

At the beginning of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City states “[t]he purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to disclose and evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms.” Unfortunately, we did not find that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration disclosed and evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed project to the tortoise and its habitat. Many of the impacts to the tortoise, primarily indirect and cumulative impacts from the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project, were not analyzed or even described in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This is likely because the biological resources assessment report (Terra Nova Planning and Research 2024) was limited to determining whether special status species including the tortoise may occur on the project site, and not what the impacts to the tortoise from the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project would be.

An additional reason may be that Question A appears to address only direct impacts and those that occur on the project site. For the proposed project, the site of direct impacts (footprint of the glamping hotel and associated facilities) is not likely to provide habitat for permanent or temporary occupancy of the tortoise and other special status animal species (e.g., western burrowing owl, kit fox, American badger) after development and would impede the function of the linkage area in which the project is located (see Question D below). The species that currently use the project area (hotel facilities footprint and open space conservation area) and adjacent areas would likely be indirectly impacted by the construction, use, and/or operations of the project, and these activities may result in incidental take of these species that would violate federal and/or state laws/regulations/codes.

Response 22.J.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, the Initial Study does disclose the temporary and permanent, direct and indirect impacts of the project on desert tortoise, as described in Responses 22.F., 22.G. and 22.H..

Further, as stated by the commenter “the site of direct impacts (footprint of the glamping hotel and associated facilities) is not likely to provide habitat for permanent or temporary occupancy of the tortoise and other special status animal species…” The conservation area around the hotel site will continue to provide a corridor, in its natural state, for the species to traverse the site. No change to the Initial Study is required.

Comment 22.K.

The USFWS has documented substantial declines in tortoise abundance and density since 2004, especially in California (see attachment Appendix A – Demographic Status and Trend of the Mojave Desert Tortoise including the Tortoises in Western Mojave Recovery Unit). The primary reason for its substantial decline has been from increased mortality caused by indirect impacts from human activities. These include human activities that result in the destruction, degradation and/or fragmentation of tortoise habitat; surface disturbance and introduction of non-native

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

invasive plant species via construction equipment, vehicles, and other sources; replacement of native forbs with high nutritional and water value with low nutritional non-native invasive grasses (Drake et al. 2016); increased occurrence of fire size, intensive, and frequency of human-caused wildfires from fuels provided by non-native invasive plant species (Brooks and Esque 2002); increased predation from substantially increased numbers of predators that utilize subsides of food, water, and nesting locations (Boarman 2003); and increased human access that provides opportunities for vandalism and collecting tortoises for pets. Major sources of surface disturbance include residential, commercial, and industrial development projects and associated roads/highways (such as the proposed project); military training; and off-highway vehicle use (USFWS 2011, Tuma et al. 2016).

For example, the creation of the access road from Lear Avenue to the parking area of the glamping hotel will bisect the west side of the open space conservation area. Paving Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road will likely increase the occurrence and speed of vehicles on these roads from current use. The direct impact from this new and increased road use is the loss of tortoise habitat and killing of tortoises from collisions with vehicles/construction equipment during the construction phase, and employees, guests of the glamping hotel during the use and operations phase.

However, road establishment/increased road use in tortoise habitat is often followed by various indirect impacts to the tortoise and its habitat including increased human access causing disturbance of species’ behavior (Harju et al. 2024), increased predation, spread of invasive plant species that alter/degrade nearby habitat (Boarman and Sazaki 2006), reduced numbers of tortoises/tortoise sign. Nafus et al. (2013) stated that the ecologically affected areas along roads, otherwise known as ‘‘road-effect zones,” are those in which a change in wildlife abundance, demography, or behavior is observed. Von Seckendorff Hoff and Marlow (2002) reported reductions in tortoise numbers and sign from infrequent use of roadways to major highways with heavy use. For a lightly used road, the reduction in tortoises and sign was evident 1.1 to 1.4 km (3,620 to 4,608 feet = 0.68 to 0.87 mile) from the road. See also LaRue (1992).

Nafus et al. (2013) reported that roads may decrease tortoise populations via several possible mechanisms, including cumulative mortality from vehicle collisions and reduced population growth rates from the loss of larger reproductive animals. Other documented impacts from road construction and use include increases in roadkill of other wildlife species that create or increase food subsidies for common ravens, and contribute to increases in raven numbers and predation pressure on the tortoise. These findings indicate that the improvements to Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road and the creation of the access road to the glamping hotel may negatively impact the tortoise and tortoise habitat in the open space conservation area thus devaluing its ability to support tortoises as a linkage area. We did not find the direct or indirect impacts to the tortoise and other wildlife species and their habitats from the construction and use of these roads described, analyzed, or mitigated in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Response 22.K.

The commenter’s description of roads’ impacts to tortoises is noted. However, the project site occurs on four existing roadways: State Route 62, which is currently paved and heavily traveled; Lear Avenue, which is unpaved but regularly used by residents of the neighborhood to the west (approximately 300 trips per day); and Sullivan and Shoshone Valley roads, which are both unpaved and lightly traveled due to the lack of development to the south. Sullivan will be paved to access the employee housing on the south side of the development area, but is not expected to carry more than 10% of project trips, or 90 trips over a 24 hour period. Lear Avenue will carry 90% of project trips between Cactus and SR 62 (804 trips per day), and 5% south of Cactus (43

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

trips). No new trips will occur on Shoshone Valley, as no access is proposed there. The portion of Lear Avenue between SR 62 and Cactus represents a distance of 550± feet which is already impacted by the existing traffic patterns, the frontage road, and off-road activity. Trips traveling on the project driveway will not be at high speeds, particularly given the curvilinear nature of the driveway. There is a potential, as there is without the proposed project, for desert tortoise mortality around the project site. However, the potential does not represent a significant impact to the species, given the low population of the species in the area, the existing presence of SR 62 and existing development to the west, and the slow speeds on residential roadways to the south of SR 62.

Comment 22.L.

Another example of an indirect impact from the project’s construction, use, and operations that may result in take of the tortoise is increased tortoise predation. Common ravens are known to prey on juvenile desert tortoises based on direct observations and circumstantial evidence, such as shell-skeletal remains under active nests with holes pecked in the carapace (Boarman 1993).

The number of common ravens increased by 1,528% in the Mojave Desert since the 1960s (Boarman 1993). This increase in raven numbers is attributed to unintentional subsidies provided by humans in the Mojave Desert.

In the Mojave Desert, common ravens are subsidized predators because they benefit from resources associated with human activities that allow their populations to grow beyond their “natural” carrying capacity in the desert habitat. Kristan et al. (2004) found that human development in the western Mojave Desert affect raven populations by providing food subsidies, particularly trash and road-kill. Boarman et al. (2006) reported raven abundance was greatest near resource subsidies, specifically food (= trash) and water. Human subsidies include food and water from landfills and other sources of waste, reservoirs, sewage ponds, agricultural fields, feedlots, gutters. Subsidies also include perch, roost, and nest sites on power towers, telephone poles, light posts, billboards, fences, freeway or railroad overpasses, abandoned vehicles, and buildings (Boarman 1993). The human-provided subsidies allow ravens to survive in the desert during summer and winter when prey and water resources are typically inactive or scarce.

Boarman et al. (1993) concluded that the human-provided resource subsidies must be reduced to facilitate a smaller raven population in the desert and reduced predation on the tortoise.

Response 22.L.

Please see Response 20.B. The site’s trash will be stored in covered dumpsters. There is no plan to extend power poles within the site, and nesting and roosting opportunities will be limited given the project’s native landscaping plan. Although the commenter’s concern is noted, they provide no substantial evidence that the project will result in an increase in ravens due to project operations.

Comment 22.M.

Coyotes are known predators of tortoises. High adult tortoise mortality from coyote predation was reported by Petersen (1994), Esque et al. (2010) and Nagy et al. (2015) in part of the range of the tortoise. In some areas, numbers of ravens correlated positively with coyote abundance (Boarman et al. 2006). Lovich et al. (2014) reported tortoise predation may be exacerbated by drought if coyotes switch from preferred mammalian prey to tortoises during dry years. Because the Mojave Desert has been in a multi-decade drought (Stahle 2020, Williams et al. 2022) due to

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

climate change and drought conditions are expected to continue and intensify in future years, increased predation pressure from coyotes on tortoises is expected to continue.

The proposed project would likely increase the availability of human-provided subsidies for predators of the tortoise including the common raven and coyote in the open space conservation area and adjacent areas during the construction, use, and operations phases of the project. For example, during the construction phase the water used to control dust and the waste generated during construction including food brought to the project site by workers for meals, are examples of food and water subsidies for ravens and coyotes that would attract these predators to the project site and increase their numbers in the surrounding area. Grading the site would expose, injure, or kill fossorial animals and provide a subsidized food source for ravens and coyotes.

During the use and operations phase, the presence of food waste in uncovered trash cans and dumpsters would provide food subsidies for ravens and coyotes that would attract them to the project area and increase the likelihood of them preying on tortoises in the project area.

These and other indirect impacts to the tortoise and its habitat from implementation of the proposed project should be described and analyzed in the CEQA document.

We request that the City revise the CEQA document to include an analysis of the road effect zone, increased predation, and other indirect impacts to the tortoise and tortoise habitat that are likely to occur from the construction, use, and/or operations of the proposed project. A bibliography of road effects on tortoises and their habitats is attached in Appendix B.

Response 22.M.

Please see Response 22.L. The commenter’s assumptions regarding construction trash and the killing of animals on the site are not substantiated. The project will be required to water graded areas to reduce dust, but the amount of water will not result in ponding or other accumulation of water that would attract animals, since its purpose is to coat the surface and sink into the topsoil to stabilize the site. The Initial Study considers likely impacts to desert tortoise, and provides effective and feasible mitigation to protect the species. No changes to the document are required.

Comment 22.N.

In addition to the tortoise, we request that the following presence/absence surveys be conducted for these special status/protected species – western burrowing owl and desert kit fox.

Western Burrowing Owl: In the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City says “Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is provided below, which requires that preconstruction surveys be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, and again 24 hours before ground disturbance, to assure that the [burrowing owl] species is not present on the site.

With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to burrowing owl will be less than significant.” The major problem with this approach is incidental take for a candidate species such as burrowing owl must be obtained before ground disturbance occurs. Since a permit may take months or even more than a year to obtain, it is inappropriate to require surveys within 14 days and 24 hours of ground disturbance unless they are provisions within the incidental take permit.

This section of the Initial Study/Mitigate Negative Declaration should include a description of the survey protocol that would be implemented. Protocol surveys for western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (CDFG 2012) should be completed. Note that this protocol requires that peripheral

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

transects be surveyed at 30-, 60-, 90-, 120-, and 150-meter intervals in all suitable habitats adjacent to the subject property to determine the potential indirect impacts of the project on this species. If burrowing owl sign is found, CDFG would determine whether an incidental take permit is required and if so require the project proponent to fully mitigate the impacts to the burrowing owl.

This is a similar situation to the statement the City made about implementing surveys for the tortoise as a mitigation measure, but with no commitment to describe and analyze the direct and indirect impacts from implementation of the proposed project to burrowing owls if they use the project area or to mitigate the impacts to the species. Surveys provide information whether a species occurs in an area. This is information, not mitigation. What would the City require if the survey results are positive for the burrowing owl (or the tortoise) to mitigate the direct and indirect impacts of their taking? The City should explain in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration what would be required to mitigate and how the implementation of this mitigation would comply with CESA’s requirement to fully mitigate and minimize impacts to the burrowing owl that are less than significant.

Note that CDFW generally considers biological field surveys for wildlife and plants to be valid for a one-year period. Surveys should be conducted during wildlife species active season when the wildlife species is most likely to be detected, and plant surveys conducted during the species blooming/flowering period.

Response 22.N.

Please see Response 8.D. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been amended to cite the CDFW’s standard protocol for burrowing owl. It is not correct that incidental take permits must be secured prior to surveys (as evidenced by the CDFW comment 8.B.). Should the species be identified in preconstruction surveys, all activity would cease until that permit was secured, as is currently required and the standard practice for professional biologists.

Comment 22.O.

Desert Kit Fox: The distribution model for desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) shows the species occurring in the proposed project area. This layer was created by weighting three different factors - vegetation, topography, and road density - to determine a continuous range of habitat suitability throughout the fox's range. A threshold value of greater than 6.5 is considered habitat.

These data are updated expert model outputs for desert kit fox species distribution for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, provided by Dudek. For desert kit fox, Dudek provided Penrod's 2012 habitat suitability model used in the California Desert Linkage Network project, created by SC Wildlands (Penrod et al. 2012).

The desert kit fox is protected under the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 5, section 460 (14 CCR § 460), which prohibits “take” of the desert kit fox for any reason.

CDFW uses the USFWS’s (2011) protocol for San Joaquin kit fox, for surveying for the desert kit fox. We recommend that the City contact CDFW to determine whether the presence/absence survey protocol for the desert kit fox should be implemented for the proposed project. If implemented, the results of the survey should be included in the CEQA document along with the mitigation that CDFW identified to avoid take of this species. CDFW may also recommend that pre-construction surveys be conducted, and that if dens are found, disturbance buffers may be required to avoid or minimize impacts to the species.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 22.O.

The project biologist conducted a comprehensive records search for the project site, including:
• A report from the CDFW‘s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) including records from the following California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles within five miles of the project: Twentynine Palms, Queen Mountain, Sunfair, and Indian Cove (CDFW 2023); • The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) including records from the following California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles within five miles of the project: Twentynine Palms, Queen Mountain, Sunfair, and Indian Cove (CNPS 2023);
• The USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) including critical habitat mapping and an Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report (USFWS 2023). • Aerial photographs; and
• Pertinent documents from the WSP library and project files (e.g., other biological surveys from the general vicinity).

The desert kit fox was not identified in any of these databases. Further, as demonstrated in comments from the CDFW (see letter 8 above), the Department did not include any concern for the species. Therefore, the Initial Study correctly did not include analysis of, or mitigation for the desert kit fox. No change to the Initial Study, and no further surveys are required.

Comment 22.P.

Question D: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the locations of linkage habitat for wildlife. The proposed project is located in the middle of one linkage habitat (see Figure 3). In addressing Question D, the City claims that “the field survey concluded that the site sustains minimal biological resources and there is a moderate to low probability of special status species of [sic] occurring within the boundaries of the Project.” The Council disagrees with the City’s conclusion. Wildlife corridors/linkage habitats are areas that are used periodically; they are not continuously occupied by wildlife species. Consequently, a one- day visit to a project site employing “meandering transects” rather than protocol surveys would not provide sufficient information to conclude that the project site or nearby areas would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident wildlife species or established native resident wildlife corridors.

The City says that the “Project includes 110 acres of land to be designated Open Space, and preserved for conservation. This area, and the clustered nature of the Project development area, will preserve 72% of the wildlife habitat on the property. Additionally, the Project will be required to adhere to any applicable City ordinance regarding the conservation of biological resources and species. In accordance with these standards and mitigation measures, the Project’s development is not expected to pose a significant threat to the native and mitigatory species occupying the wildlife linkage. As such, less than significant impacts will occur.” We were unable to find any supporting information in the scientific literature that the conclusion presented by the City that locating a glamping hotel with outdoor recreational facilities, food, and daily outdoor activities near the middle of a designated linkage habitat in the City’s General Plan would not result in substantial adverse impacts to the function of this linkage habitat. The Council provides the following information on the minimum size, arrangement, and importance of linkage habitats to sustain the tortoise and biodiversity for other wildlife species.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Averill-Murray et al. (2021) published a paper on connectivity of Mojave desert tortoise populations and linkage habitat. The authors emphasized that “[m]aintaining an ecological network for the Mojave desert tortoise, with a system of core habitats (TCAs = Tortoise Conservation Areas) connected by linkages, is necessary to support demographically viable populations and long-term gene flow within and between TCAs.” Joshua Tree National Park is a TCA that needs to be connected to other areas with tortoise populations (e.g., Sand Hills on the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center and the Mojave National Preserve further north). “Ignoring minor or temporary disturbance on the landscape could result in a cumulatively large impact that is not explicitly acknowledged (Goble, 2009); therefore, understanding and quantifying all surface disturbance on a given landscape is prudent.” Furthermore, “habitat linkages among TCAs must be wide enough [emphasis added] to sustain multiple home ranges or local clusters of resident tortoises (Beier and others, 2008; Morafka, 1994), while accounting for edge effects, in order to sustain regional tortoise populations.” Consequently, effective linkage habitats are not long narrow corridors [emphasis added]. Any development within them has an edge effect (i.e., indirect impact) that extends from all sides into the linkage habitat further narrowing or impeding the use of the linkage habitat, depending on the extent of the edge effect. Placing the proposed project in the middle of the proposed linkage conservation area effectively negates connectivity between important tortoise conservation areas.

The lifetime home range for the Mojave desert tortoise is more than 1.5 square miles (3.9 square kilometers) of habitat (Berry 1986) and may make periodic forays of more than 7 miles (11 kilometers) at a time (Berry 1986).

USFWS (2012) reported that “[u]sing a circular lifetime home range of 3.9 square kilometers (1.5 square miles) for a desert tortoise, we estimate that a linkage would need to be at least 2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles) wide to accommodate the width of a single home range.” However, “the minimum width of a linkage should accommodate several home ranges (USFWS 1994; Beier et al. 2008)”
‘
Averill-Murray et al. (2021) further noted that “To help maintain tortoise inhabitance and permeability across all other non-conservation-designated tortoise habitat, all surface disturbance could be limited to less than 5-percent development per square kilometer because the 5-percent threshold for development is the point at which tortoise occupation drops precipitously (Carter et al. 2020).” They caution that the upper threshold of 5 percent development per square kilometer may not maintain population sizes needed for demographic or functional connectivity; therefore, development thresholds should be lower than 5 percent.

We add that the fundamentals of conservation biology include the need for gene flow between populations to maintain genetic diversity; this enables a species to more likely survive, especially during climate change, which enables biodiversity. Thus, linkage habitats are important as they provide connectivity among wildlife populations to maintain viability and biodiversity. Thus, the proposed project would have a profound adverse impact on the function of this linkage habitat for the tortoise. Given the daily outdoor activities and noise generated by people who would be at the glamping hotel or attend special events there, it is likely that other diurnal wildlife species, and possibly crepuscular (i.e., active at dawn and dusk) and nocturnal wildlife, would also be adversely affected by these activities impeding or preventing the use of the conservation area as linkage habitat.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 22.P
The commenter’s concerns are noted, but apply to the species in general, and not the project.

The site is not known to currently harbor desert tortoise. The species may traverse the site, and will continue to do so through the conservation buffer provided around the development area, which will provide substantially more protection than would a standard residential subdivision of 61 lots, with their roads, fences and yards, which would be permitted by right currently. The project biologist identified that resources on the site are limited, and did not find tortoise or other sensitive species or their sign. The Initial Study correctly describes the impacts of the project on the regional corridor, and no change is required.

Comment 22.Q.

Question E: To answer this question the City says that “the Project will adhere to all appropriate local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources and wildlife conservation plans.” However, we were unable to find in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a description of the local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources and wildlife conservation plans. There may be no policies and ordinances or there may be strict policies, ordinances, and/or wildlife conservation plans. The CEQA document should describe the relevant policies and ordinances and how they will be enforced during the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project. Please revise the CEQA document to include this information.

Response 22.Q.

As stated in the Initial Study, page 29, the General Plan addresses biological resources, and the Western Mojave Plan. The project will also be required to implement the City’s landscape ordinance requirements, and proposes to use native and desert-adapted species within the development area. These project designs, as well as any conditions of approval required of the project, will in the aggregate address the question of concern to the commenter.

Comment 22.R.

Mitigation and Monitoring: Because this document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, it contains mitigation and monitoring sections to demonstrate that their implementation will reduce the level of impacts from the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project to less that significant. However, until the City determines the type and extent of the direct and indirect impacts to the tortoise/tortoise habitat from the proposed project, and analyzes these impacts, the City is unable to identify the appropriate mitigation and monitoring to offset the impacts.

Currently the priority for managing the tortoise is to substantially reduce mortality and manage desert tortoise habitat for persistence and connectivity of the species (Averill-Murray et al. 2021; Kerry Holcomb personal communication 2025). The major threat to the tortoise is mortality from human sources, either directly or indirectly. These sources of mortality must be substantially reduced or eliminated if the tortoise is to survive in the near future. The indirect impacts from the proposed project that are not addressed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration include all the indirect impacts listed earlier in this letter and possibly more (e.g., presence of unleased dogs etc.).

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Once all of this information is collected and analyzed, then appropriate mitigation can be developed to “avoid potential impacts to the desert tortoise.” Only then would the City be able to determine whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR would be the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project.

The Council maintains that the conclusion that the City provides in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the purpose of the BRA Report was not to determine the appropriate mitigation for the tortoise. Rather, the BRA Report recommended that further studies in the form of surveys be conducted to determine the use of the project area and adjacent areas by the tortoise and burrowing owl. Consequently, the mitigation measures that the City proposes in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for these two species are inappropriate because they are not mitigation and do nothing to offset the numerous indirect impacts to these two species and their habitats from the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project.

We are providing the City a link to documents with some examples of mitigation measures that are routinely implemented for projects in tortoise habitat to reduce adverse impacts4. Please see the Council’s (2017) “A Compilation of Frequently Implemented Best Management Practices to Protect Mojave Desert Tortoise during Implementation of Federal Actions5” for examples of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the tortoise/tortoise habitat, many of which are applicable to the proposed project. While the title mentions implementation of federal actions, the BMPs may also be implemented on non-federal projects to minimize the likelihood of take under FESA and CESA.

Some of the subsidies to tortoise predators could be mitigated by requiring the implementation of BMPs that include using water for dust suppression so it does not form puddles, requiring waste containers that are predator-proof, wind-proof, and regularly maintained by the Project Proponent, etc. We request that the City require the Project Proponent to implement BMPs to substantially reduce/eliminate these indirect impacts to the tortoise and other special status species.

Coordination with the USFWS and CDFW should occur in the development and implementation of these BMPs. In addition, the City should require the Project Proponent to contribute to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Raven Management Fund for regional and cumulative impacts of projects that subsidize common ravens (USFWS 2010) and other predators of the tortoise and other wildlife, as other project proponents have done for projects on private property in the range of the tortoise.

As stated above, the BRA Report said the project site and surrounding area contains suitable habitat. For these reasons, desert tortoises may be currently present or may enter the project area in the future. A few years ago, a project in the Joshua Tree/Twentynine Palm area near SR 62 was constructed. The project had tortoise habitat located adjacent to it. The project proponent constructed tortoise exclusion fencing around the perimeter of the project to ensure that during the construction, operation, and use of the project area, tortoises would not enter the project site so that “take” would not occur. However, a storm breached the fencing in a small area and it was not repaired. Two tortoises moved onto the project site and the project proponent had two tortoises on the property and no incidental take permit. This incident demonstrates that tortoises can move onto a project site when suitable habitat is located nearby, which supports the BRA Report’s statement. It also is an example of why implementing effective mitigation correctly that is tied to the impacts is imperative in preparing CEQA documents and for protecting the tortoise and the project proponent.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 22.R.

The summary provided by this comment has been addressed in Responses 22.A. through 22.Q.

Please refer to those Responses. No changes beyond those provided in response to CDFW are proposed for the Initial Study.

Comment 22.S.

We presume that one of the reasons for the designation of the area surrounding the project footprint as “open space conservation” is to mitigate for the some of the tortoise habitat that would be lost directly from construction of the project. This is not mentioned in the mitigation section of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. To ensure that this area remains open space and in its natural state the City should require the project proponent to place a permanent conservation easement on this area. Zoning designations for open space can be changed in the future. The current process of requesting a zoning change for the land for this project is an example of this change. Placement of a conservation easement cannot be easily changed. If the project is approved, the placement of a permanent conservation easement should be required.

Response 22.S.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. The conservation designation was requested by the applicant, in order to protect the land not part of the development envelope. It is not proposed as mitigation, nor is it necessary for mitigation. The designation, as proposed, does not allow development of the land, and will act as a conservation easement. Alternatively, the City may request a conservation easement as a condition of approval. However, since the conservation designation is not a CEQA mitigation, no requirement for an easement is necessary under CEQA.

Comment 22.T.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 are:

BIO-1: Desert Tortoise
Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit on the Project site, pre-construction surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFWS 2019, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).

If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise is found onsite during construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps. No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without prior authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.

BIO-2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act
If possible, the removal of vegetation preparatory to construction shall occur outside the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season is not possible, a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to construction activities. If no nests are found, construction may proceed. If active nests are found, a buffer zone of 500 feet for birds of prey and/or 300 feet for other unlisted birds will be put in place around the nest until the young have fledged.

BIO-3: Burrowing Owl

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Two pre-construction avoidance surveys shall be performed prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. An initial avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to commencing ground-disturbance activities and a final survey carried out within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

Should the species be identified on the site, a qualified biologist shall consult with CDFW on the development and implementation of a comprehensive burrowing owl mitigation plan, which may require obtaining an incidental take permit for this candidate species.

BIO-4: American Badger and San Diego Pocket Mouse
If American badger or San Diego pocket mouse is found onsite, and if impacts to the species cannot be avoided, work in the area shall cease, and a qualified biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a mitigation program.

BIO-5: Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Implementation of a WEAP shall be required to educate the construction crew of potential special status species present on the project site. The WEAP shall be conducted within one week of the initiation of construction, and shall be repeated as new workers/trades come onto the site.

A recording of the original WEAP can be used for subsequent training.

In this section of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City states, “[t]o ensure impacts to special status species are reduced to the greatest extent, the Project will be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-5 to protect the desert tortoise, migratory birds, burrowing owl, American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse. Additionally, the Project will be required to adhere to any applicable City ordinance[s] regarding the conservation of biological resources and species. In accordance with these standards and mitigation measures, the Project’s development is not expected to pose a significant threat to the native and mitigatory species occupying the wildlife corridor. As such, less than significant impacts are anticipated.” The Council strongly disagrees with this statement and conclusion.

For BIO-1, the City states “Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is provided below to ensure no desert tortoise is directly or indirectly harmed during the Project’s construction and operation. Impacts to the desert tortoise will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of BIO-1.” As the Council state above, BIO-1 is to conduct a USFWS protocol presence-absence survey for the tortoise and tortoise sign to determine whether tortoises occur/use the project area and additional areas that would be impacted indirectly by the proposed project – the action area. BIO1 provides information; it is not mitigation. Consequently, implementation of BIO-1 does not reduce the impacts to the tortoise to less than significant.

BIO-1 does not describe what the City’s action would be if an incidental take permit is required for the tortoise (or other species) under FESA or CESA. It only states that the survey be conducted prior to the City issuing a ground-disturbing permit. Thus, if the results of the survey were positive for the tortoise, would the City issue the permit with no requirement that the project proponent obtain the incidental take permits to comply with FESA and CESA? This is unclear because this mitigation measure appears to contradict the City’s monitoring requirement which is:

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

“BIO-A: Prior to the issuance of any permit to allow ground disturbance on the site, the City will receive and file all technical surveys and permits in the project file. Responsible Parties: Project biologist, Planning Department, City Engineer.” We recommend that this mitigation measure be modified to require compliance with FESA and CESA and that the Project Proponent provide written documentation to the City from the USFWS and CDFW if these agencies determine that an incidental take permit is not needed for the construction, use, and operations of the project.

In addition, this mitigation measure only addresses the construction phase. Additional mitigation measures should be required during the use and operations phases of the project.

Earlier in this comment letter we provide some of the numerous impacts to the tortoise that would likely occur from the construction, use, and operations of this project. We also inform the City that the high mortality to the tortoise is caused by indirect impacts which the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration did not describe, analyze, or address. Consequently, the City has not produced a CEQA document that mitigates the impacts to the tortoise because (1) it has not described and analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the tortoise that would occur from implementing the proposed project and (2) it is not requiring the implementation of effective mitigation and monitoring to offset these impacts. Please revise the CEQA document to include effective mitigation that would offset the impacts described above.

Response 22.T.

Please see Responses 22.F., as well as Responses 22.J through 22.M.

Comment 22.U.

Environmental Factor XXI – Mandatory Findings of Significance Two of the three questions for this section of the CEQA document that must be answered are applicable to the tortoise, including:

Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? And
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

To assist the City in answering these two questions regarding the impacts to the tortoise, we are attaching Appendix A – Demographic Status and Trend of the Mojave Desert Tortoise including the Western Mojave Recovery Unit. Note that the proposed project is in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit, the tortoise populations in this Unit are below the densities needed for population viability, and the densities of tortoises continue to decline in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Also note that the tortoise cannot achieve recovery, that is, be removed from the list of threatened species under FESA, unless it achieves recovery in all five recovery units including the Western Mojave Recovery Unit (USFWS 2011). This includes having viable populations. We conclude that having populations below the densities needed for population viability means these population are below the level needed to be self-sustaining, and any additional impacts to these populations would exacerbate these declines and remain below self-sustaining levels. Using the information in this Appendix, we conclude the answer to these two questions is “yes,” which means the impacts from the proposed project would be significant. Please include this information in the City’s analysis of the project in the CEQA document.

Response 22.U.

As stated throughout the Responses to this comment letter, the project site contains suitable habitat for tortoise, but no member of the species or their sign was found to occur. The City has included mitigation to protect the species, and that mitigation is supported by the CDFW, who is the expert agency on this subject, as amended. There is no evidence that the project would result in significant impacts or cumulatively significant impacts to the species. The continued listing of the species by the responsible federal and State agencies will protect the species based on their findings and protocols for the species. The Initial Study correctly characterizes the mandatory findings section questions.

Comment 22.V.

In summary, we contend that the City acted prematurely in preparing this CEQA document. The protocol surveys for special status species have not been conducted by qualified biologists at the appropriate times to support the conclusions included in the CEQA document. The indirect and direct impacts to special status species from project construction, use, and operations, especially for the tortoise, have not been analyzed in the CEQA document. Forthcoming survey results and analysis of impacts are needed to identify and require effective mitigation to offset the impacts of the proposed project. This connection between the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and mitigation should be clearly presented in the final CEQA document. We request that the final CEQA document be revised and re-released with these changes and for a typical public comment period rather than the shortened 20 days that the City imposed on this occasion.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide the above comments and trust they will help protect tortoises during any resulting authorized activities. Herein, we reiterate that the Council wants to be identified as an Affected Interest for this and all other projects funded, authorized, or carried out by the City of Twentynine Palms that may affect desert tortoises, and that any subsequent environmental documentation for this project is provided to us at the contact information listed above.

Please respond in an email that you have received this comment letter so we can be sure our concerns have been registered with the appropriate personnel and office for this Project.

Response 22.V.

Based on Responses 22.A. through 22.V., the City has properly and adequately addressed the impacts of the project on biological resources. The commenter’s opinions are noted, and have been addressed throughout this document. The Initial Study, including its mitigation measures for desert tortoise and burrowing owl, correctly analyze and mitigate impacts to these species.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

23. John Talley-Jones
Email dated June 2, 2025
Comment 23.A.

Here are my comments on the above issue.

The granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in the case of the proposed Ofland Resort in the Indian Cove neighborhood is not appropriate for this project.

Response 23.A.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to individual issues are provided below.

Comment 23.B.

I have questions and concerns about the findings of the MND:
1) Regarding Environmental Setting, what mitigation is planned to maintain healthful air quality during construction? When desert land is disturbed, especially in our windy environment, dust and airborne particles, including pathogens, can be irritating to eyes and skin, and can adversely affect people prone to asthma or COPD; Response 23.B.

The Initial Study, at pages 22 through 27, analyzed air quality impacts, including impacts from particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), consistent with the thresholds established by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), the agency with expert authority in this area.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, page 25, the project will generate substantially lower PM10 and PM2.5 emissions than allowed under the District’s thresholds. These emissions will be controlled by the District’s and the City’s standard requirements, which include dust management planning and implementation, such as regular watering of the site during ground disturbance, sand fencing and other measures which will be included in the dust management plan that the District and City will review and approve. As a result, impacts associated with dust will be less than significant.

Comment 23.C.
2) The biological survey done by Terra Nova dates from November of 2023. Typically, a biological survey is good for no longer than one year. We are beyond that point.

In addition, the survey was done during hibernation season, so any tortoises in the area would not have been evident. Furthermore, the survey was done prior to the recent listing of the California Desert Tortoise as endangered. Should this not require a fresh report? Response 23.C.

The project biologist surveyed the site in October of 2023 for purposes of CEQA, and found that there was potential for desert tortoise to occur, although no member of the species or sign was found on the site. The species is mobile, and may or may not enter the site prior to construction.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

As a result, the Initial Study requires that preconstruction surveys be conducted, consistent with federal and State protocols, to assure that no impact to the species occurs. Should the species be identified during the preconstruction surveys, no work would be allowed until the USFWS and CDFW had approved incidental take permits, which would include, potentially, the relocation of the individual(s) found on the site. The Initial Study correctly identifies the site as potential habitat, and provides protection through Mitigation Measure BIO-1, thereby reducing the impacts to less than significant levels. Also see Comment 8.B. and Response 8.B. from CDFW.

Finally, the Initial Study, and the biological resource report, both assumed that the same standards associated with an endangered species apply to a threatened species. Therefore, the level of mitigation, and the need for federal and State permits, would not change because of the change in listing by CDFW. The species is fully protected, and no take can be permitted without proper permitting. The Initial Study discloses the need for permits if the species is identified, consistent with its endangered status.

Comment 23.D.
3) The project’s proximity to the National Park (it shares a border with that of the NP Buffer Zone) means that, if any EIR was ever warranted, it is in this case.

Response 23.D.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but provides no detail on the grounds for the statement. The City considered the impacts of the project, and found that all impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. That analysis led to a determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate for the project, as directed by CEQA.

The site is not adjacent to the park, but is located about one mile north of the Indian Cove Ranger Station.

Comment 23.E.
4) As per the MND, the housing offset required by SB-330 ties this project to another controversial and as yet unapproved project, the nearby solar farm. Does this approach signal that the city will take unprecedented measures to push through two environmentally sensitive builds that rely upon one another, and in doing so skirt protocol?
Response 23.E.

The City will consider compliance with SB 330 as part of the policy analysis that is considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. The discussion in the Initial Study is provided in the context of land use policy for the project, and is not tied to the solar project which is proposed elsewhere in the City. The law allows multiple methods for the City to comply with SB 330. Also see Response 5.A.

Comment 23.F.

The MND feels like an unwarranted gift to a development that could potentially do great damage to our local environment, one which is essential to tourism. A full EIR is needed in order to