Twentynine Palms City Council
July 22, 2025

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

demonstrate to the citizens of Twentynine Palms that this project, if approved, is done so in such a way that its legitimacy is unquestioned.

Response 23.F.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. As described throughout this Response to Comments, the City has analyzed the potential impacts to the project, and correctly determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate and correct level of review. 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.

24. Jordan Sisson
Letter dated June 2, 2025
Comment 24.A.

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office provides the following comments1 to the City of Twentynine Palms (“City”) regarding the proposed development of a 100-room luxury resort including two lodges and 25 employee housing units (“Project”) located on an approximately 152-acre undeveloped and vacant parcel located on the southeast corner of Lear Avenue and Twentynine Palms Highway, Twentynine Palms, CA, 92277 (“Site”).

In furtherance of the Project, applicant Ofland Development (“Applicant”) is seeking various project approvals under the Twentynine Palms Municipal Code (“TPMC” or “Code”), including: (i) a General Plan Amendment No. GPA24-02 (“GPA”) and Rezone No. REZ25-01 (“REZ”); (ii) a Development Code Amendment No. DCA25-04 (“DCA”); and (iii) a Conditional Use Permit No. 24-03 (“CUP”) (collectively “Entitlements”). Additionally, for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City is considering the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”).

Pursuant to TPMC § 19.28.100.C.5, this office requests all notices concerning the Project, including but not limited to notices, determinations, or public hearings involving any CEQA/land use actions related to the Entitlements and/or MND (collectively “Project Approvals”), as required under other applicable law. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21092.2, 21167(f); Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail and inform us of any fees associated with this request. Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter be placed in the Project’s administrative record.

Response 24.A.

The comment describes the commenter’s affiliation, describes the project, and requests that the City notify them of project hearings and determinations. The City has placed the commenter on its list of parties to be notified about the project, and will continue to provide public notices as they occur.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

25. Kevin Maddrey
Email dated June 2, 2025
Comment 25.A.

I wanted to voice my opposition to Ofland. I'm a current resident of 29 living off of Old Dale.

Ofland should have to do all reviews required. 29 has a plan and we shouldnt let developers bully or bribe their way to changing the opinions of our weak willed council members. If the development is going to create all this income, let them go through the proper channels.

Also, its my opinion that the developer will try to shirk all duties and responsibilities when it comes to infrastructure. The jobs and income they claim will not be as high as they say and the jobs they create aren't great jobs.

Response 25.A.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. The City will impose conditions of approval for project infrastructure, which the applicant is required by law to implement.

Comment 25.B.

Music from 8-8? No thank you? More light pollution? No thank you. We can look at the casinos bright annoying lights to see how Ofland might look. The casino said they'd make the building blend into the desert landscape. It's a ugly eye sore just like Ofland will be.

Response 25.B.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. Noise levels are analyzed in the Initial Study at pages 69 through 75. The potential noise levels resulting from project operations were analyzed in a projectspecific noise study, and summarized in the Initial Study. As shown in Table 7 on page 73, the noise level increases will not be perceptible, and will fall well below established thresholds.

Impacts associated with operational noise will be less than significant, and have been thoroughly analyzed.

The City had no control over the lighting at the casino, because the Tribe does not require City approval, and does not follow City Municipal Code standards. As described in the Initial Study, the project is required to meet or exceed City standards, and must install shielded lighting which does not illuminate upward. Impacts will be less than significant, as described in the Initial Study.

26. Kat Talley-Jones
Letter dated June 2, 2025
Comment 26.A.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my understanding of the Ofland Resort project and why it does not merit receiving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and should get a full Environmental Impact Report.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

The Ofland Resort could be a great asset to Twentynine Palms, but I don’t think Indian Cove is the right location. It will greatly diminish the quality of life for the neighborhood and because of its location to the west of the city center, won’t bring the kind of revenue to Twentynine Palms that the developers claim. I would far prefer that housing is built on this property at the density for which it is zoned. Twentynine Palms needs home far more than it needs lodging.

I believe the interpretation of the CEQA elements is flawed and weighted toward granting Ofland the MND. Here’s why.

Response 26.A.

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

Comment 26.B.

1. Aesthetics.

It is not correct to say that the resort will have little or no impact on the scenic vista—a sprawling hotel complex with 100 cabins, several outbuildings, an outdoor movie screen, playgrounds, a dorm, and parking will have a massive impact on the vista—from the neighborhood, from Hwy 62, and from the national park. If and when it is linked to the Harmony Acres solar farm, the vista from the neighborhood and from inside the national park with be very significant.

In addition, despite the claims for dark sky lighting, the impact of the glow from the resort will be a big change for the neighborhood and the Indian Cove campground within Joshua Tree National Park, which is cherished for its wild character and dark skies.

Response 26.B.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. The Initial Study considered aesthetic impacts at pages 16 through 19. As described in that section, and shown in Exhibits 7 and 8, the cabins and employee housing will be 12 feet in height, and will have limited visibility from off the project site, due to the distance created by the open space buffer, and the limited height of the structures. The project will not significantly impact the scenic vistas of the mountains surrounding the City.

It is unclear how the commenter believes that the project is connected to the Harmony Acres solar farm. No such connection is planned, nor is any discussed in the Initial Study.

Finally, as described in the Initial Study, the project proposes limited lighting that will be required to be shielded and down-lit. Uplighting is not allowed. As correctly described in the Initial Study, impacts associated with lighting will be less than significant.

Comment 26.C.

2. Air Quality
During construction, the dust will be significant for residents of Indian Cove and for visitors to the national park. Not only will dust cause respiratory issues for those subject to asthma and allergies, but Valley Fever has been seen to increase in dust zones within the nearby Marine Base. (See “Valley Fever: Environmental Risk Factors and Exposure Pathways Deduced from Field Measurements in California,” Int J Environ Res Public Health, July 2020)

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Exhaust from construction vehicles and the 894+ car trips a day can’t help but have a significant impact on air quality and visibility for area residents.

Response 26.C.

Please see Response 23.B. relating to dust emissions.

As it relates to Valley Fever, the comment is not supported by substantial evidence. San Bernardino County experiences very low rates of Valley Fever. The comment relies on a reported 66 cases in the County in 2021. Given the County’s population of 2,193,656 in 2022, those 66 cases represent an incidence rate of 3 per 100,000. Furthermore, this rate is throughout San Bernardino County, not solely in Apple Valley. The data provides substantial evidence that Valley Fever will not substantially impact workers or others at or surrounding the Project site.

Furthermore, according to the federal Centers for
Disease Control (CDC), there has been no
outbreak of Valley fever in San Bernardino
County, as shown in this published map.1
Finally, also according to the CDC, San
Bernardino County is reported as having the
lowest range of cases among reporting counties,
at 0-5.9 per 100,000, as shown in the CDC
incidence map below.

Comment 26.D.

3. Biological Resources
My greatest concern is for the destruction of desert tortoise habitat and the risking the safety of this endangered animal. Tortoises have been seen ranging through the parcel and it is clear from a letter sent by the Desert Tortoise Council on June 2, 2025, that surveys for the presence of 1 https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/maps.html

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

desert tortoises and other animals such as burrowing owls, badgers, and many others were not done to current protocols and standards. A full EIR is needed to determine if this is truly a zone of negligible impact on wildlife.

It also appears that the City has not committed to following federal and state regulations under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Response 26.D.

Please see Responses 22.A. through 22.V. The Initial Study correctly analyzed biological resources impacts and provided feasible and effective mitigation for special status species.

Mitigation measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels, and as a result, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of review under CEQA for this project.

Comment 26.E.

4. 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 26.E.

Please see Response 9.C.

Comment 26.F.

5. 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 26.F.

Please see Response 9.D.

Comment 26.G.

6. 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

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

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 26.G.

Please see Response 9.E.

Comment 26.H.

7. 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 study should be a component of an EIR.

Response 26.H.

Please see Response 9.F.

Comment 26.I.

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 this opportunity.

Response 26.I.

Please see Response 9.G.

27. Mark and Debby Zietz
Email dated June 2, 2025
Comment 27.A.

Our family has lived in Indian Cove since 1981, we are 3 parcels west of the proposed resort. We have been fortunate to be able to enjoy our dark skies, our quiet, safe and unpopulated neighborhood for many years. During my walks in these two open areas I have been picking up trash, asking offroaders to stay on designated paths, and have personally seen a dozen or more tortoises making their way along with hundreds of Chuckwalla, Desert Iguana, Leopard lizard,

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Gecko, Ringtail lizard, Rabbit, Bobcat, and of course lots of Coyote. I fear these will be forced from their lands to make way for commercial zoning.

Responses 27.A.

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

Comment 27.B.

We feel it is imperative to require the full environmental study. A couple years back I watched what appeared to be 3 or 4 elderly people wearing vests, walking through this area which I assumed was to observe and record the flora and fauna. I thought this was questionable because they were all 200 to 250 feet apart from each other and just strolling through the desert, didn’t seem like a thorough search to me. I would like to think that we’re not accepting this as the one and only study/survey for this endangered habitat.

Response 27.B.

It is unclear how the “elderly people” to whom the commenter refers are related to the project. As described in the Initial Study, site visits were conducted for both the biological and cultural resources reports, and the project engineer and geotechnical specialist have also conducted onsite activities. Without further detail, it cannot be determined which discipline was associated with the sighting.

Comment 27.C.

And as far as the re-zoning of this parcel, OMG we’re actually taking an established Residential Estate 5+ acre section of land and making it a Commercial Tourist mess, with 100 little prefab match boxes, built and owned by the elite out-of-towners for the elite out-of-towners? Oh boy, can’t wait. I know people who over the years have petitioned the city for MINOR zoning changes and had difficulties, or minor changes in easements on their properties, and these people come in from out of town and want to make this enormous flip. There are plenty of vacant commercial properties available, or put your luxury hotel east of town, lots of room out there. Our street, Sullivan Rd. from Copper Mtn. east to Shoshone Valley is the favored walking path for all the residents and the many STR occupants in Indian Cove. Daily, I see a steady flow of folks enjoying the experience and with the addition of 100’s of luxury hotel units and the employees needed to run the place, we’ll be impacted with 100’s of Teslas sneaking up on us (cause you can’t hear those things) the dust, running over our snakes, lizards, and speeding (no one respects residential speed limits). With no designated street (dead end road), and no walking path this could be very dangerous. And by-the-way, wouldn’t this set a precedent for the other nonresident business moguls to take advantage of this on the other properties next door and elsewhere? Can our resources withstand this invasion? We don’t need this! The OS-C designation could be a wonderful thing for our community, if used for the right purposes, but this tied to the luxury hotel project stinks of a gift to help quiet the opposition and ease the pain sure to come.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 27.C.

The commenter’s opinions regarding the change of zone are noted. They do not, however, provide substantial evidence related to a CEQA issue. The project will be accessed about 500 feet south of SR 62, and as described throughout the Initial Study, impacts associated with the development of the 42 acres of Tourist Commercial land, and 100 acres of conservation land, have been thoroughly analyzed. The policy decision regarding the change of zone will be the subject of the Planning Commission’s and the City Council’s consideration.

Comment 27.D.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opposition to this zoning change. We’re not in opposition to the project, but feel it needs to be located on commercial property and not in a well developed residential neighborhood.

Over the years we have all wished for more businesses to “come in” to 29, but another hotel complex is not needed, we have plenty already. What the residents have been hoping for all these years is a place to buy underwear, levis, socks, maybe a fish, or a bag of mulch, a tree, or bush for the yard, etc. It’s a shame that we had all these businesses at one time (Benton Bros., the little nursery over behind the latest dollar general) and now all we have are haircuts and tattoos.

Hopefully in the future we can attract a few of these, and we definitely don’t need an indoor storage facility right downtown, just saying.

Thanks again.

Response 27.D.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but do not raise any CEQA issues. No further response is required.

28. Zach Zietz
Email dated June 2, 2025
Comment 28.A.

Thankyou for your time, my grandfather built my families house in Indian cove, it was sold to my father, and I grew up in it. I was raised in this neighborhood, I’ve lived all over California since then but 29 palms is home to me, Indian cove is home. One day I plan to share that home with my children, and hopefully put them in a position to keep it in the family for theirs. When I’m there I don’t see another house I see all the work my father and grandfather poured into it. This uniquely beautiful and peaceful neighborhood has been a reprieve from the congested seas of cement, noise, and light other areas of this state o`er.

I can’t express how much I’ve grown to appreciate it, the effects of being here opposed to more developed areas is profound. I appreciate the work this city has done, growing up here I’ve had the privilege to partake in various programs organized by the park and rec, to our city parks, and more recently the developments in downtown. I’m happy to see the next generation have access to a more robust downtown. I’m not opposed to growth, but I have seen my neighborhood become less of one in recent years. The influx of air bnbs, and 2 story builds constructed specifically for

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

short term rentals threatens the sense of community and peaceful atmosphere you look for in a home.

I’m not opposed to growth, I am opposed to setting a precedent that further erodes my neighborhood. For the many people who choose to make Indian cove home, I believe this project would mark the beginning of the end. It would no longer feel like home, it would no longer feel like a neighborhood. The very thing about this area that attracts new residents to make a home here would be tarnished and the door would be open to further develop our neighborhood, our community, our home into a playground to be used and discarded. The parcels here are zoned correctly, I truly welcome and hope more people have the opportunity to make a home here. It’s a very special place, I hope it can stay that way for others to enjoy. I hope more people can see how special it is, how deserving of respect this land is.

Response 28.A.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but do not raise any CEQA issues. No further response is required.

Comment 28.B.

It borders the park, when I was a child I saw tortoises often, I have not seen one in recent memory except in the park and deep into these parcels companies are hungry to turn into resorts. It’s a wildlife corridor. This would strain the small Indian cove park campground. It would damage our night sky, and greatly increase noise pollution (sound travels very far here, could be because of the mountains) it should definitely not be exempt from an environmental review. What else could be more deserving of such a review than land bordering the park.

Response 28.B.

As it relates to the wildlife corridor, please see Response 22.P.

As it relates to on-site lighting and night skies, please see Response 26.B.

As it relates to noise, please see Response 25.B.

Finally, the project has not been exempted from environmental review. The Initial Study thoroughly analyzed the impacts of the project, and provided mitigation measures where necessary to assure that impact would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Comment 28.C.

We can live with the land in peace, maintaining a neighborhood of people who treat it like home, or we can rob the next generation of a chance at one and take away the home of people who have already committed to making it theirs. The outside desire to build resorts in 29 palms will remain, it’s in the best interest of our community as a whole to maintain our quiet ecologically vulnerable neighborhoods who’s main attractive quality is their size and seclusion to stay that way. Allow these resorts to be developed in areas more suitable and designated for such an environment, if it benefits the city having them at all.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Please continue to grow 29 palms in a responsible way that maintains its true value. People come here to get away from the big city, please don’t make it one. Thankyou again for your time.

Response 28.C.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but do not raise any CEQA issues. No further response is required.

29. Janki Patel, Caltrans
Letter dated June 9, 2025
Comment 29.A.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) branch has completed its review of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and related documents for the proposed Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Project, located at the southeast of Lear Avenue and Twentynine Palms Highway in the County of San Bernardino, California.

The proposed project involves 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 be constructed on approximately 42 acres at the center of the approximately 152-acre site.

Th remaining 110 acres will be designated as Open Space Conservation land to preserve the area as open space in perpetuity.

Based on the information provided in the environmental documents made available for public review, we are submitting the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.

Response 29.A.

The comment introduces the commenter’s affiliation and describes the project. No further response is required. Responses to environmental issues are provided below.

Comment 29.B.

Traffic Forecasting:

General:

1. the number of glamping units is inconsistent across documents. One Hundred units are referred in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (p.1 and p. 23; Table 4-1 and 7-1), 125 units are cited in the IS/MND, and 130 units are listed in the Vehicle Mile Travelled (VMT) Screening and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Appendix 1.1). Please confirm the correct unit count, update all documents accordingly, and revise related analysis (e.g., trip generation and LOS impacts) to reflect the accurate figure.

Response 29.B.

The traffic impact analysis references and analyzes 100 units. The VMT analysis, prepared earlier in the process, analyzed 130 hotel rooms, before the project was down-sized. From a CEQA perspective, however, the VMT analysis considered potentially more significant impacts, and found them to be less than significant.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 29.C.

Traffic Impact Study:

2. Ensure that all front matter and appendix pages contain visible, sequential page numbers that correspond accurately to the Table of Contents to improve document navigation.

3. The titles of Appendices 7.1 and 7.2 are currently identical (“With Project”). The title of Appendix 7.1 should instead reflect the “Without project” scenario for the General Plan (2045) analysis.

4. Please add daily volume summary tables for all scenarios—2023, 2024, and 2045, with and without the project.

5. Please confirm whether traffic count validation or QA/QC procedures were conducted.

According to Caltrans guidance, turning movement counts should be checked for balance, anomalies, and consistency with historical data or expected patterns. Kindly provide a brief summary of how the traffic data were reviewed and validated prior to their use in the existing conditions analysis.

6. Table 1-2 presents Level of Service (LOS) as a range (A-D, E, F). For clarity and consistency with standard reporting practices, please provide the exact LOS designation (A, B, C, D, E, or F) for each location or scenario.

7. Table 4-1 presents trip estimates after applying internal capture reductions; however, the total appears low given the project context—a rural resort with 100 glamping units, on-site food service, and event space. Please clarify whether event-related and staff trips are included in the analysis and whether the internal capture reduction accounts for all applicable land use intersections. Additionally, cite the methodology used (e.g., ITE or MXD) clearly explain the assumptions applied, and provide a table showing internal trip pairings to justify the reductions. Peak hour volumes should reflect full project demand to ensure an accurate impact analysis.

8. Trip generation in Table 4-1 appears to account only for the glamping units and food service.

Confirm whether the special event space (with a 75-person capacity) is included in the trip generation estimates, particularly for weekend or off-peak event scenarios. If it is not, estimate the event-related peak hour volumes and discuss whether these trips overlap with guest trips or necessitate additional analysis.

9. Table 4-2 lists cumulative projects but does not include trip generation estimates, ITE land use codes, or assigned trip volumes. Provide a detailed summary table presenting the estimated daily and peak hour trips for each cumulative project. In addition, include a trip assignment map illustrating where those trips enter the study network. Lastly, clarify whether overlapping land uses, such as the Wander Hotel, were considered for trip reduction or distribution adjustments.

10. The use of a 2% annual ambient growth rate (equating to 4.04% over two years) lacks justification and does not reference any supporting model or regional data source.

Provide the basis for this growth rate using outputs from a regional travel demand model (e.g., SBTAM or SCAG RTP/SCS) or historical Caltrans traffic count data.

11. Forecasts should be based on the most recently validated model consistent with SCAG and SBCTA standards, such as SBTAM (2020 or later). Section 7.1 indicates that the MBTM was used, but it does not specify the model version, buildout year, land use input file, or how the model aligns with the current General Plan. If the use of MBTM is necessary, provide documentation of calibration and validation result, along with network and TAZ details. Additionally, include a side-by-side volume comparison with SBTAM outputs (e.g., intersection or screenline volumes) to substantiate the claim that MBTM volumes are “Significantly higher.” Finally, confirm whether MBTM reflects the current SCAG RTP/SCS socioeconomic data.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

12. The report includes graphical exhibits showing directional trip distribution (Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2); however, it does not provide a corresponding numeric summary. Include a table that presents the percentage of trips assigned to each major approach or corridor (e.g., SR62 eastbound/westbound, Monte Vista Avenue, Sullivan Road, etc.) to enable clearer validation of the trip assignment assumptions.

13. Section 3 references future trails and existing crosswalks (Exhibits 3-4 and 3-5); however, it does not evaluate pedestrian, bicycle, or transit access to and from the site. Clarify whether any Morongo Basin Transit Agency (MBTA) stops are located within walking distance, whether continuous sidewalks or bicycle facilities exist along Lear Avenue, and whether this connectivity supports any mode shift. Additionally, confirm whether any trip reductions or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) adjustments were applied, and explain the rationale for their inclusion or exclusion.

14. The report does not clarify whether service or delivery trucks are anticipated to access the site. If such vehicles are expected (e.g., for food and beverages deliveries or maintenance), please identify the projected truck volumes and apply appropriate Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs), in accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) guidance, in Level of Services (LOS) calculations where applicable.

15. The report evaluates only the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3) at the SR-62/Lear Avenue intersection; however, this is insufficient given that Level of Services (LOS) F is projected by 2045 without improvements, and the intersection is located on a Caltrans facility. The analysis should also include Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour volume) to determine whether traffic volumes remain elevated throughout the day. If Warrant 1 is met, the report should recommend coordination with Caltrans District 8 regarding the potential installation of a future traffic signal.

Response 29.C.

The commenter’s requests are noted, but do not affect the analysis or the findings of the traffic study. The analysis was conducted to City standards, including the percentage of ambient growth.

The Initial Study addresses matters including transit, pedestrian and bicycle access in the Traffic section, pages 83 to 90. The report and Initial Study are complete and accurate and include all City requirements.

Comment 29.D.

IS/MND:

16. The IS/MND describes a 75-person-capacity event space located within the main lodge; however, it does not include any discussion of the potential trip generation associated with this use or whether event-related trips may overlap with typical guest trips. Clarify whether event-related traffic was considered in the environmental impact analysis, particularly during weekend or off-peak hours when such events are mostly likely to occur.

Response 29.D.

The event space is part of the hotel amenities and is not proposed to be available for outside public use. Only the restaurant is proposed to be a separate public use, and trips for that use have been calculated in addition to hotel trips. See Table 4-1, Project Trip Generation Summary in the traffic report (Appendix I).

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 29.E.

17. The IS/MND identifies the project as being developed in two phases; however, the CEQA impact analysis appears to assume full buildout conditions. Clarify whether interim impacts—such a construction traffic or operational traffic generated during Phase 1— were considered. If not, please include a discussion of the potential environmental effects associated with the interim phase.

Response 29.E.

As is appropriate in a CEQA analysis, the project’s traffic impacts were considered at buildout, to analyze the worst case scenario. Any interim impacts associated with the phased development of the project would be proportionately less. As shown in Table 12, levels of service at studied intersections will meet or exceed City standards at buildout, with the construction of projectrequired improvements listed on page 84 of the Initial Study. Therefore, interim impacts would also be less than significant in terms of level of service, and would be reduced when compared to build out. The analysis of build out is the professional standard upon which all traffic analyses are based, and the Initial Study correctly analyzed traffic impacts, and no revision is necessary.

Comment 29.F.

VMT Screening Analysis:

18. At a minimum, provide regional or project-level Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimates derived from SCAG, SBCTA, or Caltrans travel demand models for cross-validation purposes.

19. Provide data on visitor origin and destination patterns, length of stay, and trip purposes.

Any claims regarding VMT reduction should be supported by empirical studies or survey data, rather than solely by assumptions based on project locations.

20. Clarify how the project site contributes to a reduction in regional VMT. Specifically, does the site replace exiting lodging accommodations located farther from the park? If applicable, include mode share assumptions to support the VMT reduction rationale.

21. High-end glamping accommodations may generate new trips rather than substituting for existing travel demand. The analysis should also be evaluate the potential for induced travel and discretionary trips associated with the project.

Response 29.F.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but the VMT analysis found that, consistent with the City’s VMT policy, which allows projects of certain types to “screen out” and be determined to not have a significant VMT impact. This practice is regularly applied, and was encouraged by OPR in order to streamline VMT analysis when appropriate, and encourage projects that reduce VMT. No VMT analysis is required here, and the Initial Study correctly concluded that VMT impacts will be less than significant.

Comment 29.G.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, they must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards upon project completion. Additionally, the project must ensure the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the construction phase.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

These access considerations align with Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:

Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits 464 West 4th Street, Basement, MS 619 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
[email protected] https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep Important Note: All permit applications must now be submitted through our CEPS Online Portal at: https://ceps.dot.ca.gov/
Currently, no further review from the Local Development Review (LDR) Branch is required.

Please be advised that LDR's point of contact role will conclude upon the completion of the development entitlement process. Once the project is entitled, the Encroachment Permit Office will serve as the primary point of contact moving forward.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected] or call 909-963-8604.

Response 29.G.

The City thanks Caltrans for the information regarding its ADA and encroachment permit standards, and will continue to coordinate with Caltrans when improvements to the State Highway are required.

30. Mark Pendergrass
Email dated June 9, 2025
Comment 30.A.

My wife and I bought a house here in 29 Palms in 2021, and we moved here right after. We have four children, two of whom currently attend middle school in town, and two of whom are currently attending college at Copper Mountain. We love 29 Palms, and we have many friends that live in the Indian Cove neighborhood that are incredibly concerned about the Ofland Resort. Having learned about the situation from them and having reviewed Ofland’s own information about the project, we have become incredibly concerned about the detrimental impact it would have on our town and the environment.

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

Response 30.A.

The commenter provides background on his residency, but does not provide comment relating to CEQA issues. No further response is required.

Comment 30.B.

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 30.B.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but he provides no substantial evidence as to why an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. 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.

31. Cindy Bernard
Letter dated June 2, 2025
Comment 31.A.

I’m writing on behalf of myself and my neighbors, Doris and Jim Lawless (APN 061418115) and Todd and Leslie Wilson (APN 061418111). I own the adjacent parcel to the project parcel immediately to the east (APN 061412102), which shares approximately ½ mile of property line with the project parcel. The Lawlesses and the Wilsons are located on Baseline, approximately ½ mile from the southern border of the project parcel. The following are our remarks on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NIMND) for the Ofland Hotel Project.

We believe there are several omissions, particularly with regard to homes on the eastern side of the project parcel, which should be addressed in a full EIR. We disagree with the conclusions drawn in the Initial Study that there are sufficient mitigations and that an EIR is not warranted. As we will demonstrate, several mitigations have been overstated and an EIR is obviously warranted.

Response 31.A.

The commenter’s introduction is noted. Responses to specific issues, including the need for an EIR, are addressed individually below.

Comment 31.B.

CEQA Element XXI (b) expressly asks “Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?” when considering “the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.”

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

In fact the Study fails to take into account the past effects of prior construction on the parcel combined with the potential cumulative effect of the Ofland Development (APN 061412115), The Harmony Solar Farm Development (06120101 and 061220105) and Earth Dome Development (APN 061401102), all of which are located in same general region on the west side of Twentynine Palms. All three parcels intersect and disrupt a crucial wildlife linkage that runs from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) to Joshua Tree National Park (Exhibit 1).

Additionally in addition to being along a scenic highway designated in the general plan where tourists enter Twentynine Palms, the region where these three projects are planned is designated for lower density residential housing development and non commercial uses per the Twentynine Palms Land Use map.

Taken together these three projects represent a rewriting of the Twentynine Palms General Plan for the west side of the City without consideration to the overall effect on the region and without completing a much needed General Plan Update. and are not consistent with the Plan’s guiding principals:

1. Promote a high quality of life while preserving the City’s desert, small-town feel.

2. Encourage high quality development compatible with the Joshua Tree National Park, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center and the City’s desert, small-town character.

3. Develop a strong and diversified local economy with a focus on arts, cultural, tourism, retail, job growth and overall quality of life for all community members.

4. Preserve the desert environment and its natural and cultural resources for future generations.

5. Promote sustainable and adaptable growth principles in the development of the City.

Response 31.B.

First, the project parcel is vacant, and it is unclear what “prior construction” on the parcel is referencing. Second, the Earth Dome Resort to which the commenter refers is not an active application, has not been received, reviewed or approved by the City, and as such is not a cumulative project under CEQA. As it relates to cumulative projects elsewhere in the City, the impacts of cumulative projects is analyzed in the Initial Study where appropriate, including traffic, water demand, and similar discussions.

As the comment relates to the project’s location in a wildlife corridor, please see Response 22.P.

As it relates to SR 62 as a scenic highway, the Initial Study considers the designation. However, the project development area will be located 600 feet south of the highway, and will not impact the designation, since open space will be visible for the traveler on the highway.

As it relates to the land use designation, the project includes a General Plan Amendment and change of zone, which have both been analyzed throughout the Initial Study. The City is authorized, by State Government Code, to amend its General Plan and Zoning Map. It is not necessary, under State law, for a City to update its entire General Plan to effectuate a site-specific amendment. These are policy decisions that will be addressed by the Planning Commission and City Council for this project.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 31.C.

Note: We will not be commenting on the following CEQA Elements: II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES, III. AIR QUALITY, V. CULTURAL RESOURCES, VI. ENERGY, VII.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS, VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, XII. XVI. RECREATION, XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, MINERAL RESOURCES, XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, XX. WILDFIRE.

Response 31.C.

The commenter’s omissions in comments are noted.

Comment 31.D.

Section 1: Access and Circulation, Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses, p. 5
Section 1: Introduction, Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses, p. 5 “The surrounding environment consists of low-density residential homes to the west, vacant land and a single family home to the east, and undeveloped vacant lots, similar to the Project site, to the north, and south.”
This statement is inaccurate. The Indian Cove neighborhood is traditionally defined as the area directly north of the Indian Cove campgrounds in Joshua Tree National Park. It is bordered on the east by the eastern edge of Rattlesnake Canyon Wash where there is a berm that separates the Indian Cove neighborhood from the Sherman Highlands neighborhood. To the South is the border of Joshua Tree Nation Park, to the north, Hwy 62. Residents generally see Mantonya Rd. as the western border.

While the Environmental Setting lists just one home, there actually are six homes in the Indian Cove neighborhood east and southeast of APN 0614-121-15 including at least three homes which predate much of the development of the western end of the Indian Cove Neighborhood. One of those homes is the historic Susan Luckie Reilly home now owned by the National Park and operated as the Dr. Luckie Study Center. “Walking the site in 1938, Dr. Luckie, and local contractor Walter Berg, discussed ideas for the vacation house Dr. Luckie envisioned. Susan later recalled that her father returned to Pasadena to have an architect draw up plans only to find, upon returning to Twentynine Palms with the blueprints, that Berg had already built the house.” (1) A second house built in the same timeframe is visible in Exhibit 2, just behind the back of Susan Luckie. That home is currently owned by Jim and Doris Lawless. My home, on the parcel which abuts APN 0614-121-15 to the east was purchased in 1961 by my Grandparents, with a home built in 1963-64. That home is visible on Exhibit 3 in on page 8 of the Initial study as is another home built in the 1990’s (as I recall).

The failure to acknowledge the existence of these homes in the narrative, in the cropping of the maps and in the relevant studies affects assumptions made about impacts throughout the Initial Study, including CEQA Element I Aesthetics, XI. Land Use and Planning, XIII. Noise, Shouldn’t this error result in a rejection of the initial study or a substantial revision with new studies or if our request that a full EIR is warranted.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

See Exhibit 3 for a map showing these homes and the border with Sherman Highlands. Owner of two of these unacknowledged homes are signing this document.

Response 31.D.

The commenter’s opinion regarding the description of the land surrounding the site is noted.

However, the description is accurate in describing lands immediately surrounding the project. The Initial Study does not characterize this description as being the Indian Cove neighborhood, nor was that the intent of the description. As it relates to the commenter’s statement that the project site is adjacent to the National Park, that is not correct. The boundary of the park is south of project’s south boundary, approximately ½ mile. Finally, as relates to the homes located 500, 2,000 and 2,500 feet southeast of the project site, their existence is acknowledged, but does not impact either the project description, or the level of analysis in the Initial Study. Specific questions regarding aesthetics, land use and noise are addressed below.

Comment 31.E.

CEQA Element 1 AESTHETICS
(a) No Impact, (c) (d) Less than significant impact The assessments of No Impact and Less than significant are based on assumptions and not on factual information as the applicant failed to provide a viewshed study supporting their conclusions. We request that the applicant conduct a viewshed study to support the arguments being made regarding adverse impacts on scenic vistas, degrading the quality and visual character of public views, and creating new sources of light and glare. The Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA) did conduct a viewshed study, however, and it is attached as Exhibit 4. The MBCA study shows that the project will have adverse effects on scenic vistas and public views as experienced from Joshua Tree National Park, the scenic highway along 62, and areas as far west of State Route 247 and as far east as the barracks on the Marine Base.

Response 31.E.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. It is unclear what the graphic in Exhibit 4 is intended to depict, but it is not a viewshed analysis. The Initial Study considered aesthetic impacts at pages 16 through 19. As described in that section, and shown in Exhibits 7 and 8, the cabins and employee housing will be 12 feet in height, and the main lodge 20 feet in height, and will have limited visibility from off the project site, due to the distance created by the open space buffer, and the limited height of the structures. The project will not significantly impact the scenic vistas of the mountains surrounding the City.

Comment 31.F.

Additionally section (c) again misstates the conditions to the east and southeast of the parcel, “and one single family home occurs at the southeast at Shoshone Valley Road.” The applicant again fails to acknowledge the existence of homes to the east and southeast of the project, some of which are at higher elevations and look downhill towards the development. It also doesn’t take into account homes in Sherman Highlands which are also at a higher elevation or the views from the 49 Palms area of Joshua Tree National Park.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 31.F.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. First, the Initial Study (and CEQA) define both scenic vistas and scenic resources. In the City, these include the mountains surrounding the City, and the desert panorama. The home located at the southeast corner of Sullivan and Shoshone roads experiences scenic vistas to the south and east of the mountains within Joshua Tree National Park. Views to the north are of the commenter’s home, and the distant views of the mountains to the north of the City. To the northwest, and into the project site, the views from that home are of the intervening water tank. The homes further to the southeast have views of a similar nature of the surrounding scenic vistas, and none of them will be obstructed by the proposed project. Further, as described in the Initial Study, public views of the site be limited, because of the distance between surrounding streets and the development area of the project. It is also important to note that CEQA does not consider the fact that a project may be visible from a given private viewpoint an impact. The CEQA analysis of both scenic vistas and scenic resources was correctly completed, and demonstrates that the project will not significantly impact either. No change is required in the Initial Study.

Comment 31.G.

Section (c) also makes an additional assertion that is not supported with factual evidence. “As it relates to the GPA, and the change from single family residential units to hotel units, no increase in impacts is expected, because the current designation would allow 61 single family homes across the entire 152 acres. These homes would be expected to range in size from 1,000 to 2,500 square feet, and would also generate driveways, ancillary buildings and accessory dwelling units.” If the applicant believes that their project would create less of a visual impact, then why not supply us with a viewshed study for the homes vs a viewshed study for the project to prove their point? While the applicant correctly states that their project decreases the potential built area by 47.81%, they increase the number of structures by 78.68% over a development of 61 homes with the attendant increase in visual disturbance.

Response 31.G.

The proposed project consists of 42 acres of hotel property which will result in 38,400 square feet of room space, 6,390 of lodge space, 5,945 square feet of employee housing, and 3,575 square feet of back of house space, for a total square footage of building area of 54,310 square feet over 42 acres. With the exception of the lodges, which rise to 20 feet, all the other structures are 12 feet in height. The current designation would allow a minimum of 122,000 square feet of building area, assuming each house would be 2,000 square feet, and would not include second units, accessory dwelling units or outbuildings. Typical homes rise to a height of 17 feet, and if two stories, to over 20 feet. This is the basis of the analysis in the Initial Study, and forms the basis for the conclusions reached for aesthetics. The Initial Study correctly analyzed the impacts to scenic resources as required in question (c), and no additional analysis is required.

Comment 31.H.

With regards to (d), the use of dark sky lighting is insufficient mitigation for this item. Again we are missing a study on the effects of planned lighting so applicant’s assertions do not have a factual basis. The number and density of structures is greater than the density for this parcel on the general plan and therefore the cast light and glare will also be greater. The restaurant is open

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

until 10pm meaning there will also be headlights to add to cast light from windows and fixtures. I currently experience glare from existing structures even though I am across the parcel from them.

Although most Indian Cove residents love the night sky and turn many lights off after dark, I currently see the lights of homes on the west side of the parcel, approximately ½ mile or more from them on the east side of the parcel. It’s also important to stress, that the darkness in the accompanying exhibits isn’t due to lights which are obscured, it’s due to lights being off. (Exhibits 5-8)
The applicant fails to mention the 20 foot high outdoor movie screen which will also cast light, and although they are planning on shielding the sides, what about the residents who are looking directly at the screen as they try to enjoy the night sky? Response 31.H.

Please see Response 26.B. As it relates to the movie screen, it will operate for short durations and will not generate sufficient light to create a significant impact, particularly since both its elevation and orientation will be blocked by intervening project structures.

Comment 31.I.

Our assessment is for CEQA Element 1 AESTHETICS (a) (c) (d): significant impact. We don’t feel this impact can be mitigated. However, reducing the scale of the development to equal the existing density of 61 structures, minimizing the use of outdoor lights, enforcing “quiet hours” where all lights are off and prohibiting the installation of an outdoor movie screen would lessen the impact. A lighting study and comparative viewshed reports are needed.

Response 31.I.

The commenter’s views are noted, but as detailed in Responses 31.E. through 31.H., the Initial Study correctly analyzed aesthetic impacts of the project, and correctly found those impacts to be less than significant.

Comment 31.J.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (a) (b)Less than significant w/mitigation, (d), (e), (f) Less than significant impact. As already noted, the project is in a crucial wildlife linkage (Exhibit 1) and the cumulative impact of the three projects on biological resources must be addressed. It is not addressed in the Initial Study.

Response 31.J.

See Response 31.B.

Comment 31.K.

Additionally the Biological Study conducted by the applicant was insufficient as it failed to account for the existence of threatened and endangered species not present within the perimeter of the project but whose range of travel includes the project, including the built area of the project.

Typically, USFWS has required that the ZOI (Zone of Influence surveys) be performed in

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

conjunction with surveys of the project footprint (e.g., 100% cover) – this survey is still necessary and why an EIR must be conducted. It’s also unclear whether the supplied survey was performed by USFWS-designated Authorized Biologists, Many people who have worked on tortoise survey teams have junior staff that are good biologists but do not qualify as Authorized Biologists (AB).

USFEWS had been contacted regarding the deficiencies of the Biological Study.

Response 31.K.

The applicant’s opinions are noted. The biological resources report was prepared by a qualified biologist working for a highly experienced firm. The survey was conducted to professional standards, and correctly assesses the potential impacts to sensitive species, as summarized in the Initial Study. The USFWS did not provide comments on the Initial Study. CDFW did, as enumerated in Comment Letter 8. They did not find fault with the manner in which the study was conducted. As the State expert agency in biological resources, their acceptance of the findings in the biological resources report and the Initial Study provides substantial evidence that the report was correctly prepared.

Comment 31.L.

On page 32 the applicant states, “Although the Project site is located within a designated wildlife corridor, the field survey concluded that the site sustains minimal biological resources and there is a moderate to low probability of special status species occurring within the boundaries of the Project.” A ZOI survey to assess the presence or absence of special status species immediately adjacent to the parcel is needed to make this conclusion.

Response 31.L.

As it relates to the wildlife corridor, the commenter fails to provide substantial evidence that the biological resource survey should have studied an area outside the site. Furthermore, since the project will result in a 500 to 800 foot open space buffers on all sides, which will not be developed, the impacts to off-site resources will not occur. Also see Response 22.P.

Comment 31.M.

Additionally, we can prove the assertion to be untrue as we have evidence of special status species on the project parcel, immediately adjacent to the project parcel and within species range of the project parcel, often with tagged location information. Exhibits 9-12 are evidence of probable badger burrows on the project parcel and adjacent to the project parcel. Exhibits 13-23 is a small selection of documentation of endangered desert tortoises and tortoise burrows on the border of the project parcel and within species range of the project parcel over several years; including sightings on the border of the project and within a few hundred feet of the project border.

Exhibit 24 is documentation of an endangered Flat-taled Horned Lizard across Sullivan from the project parcel. Unfortunately I do not have documentation, but have had sightings of at least two Flat-taled Horned Lizards along the Cottonwood trail on the project parcel in 2021-2022.

Response 31.M.

The commenter’s photographs are acknowledged. Whether they are badger burrows, tortoise burros or burrows suitable for other species, the biological resource study and the Initial Study acknowledge that suitable habitat occurs on the site for badgers, pocket mouse, desert tortoise,

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

burrowing owls and nesting birds. The Initial Study also provides mitigation measures which will assure that the project does not negatively impact these resources. The applicant will be required to implement these mitigation measures, and coordinate with both the USFWS and CDFW, and secure permits if necessary. The Initial Study has comprehensively addressed the impacts to these species, and no additional mitigation is required.

Comment 31.N.

Generally the applicant has neglected to account for impacts that exist after construction is completed. These impacts are due to size and density of the development, the overall increase in human population in the area and attendant increase in vehicle traffic.

Density: While adjacent houses on 2.5 acre parcels allow sufficient space for wildlife to pass between structures, the project’s dense concentration and number of structures in the center of the parcel impedes wildlife passage.

Size and increase in human population: If we assume 25 employees, plus 225 guests (3 per cabin / 70% occupancy), plus non-guest daily restaurant traffic of 56 (4 per hour for 14 hours), we have 306 added people per day. This represents a 44.86% increase to our current IC population as opposed to 27% for 61 houses. With this increase comes the potential for increases in wildlife - human interaction.

Increase in traffic: The applicant’s own report estimates an increase of 894 car trips a day. One of the primary causes of death for endangered desert tortoises and other wildlife is car strikes.

Additionally the applicant’s response again fails to take into account the cumulative effect of the three developments currently planned for the west side of Twentynine Palms, all of which are located in the same wildlife corridor. This failure is evident throughout the Initial Study despite the project being tied to one of them for its SB330 offset. (see Exhibit 1.) Conclusion for Biological: Additional studies needed. Potentially significant impact as the project stands today.

Response 31.N.

Please see Response 22.J. As it relates to cumulative projects, see Response 31.B.

Comment 31.O.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING, (a) no impact, (b) less than significant impact. Regarding (a) The argument for “no impact” repeats the same error, that there is only one house on the east side of the project that was cited by the applicant in Section 1 and CEQA Element 1, Aesthetics.

This development will indeed divide an existing community and there is no mitigation for that.

Again please refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 as well as Exhibit 25 which is a map from Next Door, showing an area marked as Indian Cove that stretches from the eastern edge of Rattlesnake Canyon Wash to Copper Mountain Road. Residents of Mantonya should also be included in the population of Indian Cove. Advertising for the Ofland project has continued to spread the myth perpetuated by the language in this Initial Study that their project is located on the edge of the Indian Cove Neighborhood. It is not on the edge, it is in the middle of our neighborhood.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

We are able to demonstrate neighborhood cohesion through advocacy organizations which span the the east and west sides of the Indian Cove Neighborhood. 29 Palms Neighbors was formed in 2021 by Cindy Bernard (east side of Indian Cove) and Teeney Hood and Heidi Heard (both west side of Indian Cove residents) to address issues with short term rentals and 2022 redistricting. Meetings included many residents on both the east and west sides of the project parcel. Indian Cove had been divided in half between two Council districts along the north/south streets Copper Mountain Road, Pine Springs Ave. and Quail Springs Ave. when districts were formed in 2017. Working together, we succeeded in unifying Indian Cove into Twentynine Palms City Council District 1.

In 2022, prompted by the pre-application for the Earth Dome resort on APN 061401102, Indian Cove residents formed Indian Cove Neighbors, which was the beginning of a formal neighborhood coalition. That group continues to this day and members are also residents on the east and west sides of Indian Cove.. Several of those members are also involved in Say No to Ofland, which also spans the east and west sides of Indian Cove.

Response 31.O.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. The project occurs on a vacant parcel, and a total of 4 homes occur to the east and southeast of the site. These homes will continue to have access to the west side of the site via SR 62, Sullivan and Baseline. The project will not divide an existing community as defined by CEQA, and the Initial Study correctly characterizes the impact.

Comment 31.P.

Regarding (b) the application quotes from the General Plan to support their project, here is our response to the analysis of some of those same general plan elements:
• Goal LU-1 Encourage orderly growth and development as envisioned by community residents
The key issue here is “community residents” - the applicant fails to take into account the outcry by many community residents against their project, indicating that the Ofland development IS NOT what community residents envision as “orderly growth and development.” In addition to the objections voiced by 50+ residents who attended both meetings held by Ofland at the local Elks lodge, 50-60 residents attended a community forum on Saturday, May 31 and voiced additional objections.

In December 2024, Councilmember Octavious Scott polled residents in the What’s Going On in 29 Palms Facebook group regarding the development (see Exhibit 26a). Out of 159 unique residents responding, 118 residents objected to the development. Selected comments can be viewed in Exhibits 26b and 26c. A petition at Change.org has 991 signatures, many of them Twentynine Palms and Morongo Basin residents objecting to the development. (See Exhibit 27) Additionally the applicant’s response again fails to take into account the cumulative effect of the three developments currently planned for the west side of Twentynine Palms, a failure evident throughout the Initial Study despite the project being tied to one of them for its SB330 offset, a project that also has considerable resistance by City residents (see Exhibit 1).

Note that the applicant fails to list Policy LU-1.3:

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

The City shall strongly adhere to the adopted Land Use Map by discouraging General Plan Amendments to the Land Use Map, except as required by law. • Policy LU-1.5 General Plan Amendments shall only be approved if they can demonstrate that the proposed amendment will not adversely impact the existing community and the amendment will help achieve the vision and goals established by the General Plan.

As we are describing in this response, the applicant has failed to prove that their project will “not negatively impact the existing community.” In fact they’ve spent so little time in the neighborhood of Indian Cove that they misstated the neighborhood boundaries. They have continued to execute the“divide and conquer” strategy attempting to pit the neighborhood of Indian Cove against residents elsewhere in the City. Yet residents and businesses elsewhere in the City attended the May 31 forum, responded to the December 2024 Facebook query and are placing Say No to Ofland posters and flyers in their homes and businesses. Most would say, “we welcome this project!” but add “but we don’t welcome it in residential zoning in the middle of an established neighborhood.”
Additionally the applicant’s response again fails to take into account the cumulative effect of the three developments currently planned for the west side of Twentynine Palms, a failure evident throughout the Initial Study despite the project being tied to one of them for its SB330 offset. (see Exhibit 1.)
•Goal LU-2 Protect existing neighborhoods and the area’s natural surroundings by encouraging development that is compatible with the City’s small-town character • Policy LU-2.3 Require that new development be sensitive to neighborhood context and development scale
“The proposed GPA protects existing neighborhoods” There is not more than one neighborhood adjacent to the project. The project is in the middle of the Indian Cove neighborhood. “The intensity of the project is lower than that of the neighborhood to the west, which allows and has developed at a density of up to 4 units per acre.” The applicant again fails to acknowledge the neighborhood to the east, where parcels are considerably less dense with most built homes on parcels that are larger than 5 acres. This makes the east end of Indian Cove, by design in the General Plan, less dense than the neighborhood to the west of the proposed Ofland development. Ofland is selectively choosing to compare their density to the west side of the neighborhood, even though their parcel is currently zoned closer in character to the parcels to the west. They are violating that General Plan Land Use density by insisting on building 110 structures on a parcel intended for 61 structures.
“In addition, the Open Space buffer proposed on all sides will assure that the project will be neither visible nor audible to the existing homes on the west and east.” It is refreshing to see the applicant acknowledge homes on the east side of the parcel. However, as demonstrated in Exhibits 5-8, the lights on structures on the west side of the project parcel are visible on the east side of the project parcel. I guarantee you that the structures associated with those lights are also visible during the day. As demonstrated in the viewshed in Exhibit 4, the project will be visible from the south, the north, the east and the west sides of the parcel.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Regarding noise, we will address that in greater detail in XIII. NOISE, but currently there is nothing other than vegetation and wildlife on the project parcel. The applicant, being from outside of this area, has demonstrated little knowledge of how sound travels in the desert. They insist on two items that will add to the usual noise once might expect from any development: an outdoor movie screen with accompanying sound, that the applicant says will be broadcast to the individual devices of their guests, multiplying the number of sound sources with little control over volume; and an insistence on playout outdoor “ambient” music throughout the day. Both of these items have already been pointed out to the developer as being offensive to neighborhood residents due to the potential for added noise, yet the developer has insisted on retaining them - which shows little to no sensitivity to the stated “neighborhood context.” • Goal LU-3 Promote a high quality of life by encouraging attractive high quality development that is compatible with existing uses and the City’s desert environment.

We are not against the development itself. We believe that to be compatible with “existing uses,” the Ofland development should be in commercial zoning.

Note that the applicant fails to list Policy LU-3.10: Encourage the construction of schools, parks and recreational facilities near residential areas. •Policy LU-3.11 Preserve, protect and maintain open space, parks and recreation facilities as desirable land uses, recognizing that such uses contribute to the high quality of life in Twentynine Palms.

The City of Twentynine Palms has failed in providing any amenities such as parks to the west side of the City. The project parcel, despite being privately owned, has several paths passing through it which the neighborhood takes advantage of for recreation. The enjoyment of that open space will be taken away should the project be developed on the desired parcel. And yes, of course, that same result will happen if homes are built, but perhaps by then the City will have recognized the unmet need that exists on the west side of the City. •Policy LU-3.12 Encourage economically successful commercial and industrial centers that are functional, safe, attractive and convenient to users, and which will strengthen the local economy.

We dispute that the Ofland project tradeoff of benefitting the local economy at the expense of a neighborhood’s legal right to quiet enjoyment of their rural living investments is worth it.

Instead of locating near an existing commercial center, it is invading a rural residential area, consisting of prime residential real estate that could be used for homes. Is it worth the loss of that residential real estate and the detrimental effects to the neighborhood of Indian Cove? Really? With regards to the up and coming local businesses located in downtown Twentynine Palms, the Ofland development will draw customers AWAY from those businesses, and Ofland guests are unlikely to dine downtown when there is a restaurant on the property. •Policy LU-3.13 Encourage the transition of incompatible, ineffective and/or undesirable land uses to attractive land uses that will provide high quality residential, commercial or industrial developments.
“The project site is located on Highway 62, and as such lends itself to commercial development similar to that which occurs or is planned along the highway in the City.” If the planned development were located in the commercial corridor along Highway 62, and developed the frontage road for its entrance and exit traffic as the other commercial businesses in Indian Cove have done, it’s possible that many residents now objecting to the development

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

might change their minds. But the project is not located in the commercial corridor - instead it sprawls so that it is aligned with the existing residential development, not the existing commercial development.

It goes so far as to locate a restaurant serving prepackaged alcohol, open from 6am to 10pm, just a few hundred feet from current residents’ backyards. This is not acceptable and not in line with General Plan principals.

Note that the applicant fails to list Policy LU-3.16:Protect the desert night sky by requiring that private lighting be installed in a manner that perpetuates the view of the stars in the evening, such as shielding outdoor lighting to protect adjacent and nearby residential districts and public rightsof-way. •Policy LU-4.1 Consider and address the potential impacts of new development on surrounding properties.
•Policy LU-4.6 Encourage development that complements the circulation and infrastructure network, meets the circulation demand of residents and businesses, and provides opportunities for non-automobile circulation.

The applicant has failed to address the impact on the neighborhood of 894 additional car trips a day, many in our neighborhood as traffic is routed along Lear to Sullivan. There is a mitigation for this which would be to develop the service road in lieu of developing Lear, and route entrance and exit traffic from Highway 62 to the service road instead of up Lear. The exits to 62 already exist on the property as evidenced in Exhibits 28a-d.

The applicant has also failed to address the overall increase in human population – the resort as it stands now represents a 44.86% increase to our current Indian Cove population as opposed to 27% for houses.

With regard to the other elements quoted (LU-6, 7), we disagree with several of their assumptions.

We’re not going to repeat ourselves as the applicant has done and we refer to other comments in LAND AND USE AND PLANNING (b) and throughout our response.

Regarding employment, we inquired about the jobs Ofland intends to hire and wages that Ofland intends to pay and they’ve remained silent about these. In fact there is contradictory information in the CUP and website regarding the number of jobs they intend to offer. Because most of the employee housing appear to be dorms, we’re not optimistic about the wages they intend to pay.

We have more to say on the cherry picking of goals and policies from our General Plan. but we will pick that up in comments to the Planning Commission and to City Council.

For now, here’s a few that don’t align with this project that the applicant left out of their analysis:

Policy LU-7.5 Allow clustering of residential development in sensitive areas of the City to protect and and preserve the area’s natural resources for future generations.

Goal CI-8 Optimized viewsheds along designated Scenic Corridors.

Policy CI-8.1 Establish and enforce the Scenic Vistas or Scenic Highways (PR-S) overlay within the City’s Development Code on all designated scenic corridors.

Policy CI-8.2 Seek opportunities to improve street or parkway design of scenic corridors that enhances the scenic resources

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Policy CI-8.3 Seek opportunities to create public open space areas with scenic vistas that all can enjoy.

Policy: HS-2.7 Provide adequate sites for the development of new housing through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs Policy: HS-2.9 Assist residential developers in identifying and preparing land suitable for residential development.

Policy: CO-1.2 Require focused surveys for the burrowing owl for development projects on vacant properties, to determine the occurrence of burrowing owl and prepare mitigation measures if necessary.

Policy: CO-1.5 Coordinate with federal and state agencies and private conservation organizations to preserve environmentally sensitive open space and conservation areas.

Response 31.P.

The commenter’s opinions and interpretation are noted. As it relates to the Initial Study, a project is not required to comply with all of the goals and policies in a General Plan, as established by the courts. However, the Initial Study does demonstrate that the project’s General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone can be supported in the City’s existing General Plan. The ultimate policy issues will be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Comment 31.Q.

XIII. NOISE (a) Less than significant impact
“The nearest sensitive receptors are the single family residences immediately west of Lear Avenue.”
This statement confirms our assertion that the project developer does not have an adequate understanding of how sound travels in the desert. Noise from that parcel, as evidenced by occasional ORV and motorcycle traffic on the parcel travels from Sherman Highlands to the Park border to beyond the western border of the Indian Cove neighborhood. This is because the parcel is located in the middle of a populated area with little to buffer the circulation of sound (such as trees in a forest for example.)
Existing Noise Levels
Regarding existing noise levels, the applicant again failed to consider the five other homes on the east side of the project parcel as evidenced in Table 6 and associated map on page 71 of the Initial Study. The farther east or south east monitor placement is just south of my home, listed as L3 on the table with the wrong address of 69711 Shoshone Valley Road (it’s 69711 Twentynine Palms Hwy as the parcel extends to Hwy 62). See Exhibit 3 for the locations of homes excluded from the study. It is highly likely that their base noise levels are softer than mine. The average db level listed for my property is listed as 51.3 daytime and 41.8 nighttime on the study, and my own average being 48.55 db, so 2.75db lower than the study.

The average Db readings taken at my property, Recordings can be supplied on request.

Wednesday, May 14, 6:51pm - 47.4 db
Thursday, May 15, 7:49pm - 52.4 db Friday, May 16, 2025, 7:09am - 49.8 db Sunday, May 25, 2025, 4:55pm - 34.6 db Recordings can be supplied on request.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 31.Q.

The commenter’s observations are noted. Since no substantial evidence of the modeling equipment or software used by the commenter is provided, the comment does not provide substantial evidence, nor is the commenter a noise engineer.

Comment 31.R.

Construction Noise
Again insufficient readings were taken from east and northeast of the site. It goes without saying that the construction noise will be disruptive.

Operational Noise Levels
“At buildout, principal Project-related noise sources will include air conditioning units, outdoor activities, music, an outdoor movie screen, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot activity.

According to the project application, background music will be played in the main and secondary lodges throughout the day from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.” Little detail is provided as to how the operational noise levels were estimated. It should be noted that the noise levels will be considerably louder than 61 homes because the number of structures and the people associated with them are much greater than the population of the residential density of the project. What goes unnoted by the applicant is the sound level will affect not just residents but also local wildlife. Per the National Park Service:
“Sound, just like the availability of nesting materials or food sources, plays an important role in ecosystems. Activities such as finding desirable habitat and mates, avoiding predators, protecting young, and establishing territories all depend on the acoustical environment. To continue these activities, animals are forced to adapt to increasing noise levels. For example, research shows that males of at least one frog species are adapting to traffic noise by calling at a higher pitch (Parris et al. 2009). This could be problematic for the females, because they prefer lower-pitched calls, which indicate larger and more experienced males. Human-caused noise has caused similar changes in multiple bird species, as well as squirrels, primates, bats, and cetaceans (Barber et al. 2009; Barber et al. 2010).” (2)
Response 31.R.

The commenter is incorrect. Pages 19 through 28 of the noise study detail the noise standards, procedures and methodology used to determine noise levels at and around the site. As it relates to the noise levels created by the project, the Initial Study cites specific operational noise levels at 33.4 to 38.5 dBA Leq during the day, and 25.8 to 32.5 dBA Leq at night, an increase of no more than 0.2 dBA over ambient conditions at the studied receiver locations. The noise increase will not be perceptible to the human ear, and even to more sensitive wildlife, will not significantly impact the noise environment at the site. It is also noted that the site does not support any frog habitat, as shown in the biological resource study.

Comment 31.S.

Regarding human effects, we will mostly reiterate our comments from Policy LU-2.3 under LAND USE AND GENERAL PLAN.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Currently there is nothing other than vegetation and wildlife on the project parcel. The applicant, being from outside of this area, has demonstrated little knowledge of how sound travels in the desert. They insist on two items that will add to the usual noise one might expect from any development:

1. an outdoor movie screen with accompanying sound that the applicant says will be broadcast to the individual devices of their guests, multiplying the number of sound sources with little control over volume

2. An insistence on playing outdoor “ambient” music from 6:00am to 10:00pm.

Both of these items have already been pointed out to the developer as being offensive to neighborhood residents due to the potential for added noise, yet the developer has insisted on retaining them.

We do not understand why these additional sound items are necessary and believe the proper mitigation is to simply eliminate unnecessary sounds such as outdoor music and outdoor movie soundtracks.

Response 31.S.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. As it relates to the movie screen, headphones provided to watching guests will not impact the noise environment, since they will be placed in guests ears.

The playing of music at the lodge during the day will also not impact surrounding properties, as evidenced by Table 7 of the Initial Study and corresponding analysis in the noise study.

Comment 31.T.

Unaddressed anywhere by the applicant in this item, are the sounds associated with the guests - such as barking dogs, offroad vehicles and television sets and music from inside of the cabins or played outside of the cabins by guests, including those who may organize special events such as weddings. We reiterate again – the number of people associated with this resort is a 44.86% increase to our current population. The number of people this resort supports is too large for our small neighborhood and the scale of the resort needs to be brought into alignment with the proposed residential density of the parcel - 61 structures. Also if built, policies will need to be in place to ban guests from bringing dogs and ORVs onto the property.

Response 31.T.

The thresholds for noise impacts are described in the Initial Study and the noise study. As thoroughly analyzed, the noise levels will not exceed any threshold, including the City’s noise thresholds. The commenter’s question is not relevant to the analysis, and is not supported by substantial evidence – for example, a resident of a home with a teenager may result in a loud car radio passing down Lear Avenue, but it does not constitute a significant noise impact. The Initial Study correctly analyzed the impacts of the project on the noise environment, disclosed the applicable thresholds, and correctly determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 31.U.

Transportation Noise
The applicant appears to assume that noise levels from Highway 62 are consistent.”The primary source of exterior transportation noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from SR62/Twentynine Palms Highway.” In fact there are many factors that appear to affect the level of sound emanating from 62 – and to be honest we don’t have the scientific background to explain them. What I can say is this as I have a view of the highway from about ½ mile away (Bernard residence): there are hours of the day where I can see the traffic and not hear it all, and other times where it is quite loud. And of course, there are times when there is little traffic and there is also little sound.

What we can say, is, unlike the highway, a resort with a restaurant and assorted recreational activities will have consistent sound from 6am to 10pm, including added traffic noise both from the cars of guests and from the ORVs they plan to use to shepherd guests to and from their cabins.

Noise Conclusion
For all of the reasons stated above the correct assignment for the Noise element is Potentially Significant Impact, unless mitigations are agreed to.

Response 31.U.

As described in Responses 31.R. through 31.T, the Initial Study and noise study correctly analyzed the impacts of the project on the noise environment. The project will not exceed established noise thresholds, and impacts will be less than significant.

Comment 31.V.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING (a) Less than significant impact “In 2023, Twentynine Palms was estimated to have a population size of approximately 28,734.” The permanent population of Twentynine Palms is consistently overstated as the City limits include the temporary population of active duty Marine personnel who reside in the barracks. The actual number of permanent residents affected by projects like Ofland is about 50% of the quoted population.

But of course since this project is located in residential zoning on the west side of the City the population that will be immediately impacted is the 680 or so residents of Indian Cove. If we assume 25 employees, plus 225 guests (3 per cabin / 70% occupancy), plus non-guest daily restaurant traffic of 56 (4 per hour for 14 hours), then 306 people will be added to our neighborhood on a daily basis. While this number is likely to fluctuate, it’s not temporary. If the Ofland Resort is to be a success, then these numbers will need to be consistent – and that is a significant impact.

Response 31.V.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. The assumption regarding hotel guests is inflated, given that most cabins will accommodate two guests, not three. It is unclear how the determination of restaurant patrons was determined, and no source for the data is provided.

The permanent population at the site will include 25 employees. The guests will not impact

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

the City’s population. The Initial Study correctly addressed the questions of growth inducement and the displacement of people or necessity for additional housing. No change to the Initial Study is required.

Comment 31.W.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES (a) Less than significant impact We already have less than adequate fire protection and police services. Robert Warrick, Captain, Morongo Basin Patrol Station has advised us to add a Sheriff’s Service Specialist at a cost of $85,000 in lieu of a full Sheriff, cost $200,000.. Additionally the Fire Department has been unable to staff the closest fire station to the project: Fire Station #43 at 3834 Lear Avenue. This development is not going to generate sufficient revenue to add the Sheriff position and staff and run the Lear Avenue station (it’s unclear if the issue is funding or staff availability).

In the description of the rationale for the less than significant impact assessment, the applicant argues that “Although the addition of new structures has the potential to increase fire department calls, the Project is consistent with planned growth in the area” – this is untrue.

There is a significant difference between families residing in 61 homes and vacationers partying in 100 cabins! WIthout the fire and sheriff positions being filled, this project will have a potentially significant impact on sheriff and fire services.

Response 31.W.

The commenter’s opinions and characterizations of project guests are noted. However, as correctly described in the Initial Study, the project will offset public safety costs through the payment of transient occupancy taxes, in addition to property taxes. A residential development would only generate property tax. The Initial Study correctly considered the potential impacts to public services, and correctly concluded that its impact would be less than significant.

Comment 31.X.

XVIII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
We fear the 894 car trips a day generated by the size of this project will have detrimental effects on our neighborhood and wildlife that cannot be mitigated. Instead of addressing the findings under this item, we propose an alternative solution that will keep the traffic limited to the commercial zone along Highway 62 and out of our neighborhood.

The triggering of the development of Lear assumes circulation patterns for residential development on the parcel. But the Ofland proposal is not a residential development, therefore circulation patterns will differ from what’s assumed in the General Plan. We do not see a reason to upgrade Lear for the Ofland development if it proceeds. Instead, we believe that the commercial frontage road should be developed and the upgrading of Lear should be triggered by improvements to Parcel APN 061401102, the 218 acre parcel to the south of the proposed development.

The outlines for developing the frontage road and additional entrance / exits on Highway 62 already exist. See Exhibits 28a, 28b, 28c and 28d.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

With the commercial frontage road developed, all entrances and exits to the Ofland development would take place from Highway 62 and via the frontage road. We’d also recommend that the eastern end of the frontage road not continue to Shoshone Valley Rd. since that road is not slated to be developed in the current proposal. Instead, to keep traffic away from the Twentynine Palms Water Department installation, we recommend a turnaround loop just west of the Water Department fence. We feel this alteration to the project is the only true way to mitigate the potential disruption and long term effects to the Indian Cove neighborhood.

Response 31.X.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but inconsistent with the General Plan. Lear Avenue is a General Plan roadway, and will be required to develop to General Plan standards regardless of the use. The proposed project has developed an access point perpendicular to Lear at Cactus, to assure traffic safety and limit project traffic on Lear. The Initial Study and traffic analysis correctly analyzed the proposed project’s traffic access, and no change to the Initial Study is warranted.

Comment 31.Y.

XXI MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (a) (b)Less than significant w/mitigation Regarding (a), we have made our arguments regarding the lack of sufficient studies to support the biological conclusions and the lack of sufficient mitigation efforts. This answer to the question posed in (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 periods of California history or prehistory?” THAT ANSWER IS YES there is potentially significant impact.

Response 31.Y.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comments relating to biological resources are addressed in Responses 31.J. through 31.N. demonstrate that the Initial Study considered biological resource impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and reduced impacts to these resources to less than significant levels. The commenter has made no comments on cultural resources. The conclusion in the Initial Study is correct, and no change is required.

Comment 31.Z.

Regarding (b) The applicant states “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.” This is blatantly untrue, the project IS NOT individually limited. The project is contingent on another project moving forward: the Harmony Solar Farm Development (061-201-01 and 0612-201-05) to which it is tied for its SB300 offset. We have confirmed this fact with the Community Development Director.

Yet the applicant has failed to consider the impacts of the Harmony Solar Farm Development (061-201-01 and 0612-201-05) anywhere in the Initial Study.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

And even if the project was not directly tied to another development, consideration of other large development projects in the vicinity, past, current and future, is required by CEQA. Therefore, the answer to (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)? Is very likely YES, the effect of the three projects outlined in our introduction, Ofland, the Harmony Solar Farm and the Earth Dome Resort are cumulatively considerable. But in truth, it’s hard to know since the applicant fails to acknowledge the other projects and has not done the needed studies.

Response 31.Z.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. As it regards SB 330, please see Response 5.A. As it relates to cumulative projects, please see Response 31.B.

Comment 31.AA
Final Conclusions
Without question this project needs a full EIR if it is to proceed. Certainly the cumulative effects of the other planned projects also need to be taken into account.

Here are a few additional points we were unable to discuss in full:

1. We are not qualified to discuss it in depth, but there is a wastewater treatment facility as a part of the proposed project that is located in the vicinity for one of the pumps that pull water from our aquifer! If nothing else convinces our City officials that an EIR is needed, this certainly should. And maybe Ofland should also chip in the additional $100,000 needed for the USGS survey since the density of this development will most certainly affect our groundwater. We need a baseline before the project is built.

2. Additionally the disruption to the desert crust will cause sand to be picked up by our westerly winds and blown onto the properties and homes that are east of the project.

3. To minimize the additional soil disruption, we recommend moving the project north on the property so it is situated in the area that was disturbed by a previous abandoned development.

4. The project is too large, it exceeds the current residential density. Some would rather see homes, some nothing. But certainly if this project proceeds it should be reduced in scale so that it is closer to the planned density for the parcel - 61 structures.

5. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that the presence of cultural archeological sites and artifacts is more wide-spread than the study submitted documents. The adjacent parcel has yielded several indigenous tools of unknown date as well as large rocks with grinding slicks.

Response 31.AA.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but they have failed to provide substantial evidence under CEQA that an EIR is required for the proposed project, as demonstrated in Responses 31.A. through 31.Y. The commenters five numbered suggestions are acknowledged, but provide no additional facts to change the findings of the Initial Study.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

32. Meredith Stevenson, Center for Biological Diversity Letter dated June 12, 2025
Comment 32.A.

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms (the “Project”), with more detailed comments from the Center forthcoming. The Center has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and is concerned that the MND fails to properly disclose, analyze and mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to biological resources, water quality, air quality, and traffic, among other effects. Because the Project may have a significant environmental impact, the Center urges the City to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to fully analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts to the City’s water, air, and habitat.

The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States.

The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in San Bernadino County.

Response 32.A.

The comment describes their purpose in writing, and makes overbroad statements regarding the project’s Initial Study. No further response is possible. Responses on individual issues are provided below.

Comment 32.B.

I. The City Failed to Provide the Requisite 30-Day Comment Period.

As a threshold matter, these comments are timely, considering that the City failed to provide the mandatory 30-day comment period from May 14 to June 12, 2025, instead setting the comment deadline for June 2, 2025. California Public Resources Code section 21091(b) provides that “[i]f the . . . mitigated negative declaration is for a proposed project where a state agency is the lead agency, a responsible agency, or a trustee agency; a state agency otherwise has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project . . . the review period shall be at least 30 days, and the lead agency shall provide the document, in an electronic form as required by the Office of Planning and Research, to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies.” (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21091(b).) Here, state agency California Department of Fish & Wildlife asserted in its comments that it is both a responsible agency and a trustee agency for this Project due to the biological resources present on the Project site. As a result, the City should have allowed 30 days for public comment, and the Center’s initial comments below are timely.

Response 32.B.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, the CDFW has been sent the Initial Study for comment, but the project does not require streambed alteration permitting. The CDFW commented on the Initial Study, and did not request a longer comment period, or state any concern regarding the comment period. The 20 day comment period is appropriate in this case.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 32.C.

II. The City Must Prepare an Environmental Impact Report.

CEQA was enacted for the state to “take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state” and to “[e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21001.) The CEQA Guidelines state that “CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language,” and that “[t]he purpose of CEQA is . . . to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15003.) CEQA is an information document and, as such, “requires full environmental disclosure.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 89.) Only when “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project . . . may have a significant effect on the environment” may an agency prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration instead of an EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5; see also id. §§ 21064, 21080(c).) A mitigated negative declaration, in particular, is prepared “when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but . . . revisions in the project plans or proposals . . . would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,” and there is no substantial evidence the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Id. § 20164.5.) If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an agency must prepare an EIR. (Id. § 21080(d).) If an agency is presented with so much as “a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); see also No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) The CEQA Guidelines provide guidance for determining if a project’s effects are significant. Such a determination “calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data” and a “consideration of] the views held by members of the public in all areas affected.” (Id. § 15064(b)-(c).) The lead agency must consider both direct and indirect physical changes in the environment caused by the project. (Id. § 15064(d).) CEQA also requires consideration of cumulative impacts. An EIR is required “if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable . . . when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Id. § 15064(h)(1).) Cumulatively considerable environmental effects require a mandatory finding of significance. (Id. § 15065(a)(3).)
CEQA also has a substantive mandate and requires effective mitigation. “[P]ublic agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) CEQA requires mitigation measures to be “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.” (See id. §21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).) “Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).)

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

The Project’s impacts on biological resources, water quality, air quality, and traffic are readily apparent given the information in the MND. Any one of these factors alone is sufficient to warrant preparation of an EIR.

Response 32.C.

The commenter’s citation of Public Resources Code is noted, but they provide overbroad assertions without substantial evidence. Responses to individual issues are provided below.

Comment 32.D.

III. The MND Lacks an Adequate Analysis of and Mitigation for Numerous Impacts.

The MND fails to adequately describe and analyze the Project’s myriad impacts and erroneously concludes that the Project will have less than significant impacts on biological resources, traffic, air quality, water quality, water supply, and noise levels, without providing substantial evidence to support these claims. Given these shortcomings, we urge the City to fully analyze and disclose the Project’s significant environmental impacts in an EIR. With additional detail forthcoming, the Center finds the following impact assessments and mitigation inadequate:

Biological Resources: The MND lacks adequate assessment and mitigation for the burrowing owl, desert tortoise, American badger, San Diego pocket mouse, and numerous protected bird species. CDFW recommended substantial changes for every biological resource mitigation measure proposed by the City, offered two new mitigation measures, and noted that the Project has the potential to result in take of desert tortoise and burrowing owls. (See May 23, 2025 CDFW Comment.) Given the number of special-status species that may occur in the Project area, a more substantial biological assessment and additional mitigation is necessary to adequately protect biological resources.

Response 32.D.

Please see Comments and Responses to Comment Letter 8 above. The City fully analyzed biological resources impacts in the Initial Study, and has amended two mitigation measures in response to CDFW’s comments. The Initial Study provides substantial evidence that with these mitigation measures, the project will result in less than significant impacts, and no further change is required.

Comment 32.E.

Lack of Mitigation for Special-Status Plants: The City’s biological resource assessment determined there is a moderate chance of five special-status plant species and a low chance of five more special-status plant species occurring within the Project area. (MND at 29-31.) However, the City’s MND does not contain any proposed measures to mitigate impacts to special-status plants if they are encountered during proposed construction activities. CDFW noted this lack of mitigation in its Comment, and the Center urges the City to further assess and mitigate impacts to special-status plants in an EIR.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Please see Response 8.F. None of the plants with moderate or low potential to occur on the site is listed as threatened or endangered. There is also no evidence that the removal of these plants, should they occur on the property, would result in the elimination of the species in their range.

The Initial Study correctly analyzed the potential impacts to plants, found the impact less than significant, and no further change is required.

Comment 32.F.

Wildlife Connectivity: The General Plan identifies wildlife corridors within the City, and the Project lies entirely within one of those corridors: the Joshua Tree- Twentynine Palms Connection. (MND at 31-32; see also 2012 General Plan, Conservation & Open Space Element, at 25.) Despite this wildlife corridor, the MND contains only a cursory analysis of how the Project will affect wildlife migration through the Project area and fails to adequately mitigate this impact.

Additionally, the MND lacks assessment of how widening and paving roads surrounding the Project area will impact wildlife movement through the Project site. (MND at 84-85.) Response 32.F.

Please see Response 22.P.

Comment 32.G.

Traffic: The MND also inadequately assesses the Project’s traffic impacts. The MND projects that the Project will result in nearly 900 daily car trips, or a 4% increase in regional traffic, requiring the paving of multiple new roads and paving and widening of multiple existing roads. (MND at 84-85.) Such traffic impacts require further assessment and mitigation in an EIR.

Response 32.G.

The commenter’s characterization is incorrect, and they provide no substantial evidence that their opinions are supported by fact. The project will be required to improve Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road, both of which are existing unpaved roadways. No new roads will be created, other than the project driveways. The construction of Lear and Sullivan to General Plan standards is prescribed in the General Plan, to provide safer streets in a City environment. The Initial Study analyzed the impacts of the project on the intersections it will affect, and found that with the construction of onand off-site improvements, impacts would be less than significant. No change is required.

Comment 32.H.

Noise: The Project would create many new sources of noise pollution, including air conditioning units on each of the 100 hotel rooms, nearly 900 daily car trips, and noise associated with guests. (MND at 72-74.) This noise has the potential to disturb special-status species and other wildlife in the area, as well as nearby residents, requiring further assessment and mitigation.

Response 32.H.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. Please see Responses 31.R. through 31.U. The noise study and Initial Study fully quantified the potential impacts associated with noise, and found that the noise levels would not exceed established thresholds. No change in the Initial Study is required.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 32.I.

Light Pollution: The MND provides only a one-paragraph explanation of light impacts to the area. (MND at 19.) While the Project proposes downwards- pointing light fixtures, that alone does not mean that the cumulative total of lighting of the proposed project will be insignificant. The City must further assess and mitigate this impact.

Response 32.I.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. Please see Response 26.B.

Comment 32.J.

Air Quality: The MND’s assessment and mitigation of the Project’s air quality impacts is inadequate. Among numerous sources, the Project will result in air pollution from nearly 900 car trips per day and construction equipment in an air district that remains in nonattainment for ozone and PM10. The City must assess and mitigate air quality impacts in a full EIR.

Response 32.J.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. Impacts to air quality were fully quantified based on project-specific parameters, using the universally accepted current version of the CalEEMod model. Impacts associated with the project will fall well below all the thresholds established by the MDAQMD, and will be less than significant.

Comment 32.K.

Water Quality: Runoff from the Project’s hotel construction immediately adjacent to one acre of ephemeral channels will affect the water quality of these washes, especially during flash floods.

The City must adequately assess and mitigate these water quality impacts in a full EIR before moving forward.

Response 32.K.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. As fully described on pages 55 through 61 of the Initial Study. The development area excludes the on-site wash, and occurs to its west. The project was designed specifically to maintain this wash in its natural condition within the conservation area being created by the project. The City implements NPDES standards regarding surface water pollution, and will require that all on-site runoff be controlled prior to leaving the development area, or contained in retention basin(s) after construction. There is no substantial evidence that these standards will not adequately protect drainage channels.

Comment 32.L.

Water Supply: The MND also fails to adequately assess and mitigate the Project’s impact on water supply. The Project will demand at least 33.7 acre feet of water per year, or a 1.3% increase in the City’s overall water usage (MND at 57-58), yet no mitigation is required. Especially considering the Project’s location in an arid region, this impact requires further assessment and mitigation.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 32.L
The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. Please see Response 9.F.

Comment 32.M.

IV. CONCLUSION
Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record.” As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the project proponent’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the MND for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Project. The MND has not adequately analyzed or mitigated impacts to biological resources, water quality, traffic, or air quality. The City must prepare and circulate an EIR for the Project prior to taking any further action on the Project application.

Please ensure that the Center is on the notice list for all future updates and notices associated with the Project and its environmental review, and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.

Response 32.M.

The comment is noted. The City will maintain its administrative record as required by law. The commenter’s assertions have been addressed in Responses 32.A. through 32.L., and demonstrate that the Initial Study provided a comprehensive analysis of the impacts associated with the project, mitigated those impacts that required mitigation, and concluded that all impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels. The City will continue to notify the commenter of hearings and actions associated with the project, as requested.

33. MJ Fiocco
Letter dated June 12, 2025
Comment 33.A.

General:

The waiver can't be justified because the supporting assessments are conducted in such a fragmented way that it is impossible to understand the overall environmental impact of this project.

Each different study may have moderate to minor impacts. However, a cumulative summary of

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

these impacts would allow citizens and decision makers to understand the project's true environmental costs and whether these cumulative efforts merit deeper environmental scrutiny.

For example, on an annual basis, the resort and its sewage plant will require more than 15 million additional gallons of water (15,771,929); the resort would generate over a quarter of a million (326,310) additional motor vehicle trips as well as 90 additional tons of solid waste (garbage and recyclables).

Response 33.A.

The City has not granted a waiver of environmental review. The City considered the project, determined that it was subject to CEQA, and prepared an Initial Study. The Initial Study analyzed all required environmental issue areas, and included cumulative projects and conditions where appropriate, and concluded that all impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels. The quantification of impacts was conducted based on professionally correct analytical processes and methods. Some of these are based on daily activities and impacts, some on annual activities and impacts. The Initial Study correctly analyzed project and cumulative impacts, and no change is required.

Comment 33.B.

The document relies on undefined qualitative statements and very little measurable quantitative data. It also glosses over the hidden costs embedded in each of the environmental assessments.

Its mitigation strategies give no indication that the developer would be responsible for these costs, either in whole or in part, through bonds, sureties or other financial commitments. The inference is the city or taxpayers would be bearing these expenses.

Response 33.B.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not correct. The project proponent is required to implement, at their expense, the mitigation measures in the Initial Study, and the conditions of approval requiring improvements related to the project.

Comment 33.C.

The waiver document also fails to provide the qualifications of the firms performing these studies and whether these firms meet state and federal standards. A review of the appendices might contain this information. However, a person must go to a third part website, register and be able to download over 100 megabytes of information to do so.

Given this lack of access, any decision on this waiver should be deferred until citizens and board members have reasonable access to this information.

Response 33.C.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. The firms and personnel who conducted the technical reports and wrote the Initial Study are professionals in their fields, with decades of experience. The City provided all of the project documents related to the Initial Study on its website, as required, and provided the Initial Study at City Hall. There was no restriction of access to the Initial Study or its appendices.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 33.D.

The study does not include information on how the resort would affect Joshua Tree National Park's Dark Skies silver status. Decision makers have no way of knowing whether resort lighting as currently proposed would endanger this status, prevent the Park from ever attaining gold status or have any other detrimental effects. There is no mitigation strategy that includes the exterior and interior use of Dark Skies approved lighting devices.

Response 33.D.

The Initial Study, at page 19, explicitly states that the project will be required to limit lighting, consistent with City Code requirements. These standards are designed to restrict the impacts of lighting. In addition, the project will be surrounded by a minimum of 500 feet of open space on all sides, and the National Park boundary is ½ mile south of the southern edge of the project site.

Lighting impacts to the National Park will not be significant.

Comment 33.E.

There is no information about how the waiver affects current city requirements. For example, the waiver for utilities does not include any information on the soil disturbance, dust or noise that would be generated by compliance with the city's requirement that all utilities on developments of more than 4 acres must be located underground (19.94.040). The inference in the analysis appears to be the utilities would be above ground.

Response 33.E.

The comment is noted, but inaccurate. The project’s impacts, including dust emissions during construction, were quantified on pages 22 through 27. These construction impacts include the trenching required for all utilities related to the project. The analysis demonstrates that impacts will be less than significant. As it relates to City requirements, the project will be conditioned to implement City standards and requirements.

Comment 33.F.

The supporting studies ignore that the Indian Cove neighborhood is more than 50 years old and maintains its basic character since it was building began in the 1930s. These facts would allow it to be called historic according to the state of California. This issue is not considered in any of the applicable studies.

Response 33.F.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, no part of the Indian Cove neighborhood is listed on local, state or federal registers, and no evidence of historic significance has been provided.

Further, the project will occur on vacant ground, surrounded by a minimum of 500 feet of open space, and will not impact surrounding structures, directly or indirectly.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 33.G.

The rights of the resident Native Americans and their organizations are overlooked. Although given a list of 27 individuals and 14 organizations, the study indicates there was no interest. How was outreach conducted? How many times was outreach conducted? Response 33.G.

The commenter is incorrect. The project archaeologist conducted consultation with Native American tribes as part of their protocol for the preparation of the technical study. In addition, as described on pages 34-38 and 81-82 of the Initial Study, the City conducted Tribal Consultation as required by State law. The consultation resulted in the inclusion of Tribal monitors on the site during ground disturbance (see Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-2). Consultation by both the archaeologist and the City included written correspondence, meetings and telephone conversations. Also please see Comment Letters 3 and 4, for direct responses from consulted tribal members.

Comment 33.H.

Specific:
p. 17, The project's discussion of scenic impacts overstates its distance to Joshua Tree National Park, which is a key scenic resource for the city. The distance between Sullivan Road and the Park boundary is three quarters of mile and a half mile from the Park's buffer zone. This error understates the resort's distance to the Park's buffer zone by 600 percent (0.5 mile v. 3 miles) calls into question the resort's scenic impacts. These impacts should be reassessed using the actual distances.
p. 18, In discussing the resort's scenic impacts, no mention is made of the 2.5 story main lodge/clubhouse (Exhibit 7) or the outdoor movie theater, how would consideration of this building and structure affect this assessment?
Response 33.H.

The reduced distance to the Park boundary is acknowledged, but does not change the analysis of scenic vistas and scenic resources in the Initial Study, because the project consists of low-lying structures, generally 12 feet in height, with the lodge and movie screen at 20 feet in height, surrounded by open space, and located away from the scenic resources that are the surrounding mountains. The structures are small and scattered over 452 acres, and will not create mass and scale that would impede views of the surrounding mountains. The conclusion of the Initial Study that the impacts related to aesthetics are less than significant are correct.

Comment 33.I.
p. 19, No consideration is given to the Park's Dark Skies silver status or its ability to achieve gold status in discussing lighting impacts. Mitigation strategies do not include use of Dark Skies approved lighting devices or requirements that would reduce the impact of the outdoor movie theater.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 33.I.

Please see Response 26.B.

Comment 33.J.
p. 23, The assumption that resort staff would be year-round residents ignores the seasonal nature of our tourism as well as the number of resort workers who are hired on H-2B visas. Last year, roughly 65,000 H-2B visas were authorized to help ensure resorts and hotels had enough peak demand workers. There is no discussion of the use of these workers and how it would impact the study's inference that resort workers would be permanent town residents.

Response 33.J.

As clearly stated in the Initial Study, the project includes 25 units of employee housing. The project application indicates that the facility will be open year-round, and most employees will live on-site.

Their visa status is not a matter related to CEQA.

Comment 33.K.
p.25 The assumption that the resort would generate only 894 car trips daily or 326,310 annually for air pollution purposes lacks context. It does not indicate whether this number reflects low, average or peak demand. Understanding what peak demand during high demand tourist season would allow a better understanding of the resort's true impact. Why are diesel fumes from the machinery in resort's operations including sewage treatment not included? Based on roughly 900 motor vehicle trips per day, what is the justification for saying morning peak demand would only be 54 vehicles and afternoon/ evening demand would be 62? The resort will have mandatory check-in and check-out times that can be expected to drive traffic well above those numbers.

Response 33.K.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but inaccurate. Traffic generation is governed by longestablished and proven analysis methods that consider daily trips over a 24 hour period. Peak hour trips are based on comparative studies that have demonstrated the traffic patterns of various land uses, including hotels. The methodology for the traffic study is guided by the City’s own policies, which have been developed by professionals in their fields. Similarly, air quality analysis is quantified based on a model developed over decades, which calculates all aspects of project construction and operation, including the wastewater treatment plant proposed on-site. The analysis provided in the Initial Study is correct, and meets or exceeds established standards and thresholds for CEQA.

Comment 33.L.
27 The statement that the resort's sewage plant's "offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant and raise public concern." is not a mitigation strategy. What will be done so Indian Cover residents of nearby areas are not victims of these noxious and offensive odors? It also does not consider residents with health issues that can be exacerbated by these odors and fumes.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 33.L.

As clearly stated in the Initial Study, wastewater treatment on-site will be conducted in a closed system, with no open-air percolation. Odor control will be integral to the facility’s air handling system. Odors are correctly determined to be less than significant in the Initial Study.

Comment 33.M.
p. 29- 30 When the tortoise study was conducted, weren't the tortoises hibernating/ starting to hibernate? This timing could result in an undercount. Why weren't Joshua trees included in special status plant species? According to city code 19.98030, any trimming, disturbing and relocation of these trees require a permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. How thorough was the study if it found no Joshua trees on the 152-acre site (p.18)? Response 33.M.

The biologist searched for not only tortoise, but tortoise sign, including pellets, burrows, and other features to determine whether desert tortoise are present on the site. Please also see the Initial Study, page 28 though 33, and Appendix B for more detailed information.

Joshua Tree is listed in the biological resources study as having the potential to occur on the property, but does not occur on the site.

Comment 33.N.
p. 29 The study admits there is "high probability" of loggerhead strikes nesting on the property.

While stopping construction 14 days prior to the nesting period is a positive step, what will be left of the nesting area if vegetation is removed by construction? No information was provided on what would happen after the first nesting or how nesting areas would be protected.

Response 33.N.

The commenter is incorrect. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 specifies that no construction is allowed within the 300 or 500 foot buffer if nesting birds are identified until the young have fledged. This measure is consistent with federal law and State requirements.

Comment 33.O.
p. 32, While mentioning the existence of a wildlife corridor, there are no mitigation protections for it. What will be the impact of tourists, staff, their friends and other people visiting the resort on the wildlife trying to use the corridor as these people explore the property and try to take selfies and touch them? What happens if the wildlife corridor landscape is disturbed? There is no mention of restoration or other mitigation actions.

Response 33.O
The commenter’s speculation is noted, but the proposed General Plan Amendment, and the stated intent of the applicant in their materials, is to preserve the natural desert. There is no substantial evidence that the open space area would be damaged by resort activities. Also see Response 22.P.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Comment 33.P.
p. 37 As to the two identified prehistoric sites, the protections are very vague and the coordination with native tribes are only suggestions including monitoring construction. How are these mitigating strategies?
Response 33.P.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but monitoring is a requirement, not a suggestion. The monitors, as described on pages 37 and 38, have the authority to stop construction, and are responsible for assessing the resources uncovered. This is a professionally recognized technique requested by the City and the local Tribes, and adequately mitigates the impacts to buried cultural resources, should they be identified.

Comment 33.Q.
p. 40 The resort's generation of an additional almost 900 motor vehicle trips per day or 326,310 trips annually will impact air quality. The Indian Cove community has only 331 residences. If every household makes three car trips a day and assuming the city's estimate that 10 percent of current housing is empty and that 57 percent of the households contain two or less residents (p. 76), the resort represents a 100 percent increase over current traffic levels. The estimate of only 54 trips for high demand morning and 62 for high demand night seems low considering the occupants of 100 cabins as well as staff for the resort, its support businesses and sewage plant. Did motor vehicle trips and emissions calculations include resort employees as well as staff for resort support facilities, support businesses and the sewage plant?_ Response 33.Q.

Please see Response 33.K. The traffic analysis considered all components of hotel operation.

Comment 33.R.
p. 41 The study estimates the resort will need 831,000 kilowatt hours per year with no information about the resources being currently consumed in Indian Cove so there is no way to gauge impact on existing infrastructure. There is no mitigation strategy for managing demand between the start of the resort and the full functioning of the proposed solar farm. Who will pay for any system upgrades whether temporary or permanent?
Response 33.R.

The Initial Study currently estimated energy consumption using the CalEEMod model. The discussion of infrastructure is provided on pages 91-94 of the Initial Study. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. It is unclear what mitigation strategy the commenter intends for the resource.

Comment 33.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development's noise standards byfor building construction use? How would this assessment change if proper standards were used?

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 33.S.

The reference to Department of Housing Urban Development standards is unclear. The project will be required to adhere the Building Code requirements for interior noise levels, and falls well below City General Plan standards for exterior noise levels. Please see Initial Study pages 69-

75. Comment 33.T.
p. 71, Why does the noise study use two busy highway sites to generate counts rather than sites within Indian Cove which would be a better reflection of current ambient noise? Both highway sites were on the north side of State Highway 62 and not the south side where the resort and its neighbors are located? How would this assessment change if more realistic samplings were made? Would the 5 dBA CNEL standard be met?
Response 33.T.

The commenter is incorrect. There were 5 monitoring sites, two on the north side, and three on the southwest, southeast and south of the site. The samples were therefore reflective of the entire site’s noise environment, and do not require amendment.

Comment 33.U.
p. 74, Why do these trip numbers not match those used in earlier assessments (p.25)? How do those higher numbers affect this assessment? This assessment should be recalculated using the higher numbers.

Response 33.U.

The noise analysis reflects a reduction of 4 trips during the evening peak hour, when compared to the traffic study. Noise levels would not be affected by an increase of 4 trips in one hour, and the analysis in the noise study would remain unchanged. The Initial Study correctly analyzed noise generated by traffic, and found the impacts less than significant.

Comment 33.V.
p. 83-84, Why are different standards used to upgrade roads on Lear and Sullivan? Both roads can be expected to carry the significant portions of the additional 326,310 annual motor vehicle trips generated by the resort. Consideration should be given to upgrade the roads on Indian Cove and Copper Mountain since resort traffic can be expected to use them. How would this assessment change if these considerations were added? Who will pay for these upgrades? Research indicates that the costs for building asphalt roads are $3 to $5 per square foot or roughly $500,000 to $750,000 per mile. According to USDOT's Federal Halfway Administration's HERS model, which includes full costs, those numbers run in excess of $1.5 million (see attached chart).

Why were no traffic studies done on Sullivan to create a baseline of current usage which would improve decisionmakers' ability to assess the impact of the additional 326,310 trips per year. p. 87, Why is 2045 data being used for traffic conditions? Why isn't current data provided so there is a better understanding of current and estimated future conditions?

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Response 33.V.

The standards for roadway improvements are established by the City in its General Plan. Lear is a Collector, while Sullivan is a local road. The project proponent will be responsible for the cost of construction. As it relates to trip distribution, please see Response 22.K. The 2045 build out analysis was conducted in addition to opening year analysis in order to assess the long term cumulative impacts of the General Plan Amendment.

Comment 33.W.
p. 89, There is no VMT information for the employees, vehicles and trucks used to support the resort and its business as well as the sewage plant? How would this information affect this assessment?
Response 33.W
Please see Response 29.E.

Comment 33.X.
p. 92, Why is the 29 Palms Water Authority being made responsible for connection infrastructure.

Why is this cost not included in the resort's costs for the sewage plant? How would this assessment change if the resort was responsible?
Response 33.X.

The commenter is incorrect. The project will fund water connections to the site, including construction.

Comment 33.Y.
p. 94, The 90 tons per year of waste the resort will be generating cannot be cut in half. Burrtec will handle garage and recyclables and will need to be paid for both even if the loads go to different facilities.

Response 33.Y.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but solid waste reduction is State law, and the project’s waste will be subject to it, as stated in the Initial Study.

Comment 33.Z.
p. 97, See comments for pps. 29-30, 30 and 32.

Response 33.Z.

Please see corresponding Responses above.

Project 24001838
Response to Comments

Appendix A
Comment Letters

1 of 1
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 9:40:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Ofland
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 at 1:42:37PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Murray CIV Philip J JR <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CC: Adams CIV Erin M <[email protected]>, Hitch CIV Nicole R <[email protected]>, Brown CIV Kristina L <[email protected]>
Keith,
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.

Very Respectfully,
Phil Murray
Encroachment Manager
G-7, Government and External Acairs

MAGTFTC, MCAGCC
760-830-8477 (Ocice)
760-362-9389 (Cell)
[email protected]

1 of 1
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:31:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Response to NOI: Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms, City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County; [CIT-TNP-2025-3]
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 at 12:57:14PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Raylene Borrego <[email protected]> To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CC: Kristen Tuosto <[email protected]>
Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Hello Keith,
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.

Best Regards,
Raylene
Raylene Borrego
Cultural Resources Technician
[email protected]
O:(909) 864-8933 x 50-2035
M:(909) 737-3349
26569 Community Center Dr Highland, California 92346

1 of 6
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:31:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: RE: SB18 & AB 52: Of Land Project, 100-Cabin Resort, City of Twentynine Palms [CIT-TNP-2025-3] Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 at 11:07:03AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Kristen Tuosto <[email protected]> To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CC: Raylene Borrego <[email protected]>, Jason Laird <[email protected]> CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Hello Keith,
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  CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring  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 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). A sulicient 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

2 of 6
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 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, 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 sulicient 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 elorts needed to delineate the resource boundary. Following the completion of evaluation elorts, 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 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.

3 of 6
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 buler 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.

Jason Laid, the Cultural Lands Manager and Ethnobotanist (cc’ed), 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 Na2on interac2on with this project, including YSMN ini2a2ng Tribal consulta2on and reques2ng more informa2on on February 12, 2025.

Please provide a draG and the final copy of the project/permit/plan condi2ons so that YSMN may review the included language. If you should have any further ques2ons with regard to this maKer, 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.

Regards,
Kristen Tuosto
From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 10:09 AM
To: Kristen Tuosto <[email protected]>

4 of 6
Cc: Raylene Borrego <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Subject: RE: SB18 & AB 52: Of Land Project, 100-Cabin Resort, City of Twentynine Palms [CIT-TNP-2025- 3]
I uploaded the documents to the link that was sent. Did you receive them? From: Kristen Tuosto <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 3:02 PM To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]> Cc: Raylene Borrego I uploaded the documents to the link that was sent.  Did you receive them? From: Kristen Tuosto <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 3:02 PM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Cc: Raylene Borrego <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Subject: FW: SB18 & AB 52: Of Land Project, 100-Cabin Resort, City of Twentynine Palms [CIT-TNP-2025- 3]
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Hello Keith,
We received an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration today, May 14, 2025; however, on February 12, 2025, we requested more information about the project as we had/have concerns.

We have yet to receive the requested information for this project and are confused about how the City of Twentynine Palms can send out the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration when we have not completed Tribal consultation.

As this consultation is not completed, we are still requesting:
· Cultural report (including DPR forms if sites are identified) ·
Geotechnical report (if required for the project)
·
Project plans showing the depth of proposed disturbance Also, note as this information was not provided to us within the Tribe’s 30-day response window, the Tribe automatically elects to be a consulting party under CEQA, as stipulated in AB52.

Best,
Kristen
From: Kristen Tuosto

5 of 6
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:46 PM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Subject: SB18 & AB 52: Of Land Project, 100-Cabin Resort, City of Twentynine Palms [CIT-TNP-2025-3] Dear Keith Gardner,
Thank you for contac2ng the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Na2on (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) regarding the above referenced project. YSMN appreciates the opportunity to review the project documenta2on, which was received by our Cultural Resources Management Department on January 22, 2025, pursuant to CEQA (AB 52) and CA PRC 21080.3.1. The proposed project area is located within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe.

The project is located near known archaeological sites and Tribal Cultural Resources.

This effort is located within Serrano ancestral lands and may impact tribal cultural resources, and therefore, YSMN would like to ini2ate consulta2on pursuant to SB 18 and is reques2ng addi2onal informa2on concerning the proposed zoning changes.

Due to the nature and loca2on of the proposed project, YSMN respeckully requests the following for review upon availability:
·
Cultural report (including DPR forms if sites are iden2fied) ·
Geotechnical report (if required for the project)
·
Project plans showing the depth of proposed disturbance Please note that if this informa2on cannot be provided within the Tribe’s 30-day response window, the Tribe automa2cally elects to be a consul2ng party under CEQA, as s2pulated in AB52. If you should have any ques2ons with regard to this maKer, 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.

6 of 6
Regards,
Kristen Tuosto

1 of 2
Monday, May 19, 2025 at 11:03:08 Pacific Daylight Time Monday, May 19, 2025 at 11:03:08 Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: FW: Ofland Hotel Public Comment
Date: Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 at 9:01:51AM Pacific Daylight Time From: From: Keith Gardner
To: To: Nicole Criste
FYI
From: Kerrie Aley <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 11:49 AM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Ofland Hotel Public Comment
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Public Comment on proposed OQland Resort Public Comment on proposed OQland Resort OFLAND HOTEL PROJECT CUP24-000003, GPA24-000002, REZ25-000001 and DCA25- 00000
It seems to me that the Notice of Intent and the  Mitigated Negative Declaration of the OQland 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 eQect 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.

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

Kerrie Aley
---------------------------

2 of 2
Source Desert Trumpet- https://www.deserttrumpet.org/p/29-planning-provides-keyboost-to "Rezoning is a key aspect of what Ofland Development needs from the City to move ahead with this project. Currently, this undeveloped 152-acre parcel is zoned Single-Family Residential Estate (RS-E), which, as the study states, "does not permit the proposed uses." The existing RS-E zoning allows residential homebuilding with subdivision into parcels of at least 2.5 acres.

Ofland is asking the City to rezone this parcel into 42 acres of Tourist Commercial (TC) zoned land to accommodate the hotel itself, surrounded donut-like by 110 acres of Open Space Conservation (OSC) zoned land."
"Accompanying this substantial rezoning is the requirement that the project accommodate state SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which prohibits cities from enacting changes which would reduce their quantity of potential new housing. Under SB 330, in order for the City to downzone one area — for example, by rezoning this 152-acre parcel to something other than its current potential accommodation of 61 houses — it must correspondingly upzone another area.

Fortunately for Ofland Development, the City already has just such an upzoning already in mind. Per the Initial Study, "Twentynine Palms is currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a solar project encompassing ±477-acres in the northern portion of the City." Here the City is referring to the proposed E-Group PS solar project north of Two-Mile Road near the Sugar Bowl and west of the Harmony Acres neighborhood, the plan for which, conveniently enough, includes upzoning the south 236 acres of that parcel from the currently allowed 71 housing units to a maximum of 236 housing units. Voilà! With a little Planning magic, here are the necessary 61 potential housing units in the City to oQset those subtracted by Ofland Hotel to comply with SB 330."

1 of 2
Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 14:03:52 Pacific Daylight Time Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 14:03:52 Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: FW: Ofland resort in Indian Cove -- REQUIRE environmental review Date: Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 9:03:36AM Pacific Daylight Time From: From: Keith Gardner
To: To: Nicole Criste
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:31 AM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Ofland resort in Indian Cove -- REQUIRE environmental review CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Keith Gardner
Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
Dear Mr Gardner,
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..

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

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.

2 of 2
With best regards,
Antony Van Couvering

1 of 1
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:24:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: RE: Indian Cove development
Date: Friday, May 23, 2025 at 11:18:55AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Cynthia Stoddard <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK

LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
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! Sent from my iPhone

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
May 23, 2025
Keith Gardner
Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA, 92277
Dear Keith Gardner:

OFLAND HOTEL TWENTYNINE PALMS (Project)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)
SCH# 2025050547
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 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

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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.

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

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

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Preparing for any action that may occur within the range of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).
3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA USA.

Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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 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.

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 pre-construction 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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.

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.

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 Mitigation4in 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 over-wintering habitat.

4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 5 Chipman, E.D., McIntyre, N.E., Strauss, R.E., et. al. (2008). Effects of Human Land Use on Western Burrowing Owl Foraging and Activity Budgets. J. Raptor Res., 42(2). 6 Coulombe, H.N. (1971). Behavior and Population Ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto Cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Ecology of the Burrowing Owl.

Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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.

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 Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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;  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.

7 Messick, J.P., and M.G., Hornocker. 1981. Ecology of the badger in southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs. No 76.
8 NatureServe Network. Accessed: Website: https://www.natureserve.org/natureserve-network Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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 clubcholla (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 special-status 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 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

9 California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2025. Rare Plant Inventory Accessed: Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

proponent should not commence Project activities and should obtain an incidental take permit from CDFW.

COMMENT #6. Fish and Game Code 1602 Resources
Section IV. Biological Resources; Page 31
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 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.

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.

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 Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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/Plantsand-Animals.

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.

Sincerely,
Alisa Ellsworth
Environmental Program Manager
ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.

[email protected]
Luke Searcy, Project Applicant
Ofland Development
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan
Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2025. Rare Plant Inventory Accessed:

Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
Chipman, E.D., McIntyre, N.E., Strauss, R.E., et. al. (2008). Effects of Human Land Use on Western Burrowing Owl Foraging and Activity Budgets. J. Raptor Res., 42(2).

Coulombe, H.N. (1971). Behavior and Population Ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto Cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Ecology of the Burrowing Owl.

Messick, J.P., and M.G., Hornocker. 1981. Ecology of the badger in southwestern Idaho.

Wildlife Monographs. No 76.

NatureServe Network. Accessed: Website: https://www.natureserve.org/natureservenetwork U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Preparing for any action that may occur within the range of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).

Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Schedule
Responsible
Party
Desert tortoise (BIO-1)
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 the City, CDFW and
USFWS must be contacted and the Project
proponent shall fully avoid impacts to desert
tortoise. If impacts to desert tortoise cannot be
avoided, no take of the tortoise(s) shall occur
without prior authorization (i.e., ITP) from the
appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW
and USFWS.

Prior to the
issuance of any
ground
disturbing
permit and any
ground
disturbing
activities
Project
Proponent and
Qualified
Biologist
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (BIO-2)
If possible, the removal of vegetation and grading
preparatory to construction shall occur outside the
nesting season (February 1 to August 31). 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 300 feet for other 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.

No more than
three days prior
to construction
activities
Project
Proponent and
Qualified
Biologist
Burrowing Owl (BIO-3)
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.

Prior to the
initiation of
Project activities
Project
Proponent and
Qualified Avian
Biologist
Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

In addition, two 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 contact CDFW
and the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts
to burrowing owls. 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.

American Badger and San Diego Pocket
Mouse (BIO-4)
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, 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.

Prior to the
initiation of any
ground
disturbing
Project activities
Project
Proponent and
Qualified
Biologist
Special Status Plants (BIO-6) (NEW)
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 shall
delineate a buffer around the plant(s) and impacts
shall be fully avoided. If complete avoidance is not
Prior to any
ground
disturbing
activities
Project
Proponent and
Qualified
Botanist
Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
May 23, 2025

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.

Fish and Game Code section 1602 Resources
(BIO-7) (NEW)
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.

Prior to
construction
activities
Project
Proponent
Docusign Envelope ID: F63BFF3C-9409-4E27-BF84-A8A3B8A7EFFA

1 of 3
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:23:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Date: Monday, May 26, 2025 at 7:38:31AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Emily <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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:

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.

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.

2 of 3

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.

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.

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.

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.

3 of 3
Sincerely,
Emily Christianson
6587 Oasis Ave., Twentynine Palms, CA

1 of 1
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:14:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: ofland letter
Date: Monday, May 26, 2025 at 9:16:59AM Pacific Daylight Time From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CC: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: newofland.pdf
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner
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.

Sincerely Jeannine Gonzales

1 of 4
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:20:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Date: Monday, May 26, 2025 at 7:05:15PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Lawrence Schuessler <[email protected]> To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear
Mr. Gardner,
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:

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.

2 of 4

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.

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.

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

3 of 4
these inconsistencies and ensure accurate modeling.

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.

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.

Lawrence
Schuessler
6788
Ivanpah
Twentynine
Palms, CA 92277
Indian
Cove Neighborhood
Lawrence Schuessler
He/Him

4 of 4
www.lawrenceschuessler.com

1 of 3
Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 14:31:26 Pacific Daylight Time Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 14:31:26 Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: FW: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms
Date: Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 12:32:01PM Pacific Daylight Time From: From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: To: Nicole Criste <[email protected]>
CC: CC: Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]>
FYI
From: anne graham <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 9:59 AM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Public Comment on IniMal Study / Proposed MiMgated NegaMve DeclaraMon for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
To: Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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:

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.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites

2 of 3
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

3 of 3
Sincerely,
Anne Graham
Joshua Tree, CA
--
^

1 of 1
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:19:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: public comment - Ofland resort Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 1:53:06PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Adriene Jenik <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: Ofland_Jenik.pdf CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Hello Mr. Gardner,
Please accept the attached letter as part of the public comment related to the proposed rezoning of the Indian Cove area of 29 Palms to accommodate the Ofland resort.

Thank you,
Adriene Jenik
district 4 voting resident

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms,
6136 Adobe Road,
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
re: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms
May 27, 2025
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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, as a resident of Twentynine Palms for almost 30 years, I support thoughtful development that aligns with our community’s character, protects natural and cultural resources, and strengthens longterm 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:

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.

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.

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. This type of rezoning - to change a rural residential area into a commercial zone - with or without a buffer is not in keeping with the reasons why people purchased property here.

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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,
Adriene Jenik
District 4 voting resident
Twentynine Palms

1 of 3
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:23:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 4:54:07PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Jenny Groener <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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:

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.

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

2 of 3
review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

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.

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.

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.

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.

3 of 3
Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Jenny Groener
Twentynine Palms, CA
[email protected]

1 of 3
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:22:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 6:36:14AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Lori Thomas <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
To: Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
Email: [email protected]
Address: City of Twentynine Palms, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 Subject: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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:

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.

2. Cultural Resource Sensitivity: 19 Documented Sites

2 of 3
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

3 of 3
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.

Sincerely,
Lori Thomas, 6984 Quail Spring Avenue, 29 Palms, CA 92277, 760-285-5706, [email protected]

1 of 1
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:16:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Ofland Project - Request to Require EIR! Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 5:34:47PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Melissa Grisi <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Hi Keith,
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.

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 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.

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.

Sincerely,
Melissa Grisi
Twentynine Palms

1 of 2
Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 14:32:15 Pacific Daylight Time Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 14:32:15 Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: FW: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms
Date: Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 12:31:07PM Pacific Daylight Time From: From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: To: Nicole Criste <[email protected]>
CC: CC: Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]>
FYI
From: Sarah James <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:00 AM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Public Comment on IniNal Study / Proposed MiNgated NegaNve DeclaraNon for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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. Please note as a Joshua Tree resident 29 Palms actions do impact our community greatly.

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:

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.

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

2 of 2
review, and transparency. An EIR would better serve this purpose and protect irreplaceable resources.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,
Sarah James
Concerned Joshua Tree Resident (Sunfair Community)
Apologies for any grammatical or spelling errors, this message was sent from iPhone.

1 of 1
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:17:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Ofland project
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 1:31:38PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Benjamin Goulet <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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.

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).

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.

Thank you,
Benjamin Goulet
29 Palms

1 of 3
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 11:23:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Date: Thursday, May 29, 2025 at 7:07:47AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Cassie Ingersoll <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner,
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?
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?
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?
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

2 of 3
opposed to going to the county?Will they offer a share in ownership to locals? 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:

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.

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.

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.

3 of 3

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.

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.

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

1 of 2
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 9:37:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Comment on the Ofland Hotel
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2025 at 10:42:39AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Clay Noss <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: Berry_Murphy_2019.pdf CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner and the City of Twentynine Palms,
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 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.
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.

2 of 2
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.
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.

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.

Sincerely,
Clay Noss, Ph.D.

Public Comment: Ofland Development
Attn: Keith Gardner, Planning Department
Please enter my following remarks in the Public 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.
#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. #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.
#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. #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. #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.

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.

Sincerely,
Chris Tiffany
7054 Sherman Road
29 Palms

1 of 1
Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 2:56:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: FW: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Project #24001838: General Plan Text and Map Amendment, Development Code Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement (APN 0614-121-15)
Date: Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 2:14:55PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: Nicole Criste <[email protected]>, Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]> Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Mitigated Negative Declaration.6-2-2025.pdf FYI
From: Ed Larue <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2025 5:09 PM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cindy Bernard <[email protected]>; Judy Hohman <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Subject: RE: IniYal Study and MiYgated NegaYve DeclaraYon for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Project #24001838: General Plan Text and Map Amendment, Development Code Text Amendment, CondiYonal Use Permit, Development Agreement (APN 0614-121-15)
CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner,
Please find attached our formal comment letter on the above-referencerd project. We ask that the City of Twentynine Palms add the Desert Tortoise Council to your list of Affected Intrerests for this and other proposed projects within the city limits. We have requested this status and these updates before but only heard about this project through a third party, whom is also included in the distribution list.

Thank you for your considration,
Ed LaRue
Ecosystems Advisory Committee, Chair
Desert Tortoise Council

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 1

DESERT TORTOISE COUNCIL
3807 Sierra Highway #6-4514
Acton, CA 93510
www.deserttortoise.org
[email protected]
Via email only
Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
[email protected]
RE: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Project #24001838: General Plan Text and Map Amendment, Development Code Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement (APN 0614-121-15) Dear Mr. Gardner,
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.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 2 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.

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 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

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 3 Figure 1. Location of the project site with respect to 29 Palms Highway (State Route 62) and Joshua Tree National Park with open space on the north, east, and south sides.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 4 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.

Figure 2. Siting of the glamping hotel and associated facilities (rezoned to Tourist Commercial = CT) and Open Space Conservation = OSC.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 5 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.

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.

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.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 6 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? 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).”

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 7 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.

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.

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:

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 8 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.

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 methodology1to use to determine tortoise presence/use of the action area. These are the surveys that the BRA Report recommended.
1 (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281283-reptiles)