Twentynine Palms City Council
July 22, 2025

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 9 As part of the presence/absence survey protocol, experienced desert tortoise surveyors and restricted transect widths for surveying the action area are necessary because (1) tortoises spend most of their time underground avoiding temperature extremes, (2) when aboveground they are cryptic and not easily seen, and (3) the survey includes searching for tortoise sign (e.g., shells, scat, tracks, etc.). Research has shown that experienced tortoise surveyors miss seeing tortoises and their sign when transects are wider than 15 feet on a side (USFWS 2025).

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

Clearance Surveys for the Tortoise: The presence/absence surveys are different than clearance surveys (USFWS 2009). Clearance surveys require 100 percent coverage of the project area, with a focus on locating all desert tortoises above and below ground within the project area. Clearance surveys are conducted only after incidental take permits are issued and immediately prior to initiating surface disturbance within the project area or following installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing that encompasses the project area to preclude tortoises from the project area.

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

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

Qualified Tortoise Biologists as Surveyors: Both the presence/absence and clearance surveys should be conducted using “desert tortoise surveyors with appropriate qualifications” (USFWS 2019). The need for experienced desert tortoise surveyors to conduct presence/absence surveys cannot be overstated. As relayed to Mr. Gardner and Ms. Olsen in the August 21, 2024 email, when the casino was built in the southern part of Twentynine Palms, “the initial consultant had not found any tortoises, but we [CMBC biologists] had found tortoise sign on two adjacent sites, so subsequent surveys by a knowledgeable biologist found several tortoises on the casino site.” Action Area: When implementing the tortoise presence/absence survey, the areas surveyed should cover the entire action area for the proposed action. The “action area” is defined by the regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations 402.02), as “areas to be affected

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 10 directly or indirectly [emphasis added] and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” Action areas frequently include the project site, access routes, and the areas into which desert tortoises are to be translocated. The extent of the action area is not limited to the “footprint” of the action nor is it limited by the authority of the federal, state, or local agency or any other entity proposing the project; it will vary with each proposed action [proposed project]. The USFWS uses the action area to estimate the number of desert tortoises that may be affected by the proposed action. This and other information is used to determine the “impacts of the taking” for a proposed project and minimize and mitigate the impacts to the maximum extent practicable under FESA and fully mitigate the impacts under CESA.

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

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

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

The USFWS has documented substantial declines in tortoise abundance and density since 2004, especially in California (see attachment Appendix A – Demographic Status and Trend of the Mojave Desert Tortoise including the Tortoises in Western Mojave Recovery Unit). The primary reason for its substantial decline has been from increased mortality caused by indirect impacts from human activities. These include human activities that result in the destruction, degradation and/or fragmentation of tortoise habitat; surface disturbance and introduction of non-native invasive plant species via construction equipment, vehicles, and other sources; replacement of native forbs with high nutritional and water value with low nutritional non-native invasive grasses

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 11 (Drake et al. 2016); increased occurrence of fire size, intensive, and frequency of human-caused wildfires from fuels provided by non-native invasive plant species (Brooks and Esque 2002); increased predation from substantially increased numbers of predators that utilize subsides of food, water, and nesting locations (Boarman 2003); and increased human access that provides opportunities for vandalism and collecting tortoises for pets. Major sources of surface disturbance include residential, commercial, and industrial development projects and associated roads/highways (such as the proposed project); military training; and off-highway vehicle use (USFWS 2011, Tuma et al. 2016).

For example, the creation of the access road from Lear Avenue to the parking area of the glamping hotel will bisect the west side of the open space conservation area. Paving Lear Avenue and Sullivan Road will likely increase the occurrence and speed of vehicles on these roads from current use. The direct impact from this new and increased road use is the loss of tortoise habitat and killing of tortoises from collisions with vehicles/construction equipment during the construction phase, and employees, guests of the glamping hotel during the use and operations phase. However, road establishment/increased road use in tortoise habitat is often followed by various indirect impacts to the tortoise and its habitat including increased human access causing disturbance of species’ behavior (Harju et al. 2024), increased predation, spread of invasive plant species that alter/degrade nearby habitat (Boarman and Sazaki 2006), reduced numbers of tortoises/tortoise sign. Nafus et al. (2013) stated that the ecologically affected areas along roads, otherwise known as ‘‘road-effect zones,” are those in which a change in wildlife abundance, demography, or behavior is observed. Von Seckendorff Hoff and Marlow (2002) reported reductions in tortoise numbers and sign from infrequent use of roadways to major highways with heavy use. For a lightly used road, the reduction in tortoises and sign was evident 1.1 to 1.4 km (3,620 to 4,608 feet = 0.68 to 0.87 mile) from the road. See also LaRue (1992).

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

Another example of an indirect impact from the project’s construction, use, and operations that may result in take of the tortoise is increased tortoise predation. Common ravens are known to prey on juvenile desert tortoises based on direct observations and circumstantial evidence, such as shell-skeletal remains under active nests with holes pecked in the carapace (Boarman 1993). The number of common ravens increased by 1,528% in the Mojave Desert since the 1960s (Boarman 1993). This increase in raven numbers is attributed to unintentional subsidies provided by humans in the Mojave Desert.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 12 In the Mojave Desert, common ravens are subsidized predators because they benefit from resources associated with human activities that allow their populations to grow beyond their “natural” carrying capacity in the desert habitat. Kristan et al. (2004) found that human development in the western Mojave Desert affect raven populations by providing food subsidies, particularly trash and road-kill. Boarman et al. (2006) reported raven abundance was greatest near resource subsidies, specifically food (= trash) and water. Human subsidies include food and water from landfills and other sources of waste, reservoirs, sewage ponds, agricultural fields, feedlots, gutters. Subsidies also include perch, roost, and nest sites on power towers, telephone poles, light posts, billboards, fences, freeway or railroad overpasses, abandoned vehicles, and buildings (Boarman 1993). The human-provided subsidies allow ravens to survive in the desert during summer and winter when prey and water resources are typically inactive or scarce. Boarman et al. (1993) concluded that the human-provided resource subsidies must be reduced to facilitate a smaller raven population in the desert and reduced predation on the tortoise.

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

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

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

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

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

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 13 Western Burrowing Owl: In the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City says “Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is provided below, which requires that preconstruction surveys be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, and again 24 hours before ground disturbance, to assure that the [burrowing owl] species is not present on the site.

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

This section of the Initial Study/Mitigate Negative Declaration should include a description of the survey protocol that would be implemented. Protocol surveys for western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (CDFG 2012) should be completed. Note that this protocol requires that peripheral transects be surveyed at 30-, 60-, 90-, 120-, and 150-meter intervals in all suitable habitats adjacent to the subject property to determine the potential indirect impacts of the project on this species. If burrowing owl sign is found, CDFG would determine whether an incidental take permit is required and if so require the project proponent to fully mitigate the impacts to the burrowing owl.

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

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

Desert Kit Fox: The distribution model for desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) shows the species occurring in the proposed project area2. This layer was created by weighting three different factors - vegetation, topography, and road density - to determine a continuous range of habitat suitability throughout the fox's range. A threshold value of greater than 6.5 is considered habitat.

These data are updated expert model outputs for desert kit fox species distribution for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, provided by Dudek. For desert kit fox, Dudek provided Penrod's 2012 habitat suitability model used in the California Desert Linkage Network project, created by SC Wildlands (Penrod et al. 2012).
2 (see https://databasin.org/maps/new/#datasets=f15b1247f2bc433f8758be6c9439a3aa)

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 14 The desert kit fox is protected under the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 5, section 460 (14 CCR § 460), which prohibits “take” of the desert kit fox for any reason.

CDFW uses the USFWS’s (2011) protocol for San Joaquin kit fox, for surveying for the desert kit fox3. We recommend that the City contact CDFW to determine whether the presence/absence survey protocol for the desert kit fox should be implemented for the proposed project. If implemented, the results of the survey should be included in the CEQA document along with the mitigation that CDFW identified to avoid take of this species. CDFW may also recommend that pre-construction surveys be conducted, and that if dens are found, disturbance buffers may be required to avoid or minimize impacts to the species.

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

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

Averill-Murray et al. (2021) published a paper on connectivity of Mojave desert tortoise populations and linkage habitat. The authors emphasized that “[m]aintaining an ecological network for the Mojave desert tortoise, with a system of core habitats (TCAs = Tortoise Conservation Areas) connected by linkages, is necessary to support demographically viable populations and long-term gene flow within and between TCAs.” Joshua Tree National Park is a TCA that needs to be connected to other areas with tortoise populations (e.g., Sand Hills on the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center and the Mojave National Preserve further north). 3 (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey-protocols-for-the-san-joaquin-kit-fox.pdf)

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 15 Figure 3. Map of wildlife linkage area (shaded in green). The propose project is located north of the yellow circle and south of Twentynine Palms Hwy. From Conservation and Open Space Element, General Plan, City of Twentynine Palms.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 16 “Ignoring minor or temporary disturbance on the landscape could result in a cumulatively large impact that is not explicitly acknowledged (Goble, 2009); therefore, understanding and quantifying all surface disturbance on a given landscape is prudent.” Furthermore, “habitat linkages among TCAs must be wide enough [emphasis added] to sustain multiple home ranges or local clusters of resident tortoises (Beier and others, 2008; Morafka, 1994), while accounting for edge effects, in order to sustain regional tortoise populations.” Consequently, effective linkage habitats are not long narrow corridors [emphasis added]. Any development within them has an edge effect (i.e., indirect impact) that extends from all sides into the linkage habitat further narrowing or impeding the use of the linkage habitat, depending on the extent of the edge effect. Placing the proposed project in the middle of the proposed linkage conservation area effectively negates connectivity between important tortoise conservation areas.

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

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

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

Question E: To answer this question the City says that “the Project will adhere to all appropriate local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources and wildlife conservation plans.” However, we were unable to find in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a description of the local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources and wildlife conservation plans.

There may be no policies and ordinances or there may be strict policies, ordinances, and/or wildlife conservation plans. The CEQA document should describe the relevant policies and ordinances and how they will be enforced during the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project.

Please revise the CEQA document to include this information.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 17 Mitigation and Monitoring: Because this document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, it contains mitigation and monitoring sections to demonstrate that their implementation will reduce the level of impacts from the construction, use, and operations of the proposed project to less that significant. However, until the City determines the type and extent of the direct and indirect impacts to the tortoise/tortoise habitat from the proposed project, and analyzes these impacts, the City is unable to identify the appropriate mitigation and monitoring to offset the impacts.

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

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

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

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

Some of the subsidies to tortoise predators could be mitigated by requiring the implementation of BMPs that include using water for dust suppression so it does not form puddles, requiring waste containers that are predator-proof, wind-proof, and regularly maintained by the Project Proponent, etc. We request that the City require the Project Proponent to implement BMPs to substantially reduce/eliminate these indirect impacts to the tortoise and other special status species. 4 (https://deserttortoise.org/library/plans-bmps/)
5 (https://deserttortoise.org/wp-content/uploads/dtc_construction_BMPs_090517.pdf)

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 18 Coordination with the USFWS and CDFW should occur in the development and implementation of these BMPs. In addition, the City should require the Project Proponent to contribute to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Raven Management Fund for regional and cumulative impacts of projects that subsidize common ravens (USFWS 2010) and other predators of the tortoise and other wildlife, as other project proponents have done for projects on private property in the range of the tortoise.

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

It also is an example of why implementing effective mitigation correctly that is tied to the impacts is imperative in preparing CEQA documents and for protecting the tortoise and the project proponent.

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

Placement of a conservation easement cannot be easily changed. If the project is approved, the placement of a permanent conservation easement should be required.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 are:

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

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

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

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 19 If avoidance of the nesting season is not possible, a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to construction activities. If no nests are found, construction may proceed. If active nests are found, a buffer zone of 500 feet for birds of prey and/or 300 feet for other unlisted birds will be put in place around the nest until the young have fledged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 20 BIO-1 does not describe what the City’s action would be if an incidental take permit is required for the tortoise (or other species) under FESA or CESA. It only states that the survey be conducted prior to the City issuing a ground-disturbing permit. Thus, if the results of the survey were positive for the tortoise, would the City issue the permit with no requirement that the project proponent obtain the incidental take permits to comply with FESA and CESA? This is unclear because this mitigation measure appears to contradict the City’s monitoring requirement which is:
“BIO-A: Prior to the issuance of any permit to allow ground disturbance on the site, the City will receive and file all technical surveys and permits in the project file.

Responsible Parties: Project biologist, Planning Department, City Engineer.” We recommend that this mitigation measure be modified to require compliance with FESA and CESA and that the Project Proponent provide written documentation to the City from the USFWS and CDFW if these agencies determine that an incidental take permit is not needed for the construction, use, and operations of the project.

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

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

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

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

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 21 To assist the City in answering these two questions regarding the impacts to the tortoise, we are attaching Appendix A – Demographic Status and Trend of the Mojave Desert Tortoise including the Western Mojave Recovery Unit. Note that the proposed project is in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit, the tortoise populations in this Unit are below the densities needed for population viability, and the densities of tortoises continue to decline in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit.

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Edward L. LaRue, Jr., M.S.

Desert Tortoise Council, Ecosystems Advisory Committee, Chairperson Attachment: Appendix A – Demographic Status and Trend of the Mojave Desert Tortoise including the Western Mojave Recovery Unit
cc. Brian Croft, Assistant Field Supervisor, Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office, [email protected]

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 22 Peter Sanzenbacher, Mojave Desert Division Supervisor, Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office [email protected]
Samuel Assefa, Director, Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation [email protected]
Miranda Flores, Chief Deputy Director, Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation [email protected]
Emily Leon, Region 6 – Desert Inland Region, Habitat Conservation Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bishop, CA, [email protected] Heidi Calvert, Regional Manager, Region 6 – Inland and Desert Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, [email protected]
Brandy Wood, Region 6 – Desert Inland Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, [email protected]
Literature Cited
Averill-Murray, R.C., T.C. Esque, L.J. Allison, S. Bassett, S.K. Carter, K.E. Dutcher, S.J. Hromada, K.E. Nussear, and K. Shoemaker. 2021. Connectivity of Mojave Desert tortoise populations—Management implications for maintaining a viable recovery network. U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2021–1033, 23 p., https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ ofr20211033. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2021/1033/ofr20211033.pdf Berry, K.H. 1986. Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) relocation: Implications of social behavior and movements. Herpetologica 42:113-125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3892242 Berry, K.H., L.J. Allison, A.M. McLuckie, M. Vaughn, and R.W. Murphy. 2021. Gopherus agassizii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T97246272A3150871. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-2.RLTS.T97246272A3150871.en Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and W.D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road—Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22(4): 836–851, https://doi.org/

10.1111/ j.1523- 1739.2008.00942.x.
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x Boarman, W.I. 1993. When a native predator becomes a pest—A case study, in Majumdar, S.K., Miller, E.W., Baker, D.E., Brown, E.K., Pratt, J.R., and Schmalz, R.F., eds., Conservation and resource management: Easton, Pennsylvania Academy of Science, p. 186–201 Boarman, W. 2003. Managing a Subsidized Predator Population: Reducing Common Raven Predation on Desert Tortoises. Environmental Management 32, 205–217 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2982-x
Boarman, W.I., M.A. Patten, R.J. Camp, and S.J. Collis. 2006. Ecology of a population of subsidized predators: Common ravens in the central Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Arid Environments 67 (2006) 248–261.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140196306003016

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 23 Boarman, W.I. and M. Sazaki. 2006. A highway’s road-effect zone for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Journal of Arid Environments 65:94-101. Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQConsidCumulEffects.pdf.

Brooks, M. L., and T C. Esque. 2002. Alien plants and fire in desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat of the Mojave and Colorado deserts. Chelonian Conservation Biology 4:330-340.

Carter, S.K., K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, I.I.F. Leinwand, E. Masters, R.D. Inman, N.B. Carr, and L.J. Allison. 2020. Quantifying development to inform management of Mojave and Sonoran desert tortoise habitat in the American southwest. Endangered Species Research 42: 167– 184. https://doi.org/ 10.3354/ esr01045.
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2020/42/n042p167.pdf [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.

The 7 March 2012 memo replacing 1995 staff report, State of California Natural resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline Defenders of Wildlife, Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, and Desert Tortoise Council. 2020.

A Petition to the State of California Fish And Game Commission to move the Mojave desert tortoise from listed as threatened to endangered. Formal petition submitted 11 March 2020.
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/Desert%20Tortoise%20Petition%203_20_2020%20Final_0.pdf Drake, K. K., L. Bowen, K. E. Nussear, T. C. Esque, A. J. Berger, N. A. Custer, S. C. Waters, J.

D. Johnson, A. K. Miles, and R. L. Lewison. 2016. Negative impacts of invasive plants on conservation of sensitive desert wildlife. Ecosphere 7(10):e01531. 10.1002/ecs2.1531. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ecs2.1531 Esque, T.C., K.E. Nussear, K.K. Drake, A.D. Walde, K.H. Berry, R.C. Averill-Murray, A.P.

Woodman, W.I. Boarman, P.A. Medica. J. Mack, and J.H. Heaton. 2010. Effects of subsidized predators, resource variability, and human population density on desert tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert, U.S.A. Endangered Species Research, Vol. 12-167-177, 2010, doi: 10.3354/esr00298. https://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2010/12/n012p167.pdf Goble, D.D., 2009, The endangered species act—What we talk about when we talk about recovery: Natural Resources Journal, v. 49, p. 1–44.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24889187
Harju, S., S. Cambrin, and J. Berg. 2024. Indirect impacts of a highway on movement behavioral states of a threatened tortoise and implications for landscape connectivity. Scientific Reports 14:716.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51378-z, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51378- z.pdf
Holcomb, K. 2025. Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Palm Springs, CA. Personal communication.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 24 Kristan, W.B., W.I. Boarman, and J.J. Crayon. 2004. Diet composition of common ravens across the urban wildland interface of the west Mojave Desert. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 244– 253. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2004)32[244:DCOCRA]2.0.CO;2 LaRue, E. 1992. Distribution of desert tortoise sign adjacent to Highway 395, San Bernardino County, California. Proceedings of the 1992 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council.

Lovich, J.E., C.B. Yackulic, J.E. Freilich, M. Agha, M. Austin, K.P. Meyer, T.R. Arundel, J.

Hansen, M.S. Vamstad, and S.A. Root. 2014. Climatic variation and tortoise survival— Has a desert species met its match? Biological Conservation 169: 214–224. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713003443 Morafka, D.J., 1994, Neonates–Missing links in the life histories of North American tortoises, in Bury, R.B., and Germano, D.J., eds., Biology of North American tortoises: Washington, D.C., National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research, v. 13, p. 161–173.

Nafus, M.G., T.D. Tuberville, K.A. Buhlmann, and B.D. Todd. 2013. Relative abundance and demographic structure of Agassiz’s desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) along roads of varying size and traffic volume. Biological Conservation 162 (2013) 100–106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320713001043 Nagy, K.A., L.S. Hillard, M.W. Tuma, and D.J. Morafka. 2015, Head-started desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii)—Movements, survivorship and mortality causes following their release: Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10: 203–215. https://escholarship.org/content/qt67f7t2n6/qt67f7t2n6.pdf Penrod, K., P. Beier, E. Garding, and C. Cabañero. 2012. A Linkage Network for the California Deserts. Produced for the Bureau of Land Management and The Wildlands Conservancy.

Produced by Science and Collaboration for Connected Wildlands, Fair Oaks, CA www.scwildlands.org and Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/pb1/
Peterson, C.C. 1994. Different rates and causes of high mortality in two populations of the threatened desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii. Biological Conservation 70: 101–108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0006320794902771 Stahle, D.W. 2020. Anthropogenic megadrought. Science 368 (6488): 238-239. DOI:

10.1126/science.abb6902. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10166645 Terra Nova Planning and Research. 2024. Yonder Glamping Resort Project, Biological Resources Assessment Report. Unpublished report dated March 18, 2024. Palm Desert, CA.

Tuma, M.W., C. Millington, N. Schumaker, and P. Burnett. 2016. Modeling Agassiz’s Desert Tortoise Population Response to Anthropogenic Stressors. Journal of Wildlife Management 80(3):414–429.
https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.1044

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 25 [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Field Manual: (Gopherus agassizii). December 2009. Region 8, Sacramento, California. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Desert-Tortoise-Field-Manual.pdf [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Common raven predation on the desert tortoise.

USFWS, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, CA.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Standard recommendations for the protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Connectivity of Mojave Desert Tortoise Populations. March 2012. Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, Reno, NV. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Preparing for any action that may occur within the range of the Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). USFWS Desert Tortoise Recovery Office. Reno, NV. October 8, 2019.
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Mojave%20Desert%20Tortoise_Preproject%20Survey%20Protocol_2019.pdf [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2023 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-05/usfws_2023_rangewidemojave-desert-tortoise-monitoring.pdf von Seckendorff Hoff, K. and R. Marlow. 2002. Impacts of vehicle road traffic on desert tortoise populations with consideration of conservation of tortoise habitat in southern Nevada.

Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4: 449–456.

Williams, A.P., B.I. Cook, and J.E. Smerdon. 2022. Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020–2021. Nature Climate Change. 12 (2022):232–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01290-z.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 26 Appendix A
Demographic Status and Trend of the Mojave Desert Tortoise including the Tortoises in Western Mojave Recovery Unit Status of the Population of the Mojave Desert Tortoise: The Council provides the following information for resource and land management agencies so that these data may be included and analyzed in their project and land management documents and aid them in making management decisions that affect the Mojave desert tortoise (tortoise).

There are 17 populations of Mojave desert tortoise described below that occur in Critical Habitat Units (CHUs) and Tortoise Conservation Areas (TCAs); 14 are on lands managed by the BLM; 8 of these are in the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA).

As the primary land management entity in the range of the Mojave desert tortoise, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) implementation of a conservation strategy for the Mojave desert tortoise in the CDCA through implementation of its Resource Management Plan and Amendments through 2014 has resulted in the following changes in the status for the tortoise throughout its range and in California from 2004 to 2014 (Table 1, Table 2; USFWS 2015, Allison and McLuckie 2018). The Council believes these data show that BLM and others have failed to implement an effective conservation strategy for the Mojave desert tortoise as described in the recovery plan (both USFWS 1994a and 2011), and have contributed to tortoise declines in density and abundance between 2004 to 2014 (Table 1, Table 2; USFWS 2015, Allison and McLuckie 2018) with declines or no improvement in population density from 2015 to 2021 (Table 3; USFWS 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022a, 2022b).

Important points from these tables include the following:

Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise in California through 2021 ● Tortoises in all three TCAs in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit declined in densities and numbers since 2004
• Adult tortoise densities in all three TCAs in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit are below the population viability threshold
• Tortoises in three of the five TCAs in the Colorado Desert Recovery Unit included in the Mitigation Area for the General Conservation Plan declined in densities and numbers since 2004 [The Navy’s Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range is nor included] • Adult tortoise densities in two of the TCAs in the Colorado Desert Recovery Unit are below the population viability threshold
• Tortoises in the only TCA in the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit in California declined in densities and numbers since 2004
• Adult tortoise densities in the only TCAs in the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit in California are below the population viability threshold

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 27 Table 1. Summary of 10-year trend data for the 5 Recovery Units and 17 CHUs/TCAs for Mojave desert tortoise. The table includes the area of each Recovery Unit and CHU/TCA, percent of total habitat for each Recovery Unit and CHU/TCA, density (number of breeding adults/km2 and standard errors = SE), and the percent change in population density between 2004 and 2014.

Populations below the viable level of 3.9 breeding individuals/km2(10 breeding individuals per mi2) (assumes a 1:1 sex ratio) or showing a decline from 2004 to 2014 are in red.

Recovery Unit:

Designated Critical Habitat
Unit1/Tortoise Conservation Area
Surveyed area
(km2)
% of total habitat
area in Recovery
Unit & CHU/TCA
2014
density/km2
(SE)
% 10-year change
(2004–2014)
Western Mojave, CA 6,294 24.51 2.8 (1.0) –50.7 decline
Fremont-Kramer 2,347 9.14 2.6 (1.0) –50.6 decline
Ord-Rodman 852 3.32 3.6 (1.4) –56.5 decline
Superior-Cronese 3,094 12.05 2.4 (0.9) –61.5 decline
Colorado Desert, CA 11,663 45.42 4.0 (1.4) –36.25 decline Chocolate Mtn AGR, CA 713 2.78 7.2 (2.8) –29.77 decline Chuckwalla, CA 2,818 10.97 3.3 (1.3) –37.43 decline
Chemehuevi, CA 3,763 14.65 2.8 (1.1) –64.70 decline
Fenner, CA 1,782 6.94 4.8 (1.9) –52.86 decline
Joshua Tree, CA 1,152 4.49 3.7 (1.5) +178.62 increase
Pinto Mtn, CA 508 1.98 2.4 (1.0) –60.30 decline
Piute Valley, NV 927 3.61 5.3 (2.1) +162.36 increase
Northeastern Mojave 4,160 16.2 4.5 (1.9) +325.62 increase Beaver Dam Slope, NV, UT, AZ 750 2.92 6.2 (2.4) +370.33 increase Coyote Spring, NV 960 3.74 4.0 (1.6) + 265.06 increase
Gold Butte, NV & AZ 1,607 6.26 2.7 (1.0) + 384.37 increase Mormon Mesa, NV 844 3.29 6.4 (2.5) + 217.80 increase
Eastern Mojave, NV & CA 3,446 13.42 1.9 (0.7) –67.26 decline El Dorado Valley, NV 999 3.89 1.5 (0.6) –61.14 decline
Ivanpah Valley, CA 2,447 9.53 2.3 (0.9) –56.05 decline
Upper Virgin River 115 0.45 15.3 (6.0) –26.57 decline
Red Cliffs Desert 115 0.45 15.3 (6.0) –26.57 decline
Range-wide Area of CHUs -
TCAs/Range-wide Change in
Population Status
25,678 100.00 –32.18 decline
1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register 55(26):5820-5866. Washington, D.C.

Table 2. Estimated change in abundance of adult Mojave desert tortoises in each recovery unit between 2004 and 2014 (Allison and McLuckie 2018). Decreases in abundance are in red.

Recovery Unit Modeled
Habitat (km2)
2004
Abundance
2014
Abundance
Change in
Abundance
Percent Change in
Abundance
Western Mojave 23,139 131,540 64,871 -66,668 -51%
Colorado Desert 18,024 103,675 66,097 -37,578 -36%
Northeastern Mojave 10,664 12,610 46,701 34,091 270%
Eastern Mojave 16,061 75,342 24,664 -50,679 -67%
Upper Virgin River 613 13,226 10,010 -3,216 -24%

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 28 Total 68,501 336,393 212,343 -124,050 -37%

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 29 Table 3. Summary of data for Agassiz’s desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (=Mojave desert tortoise) from 2004 to 2023 for the 5 Recovery Units and 17 Critical Habitat Units (CHUs)/Tortoise Conservation Areas (TCAs). The table includes the area of each Recovery Unit and CHU/TCA, percent of total habitat for each Recovery Unit and CHU/TCA, density (number of breeding adults/km2 and standard errors = SE), and percent change in population density between 2004-2014 (USFWS 2015). Populations below the viable level of 3.9 breeding individuals/km2(10 breeding individuals per mi2) (assumes a 1:1 sex ratio) (USFWS 1994a, 2015) from 2004 through the most recent survey results or showing a decline from 2004 to 2014 are in red.

Recovery Unit:

Designated

CHU/TCA &
% of total
habitat area
in Recovery
Unit &

CHU/TCA
2004
density
/ km2
2014
density/
km2
(SE)
% 10-year
change
(2004–
2014)
2015
density
/ km2
2016
density
/ km2
2017
density/
km2
2018
density
/ km2
2019
density
/ km2
2020
density
/ km2
2021
density
/ km2
2023
density
/km2
Western
Mojave, CA 24.51 2.8 (1.0) –50.7 decline
Fremont-Kramer 9.14 2.6 (1.0) –50.6
decline 4.5 No data 4.1 No data 2.7 1.7 No data No data Ord-Rodman 3.32 3.6 (1.4) –56.5
decline No data No data 3.9 2.5/3.4* 2.1/2.5* No data 1.9/2.5* No data SuperiorCronese 12.05 2.4 (0.9) –61.5
decline 2.6 3.6 1.7 No data 1.9 No data No data No data Colorado
Desert, CA 45.42 4.0 (1.4) –36.25 decline
Chocolate Mtn
AGR, CA 2.78 7.2 (2.8) –29.77 decline 10.3 8.5 9.4 7.6 7.0 7.1 3.9 6.9 Chuckwalla, CA 10.97 3.3 (1.3) –37.43
decline No data No data 4.3 No data 1.8 4.6 2.6 No data Chemehuevi, CA 14.65 2.8 (1.1) –64.70
decline No data 1.7 No data 2.9 No data 4.0 No data No data Fenner, CA 6.94 4.8 (1.9) –52.86
decline No data 5.5 No data 6.0 2.8 No data 5.3 No data Joshua Tree, CA 4.49 3.7 (1.5) +178.62
increase No data 2.6 3.6 No data 3.1 3.9 No data No data Pinto Mtn, CA 1.98 2.4 (1.0) –60.30
decline No data 2.1 2.3 No data 1.7 2.9 No data No data Piute Valley, NV 3.61 5.3 (2.1) +162.36
increase No data 4.0 5.9 No data No data No data 3.9 No data

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 30 Recovery Unit:

Designated

CHU/TCA &
% of total
habitat area
in Recovery
Unit &

CHU/TCA
2004
density
/ km2
2014
density/
km2
(SE)
% 10-year
change
(2004–
2014)
2015
density
/ km2
2016
density
/ km2
2017
density/
km2
2018
density
/ km2
2019
density
/ km2
2020
density
/ km2
2021
density
/ km2
2023
density
/km2
Northeastern
Mojave AZ, NV,
& UT

16.2 4.5 (1.9) +325.62
increase
Beaver Dam
Slope, NV,

UT, & AZ

2.92 6.2 (2.4) +370.33
increase No data 5.6 1.3 5.1 2.0 No data No data No data Coyote Spring,
NV 3.74 4.0 (1.6) + 265.06 increase No data 4.2 No data No data 3.2 No data No data No data Gold Butte, NV &
AZ 6.26 2.7 (1.0) + 384.37 increase No data No data 1.9 2.3 No data No data 2.4 No data Mormon Mesa,
NV 3.29 6.4 (2.5) + 217.80 increase No data 2.1 No data 3.6 No data 5.2 5.2 No data Eastern Mojave,
NV & CA 13.42 1.9 (0.7) –67.26 decline
El Dorado Valley,
NV 3.89 1.5 (0.6) –61.14 decline No data 2.7 5.6 No data 2.3 No data No data No data Ivanpah Valley,
CA 9.53 2.3 (0.9) –56.05 decline 1.9 No data No data 3.7 2.6 No data 1.8 No data Upper Virgin
River, UT & AZ 0.45 15.3 (6.0) –26.57 decline
Red Cliffs
Desert** 0.45

29.1 (21.4-

39.6)**

15.3 (6.0) –26.57
decline 15.0 No data 19.1 No data 17.2 No data No data 17.5 Rangewide Area
of CHUs -
TCAs/Rangewid
e Change in
Population
Status
100.00 –32.18
decline
*This density includes the adult tortoises translocated from the expansion of the MCAGCC, that is resident adult tortoises and translocated adult tortoises.
**Methodology for collecting density data initiated in 1999.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 31 Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise in California ● Eight of 10 populations of the Mojave desert tortoise in California declined from 29 to 64 percent from 2004 to 2014 with implementation of tortoise conservation measures in the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert (NECO), Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert (NEMO), and Western Mojave Desert (WEMO) Plans.
● Eight of 10 populations of the Mojave desert tortoise in California are below the population viability threshold. These eight populations represent 87.45 percent of the habitat in California that is in CHU/TCAs.
● The two viable populations of the Mojave desert tortoise in California are declining. If their rates of decline from 2004 to 2014 continue, these two populations will no longer be viable by about 2030.

Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise on BLM Land in California ● Eight of eight populations of Mojave desert tortoise on lands managed by the BLM in California declined from 2004 to 2014.
● Seven of eight populations of Mojave desert tortoise on lands managed by the BLM in California are no longer viable.

Change in Status for Mojave Desert Tortoise Populations in California that Are Moving toward Meeting Recovery Criteria
● The only population of Mojave desert tortoise in California that is not declining is on land managed by the National Park Service. However, the densities of adult tortoise in this population has recently climbed to the minimum density for population viability.

Important points to note from the data from 2015 to 2021 in Table 3 are:

Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit:
● Density of tortoises continues to decline in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit ● Density of tortoises continues to fall below the density needed for population viability from 2015 to 2021
Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise in the Colorado Desert Recovery Unit:
● The population that had the highest density in this recovery unit had a continuous reduction in density since 2018 and fell substantially in 2021 to the minimum density needed for population viability. Tortoise density rose between 2021 and 2023 but the density was lower than reported from 2014 through 2020.

Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit:
●Two of the three population with densities greater than needed for population viability declined to level below the minimum viability threshold.
●The most recent data from three of the four populations in this recovery unit have densities below the minimum density needed for population viability. ●The population that had the highest density in this recovery unit declined since 2014.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 32 Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise in the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit:
● Both populations in this recovery unit have densities below the minimum density needed for population viability.

Change in Status for the Mojave Desert Tortoise in the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit:
● The one population in this recovery unit is small and appears to have stable densities since 2014. However, between 2004 and 2014 this population declined 48 percent.

The Endangered Mojave Desert Tortoise: The Council believes that the Mojave desert tortoise meets the definition of an endangered species. In the FESA, Congress defined an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range…” In the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California legislature defined an “endangered species” as a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant, which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes (California Fish and Game Code § 2062). Because most of the populations of the Mojave desert tortoise were non-viable in 2014, most are declining, and the threats to the Mojave desert tortoise are numerous and have not been substantially reduced throughout the species’ range, the Council believes the Mojave desert tortoise should be designated as an endangered species by the USFWS and California Fish and Game Commission. Despite claims by USFWS (Averill-Murray and Field 2023) that a large number of individuals of a listed species and an increasing population trend in part of the range of the species prohibits it from meeting the definitions of endangered, we are reminded that the tenants of conservation biology include numerous factors when determining population viability. The number of individuals present is one of a myriad of factors (e.g., species distribution and density, survival strategy, sex ratio, recruitment, genetics, threats including climate change, etc.) used to determine population viability. In addition, a review of all the available data does not show an increasing population trend (please see Tables 1 and 3).

Literature Cited in Appendix on Status and Trend of the Mojave Desert Tortoise Allison L.J. and A.M. McLuckie. 2018. Population trends in Mojave desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 2018 Aug 1. 13(2):433–452. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_13/Issue_2/Allison_McLuckie_2018.pdf or
https://www.fws.gov/media/allison-and-mcluckie2018mojave-desert-tortoise-populationtrends McLuckie, A.M., T.G. Victor, and R.A. Fridell. 2024. Mojave Desert Tortoise Population Monitoring within the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, 2023. Publication Number 24-07, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. A Final Report to the St.

George Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah, Cooperative Agreement L22AS00196.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 73 pages plus appendices. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/940628.pdf

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 33 [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register 55(26):5820-5866. Washington, D.C.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California and Nevada Region, Sacramento, California.
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS.2011.RRP%20for%20the%20 Mojave%20Desert%20Tortoise.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2013 and 2014 Annual Reports. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS.2015%20report.%20Rangewid e%20monitoring%20report%202013-14.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2015 and 2016 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS.2016%20report.%20Rangewid e%20monitoring%20report%202015-16.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2017 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS.2018%20report.%20Rangewid e%20monitoring%20report%202017.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2018 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS.2019%20report.%20Rangewid e%20monitoring%20report%202018.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2019 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. 42 pages. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019_Rangewide%20Mojave%20Deser t%20Tortoise%20Monitoring.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022a. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2020 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS.2022%20report.%20Rangewid e%20monitoring%20report%202020.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022b. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2021 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 34 Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS.2022%20report.%20Rangewid e%20monitoring%20report%202021.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2023 Annual Reporting. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, Nevada. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-05/usfws_2023_rangewidemojave-desert-tortoise-monitoring.pdf

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 35 Appendix B. Bibliography on road impacts in desert ecosystems Aber, J.D., K.J. Nadelhoffer, P. Steudler, and J.M. Melillo.1989. Nitrogen Saturation in Northern Forest Ecosystems. BioScience 39(6):8-386
Allen, E.B., Rao, L.E., Steers, R.J., Bytnerowicz, A., and Fenn, M.E., 2009, Impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on vegetation and soils at Joshua Tree National Pages, in Webb, R.H., Fenstermaker, L.F., Heaton, J.S., Hughson, D.L., McDonald, E.V., and Miller, D.M. (eds.), The Mojave Desert: ecosystem processes and sustainability: Reno, University of Nevada Press, .p. 78–100.

Arnold, R. 2011. Focused desert tortoise survey, Lucerne Valley Desert View Ranch generating facility. APN 0435-083-39 & -435-132-01, San Bernardino County. RCA Associated, Hesperia, CA.

Avery, H.W. 1997. Effects of cattle grazing on the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii:

Nutritional and behavioral interactions. Pages 13-20 in J. Van Abbema (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York.

Avery, H.W. 1998. Nutritional ecology of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii,) in relation to cattle grazing in the Mojave Desert. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Beacon Solar. 2008. Application for Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species.

Application to California Department of Fish and Game by Beacon Solar, LLC, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL.

Beazley, K.F., T.V. Snaith, F. Mackinnin, and D. Colville. 2004. Road density and potential impacts on wildlife species such as American moose in mainland Nova Scotia. Proc. N.S.

Inst. Sci. (2004)Volume 42, Part 2, pp. 339-357.

Belnap, J. 1996. Soil surface disturbances in cold deserts: effects on nitrogenase activity in cyanobacterial-lichen soil crusts. Biol Fertil Soils (1996) 23:362-367.

Berry, K.H. 1974. Desert tortoise relocation project: Status report for 1972. California Department of Transportation
Berry, K.H. 1990. The status of the desert tortoise in California in 1989. Draft report. U.S.

Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.

Berry, K.H., and L.L. Nicholson. 1984b. A summary of human activities and their impacts on desert tortoise populations and habitat in California. Chapter 3 in K.H. Berry (ed.), The status of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the United States. Desert Tortoise Council Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Order No. 11310-0083-81.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 36 Berry, K.H., F.G. Hoover, and M. Walker. 1996. The effects of poaching desert tortoises in the western Mojave Desert; evaluation of landscape and local impacts. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council Symposium 1996:45.

Berry, K.H., K. Keith, and T. Bailey. 2008. Status of the desert tortoise in Red Rock Canyon State Park. California Fish and Game 94(2):98-118.

Berry, K.H., J. L. Yee, A.A. Coble, W.M. Perry, and T.A. Shields. 2013. Multiple factors affect a population of Agassiz’s desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the northwestern Mojave Desert. Herpetological Monographs, 27, 2013, 87–109.

Berry, K.H., L.M. Lyren, J.L. Yee, and T.Y. Bailey. 2014. Protection benefits desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) abundance: the influence of three management strategies on a threatened species. Herpetological Monographs, 28 2014, 66–92.

Berry, K.H., L.M. Lyren, J.S. Mack, L.A Brand, and D.A.Wood. 2016. Desert tortoise annotated bibliography, 1991–2015: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1023, 312 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161023.

Boarman, W.I. 2002. Threats to desert tortoise populations: a critical review of the literature.

Unpublished Report, prepared for the West Mojave Planning Team and the Bureau of Land Management. 86 pp.

Boarman, W.I., and K.H Berry. 1995. Common ravens in the southwestern United States, 1968-

92. In: Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. Edward T. LaRoe , Gaye S. Farris , Catherine E. Puckett , Peter D. Doran , and Michael J. Mac, editors. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.

Boarman, W.I., R.J. Camp, M. Hagan, W. Deal. 1995. Raven abundance at anthropogenic resources in the western Mojave Desert, California. Report to Edwards Air Force Base, California.

Boarman, W.I., and M. Sazaki. 1996. Highway mortality in desert tortoises and small vertebrates: success of barrier fences and culverts. Proceedings: Florida Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Transportation-Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Evink, G., Ziegler, D., Garrett, P. and Berry, J. (Eds). pp. 169–173.

Boarman, W.I., and Sazaki, M., 2006, A highway's road-effect zone for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii): Journal of Arid Environments, v. 65, p. 94–101.

Boarman, W.I., Sazaki, M., Jennings, B., 1997. The effects of roads, barrier fences and culverts on desert tortoise populations in California, USA. In: Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles — An International Conference, pp. 54–58.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 37 Boarman, W.I., M.L. Beigel, G.C. Goodlett, and M. Sazaki. 1998. A passive integrated transponder system for tracking animal movements. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, 886- 891.

Boarman, W.I., W.B. Kristan, W.C. Webb, and H.D. Chamblin. 2005. Raven ecology in the Mojave Desert at Edwards Air Force Base: final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Sacramento, California.

Boarman, W.I., and W.B. Kristan. 2006. Evaluation of evidence supporting the effectiveness of desert tortoise recovery actions. Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5143. U.S.

Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Sacramento, CA.

Boarman, W.I., Patten, M.A., Camp, R.J., and Collis, S.J., 2006, Ecology of a population of subsidized predators: common ravens in the central Mojave Desert, California: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 67, p. 248–261.

Bouchard, J., A. T. Ford, F. Eigenbrod, and L. Fahrig. 2009. Behavioral response of northern leopard frogs (Rana pipens) to roads and traffic: implications for population persistence.

Ecology and Society 14(2): 23. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art23/.

Bratzel, S., and R. Tellermann. 2005. Mobilität und Verkehr. Informationen zur politischen Bildung 287(2):44-51.

Brocke, R.H., J.P. O'Pezio, K.A. Gustafson. 1988 A forest management scheme mitigating impact of road networks on sensitive wildlife species. In: R.M. Degraaf and W.M. Healy (eds): Is forest fragmentation a management issue in the northeast? GTR-NE-140, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station, Radnor, PA: 13-17.

Brocke, R.H., J.P. O'Pezio, K.A. Gustafson. 1988 A forest management scheme mitigating impact of road networks on sensitive wildlife species. In: R.M. Degraaf and W.M. Healy (eds): Is forest fragmentation a management issue in the northeast? GTR-NE-140, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station, Radnor, PA: 13-17.

Brooks, M.L., 1995, Benefits of protective fencing to plant and rodent communities of the western Mojave Desert, California: Environmental Management, v. 19, p. 65–74.

Brooks, M.L., 1999, Alien annual grasses and fire in the Mojave Desert: Madroño, v. 46, p. 13–

19. Brooks, M.L., 2003, Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual plants in the Mojave Desert: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 40, p. 344–353.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 38 Brooks, M.L., T.C. Esque, and J.R. Matchett. 2003. Current status and management of alien plants and fire in desert tortoise habitat. Desert Tortoise Council Symposium, February 21-23, 2003.

Brooks, M.L. 2009, Spatial and temporal distribution of non-native plants in upland areas of the Mojave Desert, in Webb, R.H., Fenstermaker, L.F., Heaton, J.S., Hughson, D.L., McDonald, E.V., and Miller, D.M., eds., The Mojave Desert—Ecosystem processes and sustainability: Reno, University of Nevada Press, p. 101–124.

Brooks, M.L. and K.H. Berry. 1999. Ecology and management of alien annual plants in the California deserts. Calif. Exotic Pest Plant Newsl. 7(3/4):4-6.

Brooks, M.L., and Berry, K.H., 2006, Dominance and environmental correlates of alien annual plants in the Mojave Desert, USA: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 67, p. 100–124.

Brooks, M.L., and Esque, T.C., 2002, Alien plants and fire in desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts: Chelonian Conservation and Biology, v. 4, p. 330–340.

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J. B. Grace, J.E. Kelley, J. M. Ditomaso, R.J.

Hobbs, M. Pellant, And D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of Invasive Alien Plants on Fire Regimes.

Bioscience/ Vol. 54 No. 7: 677-688. July 2004.

Brooks, M.L. and B. Lair. 2005. Ecological Effects of Vehicular Routes in a Desert Ecosystem.

Report prepared for the United States Geological Survey, Recoverability and Vulnerability of Desert Ecosystems Program (http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/mojave/rvde).

Brooks, M.L. and B. M. Lair.2009. Ecological effects of vehicular routes in a desert ecosystem.

In: R.H. Webb, L.F. Fenstermaker, J.S. Heaton, D.L. Hughson, E.V. McDonald, and D.M. Miller (eds.). The Mojave Desert: Ecosystem Processes and Sustainability.

University of Arizona Press. Tucson, AZ.

Brooks, M.L., and Matchett, J.R. 2006. Spatial and temporal patterns of wildfires in the Mojave Desert, 1980–2004. Journal of Arid Environments Volume 67, Supplement, 2006, Pages 148-164.

Brown, D.E., and R.A. Minnich. 1986. Fire and changes in creosote bush scrub of the western Sonoran desert, California. American Naturalist 116(2):411-422.

Bureau of Land Management. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Environmental assessment for selected control of the common raven to reduce desert tortoise predation in the Mojave Desert, California. Bureau ofLand Management, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 39 Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Final Rand Mountains–Fremont Valley Management Plan.

A Sikes Act Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest Resource Area, California.

Bureau of Land Management. 1998. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980, as amended. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California.

Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Chapter Two - Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).

Working draft for West Mojave Plan. September 22, 1999. https://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/cdd_pdfs/Ch2_9-22-99.pdf
Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Proposed Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert management plan - Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volumes 1 and 2. California Desert District, Riverside, CA.

Bureau of Land Management, County of San Bernardino, and City of Barstow. 2005. Proposed West Mojave Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement. BLM/CA/ES2004-005 + 1790 -1600. Moreno Valley, CA.

Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Record of decision for the West Mojave Plan. California Desert District, Moreno Valley, CA.

Bureau of Land Management. 2018a. West Mojave Route Network Project Draft California Desert Conservation Plan Amendment and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the California Desert District. BLM/CA/DOI-BLM-CA-D080-2018-0008- EIS. January 2018. Moreno Valley, CA.

Bureau of Land Management. 2018b. Stoddard Valley OHV Area. BLM website accessed May 30, 2018. https://www.blm.gov/visit/stoddard-valley-ohv-area Burge, B.L. 1977. Daily and seasonal behavior, and areas utilized by the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, in southern Nevada. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council Symposium 1977:59-94.

Bury, R.B., and Luckenbach, R.A., 2002, Comparison of desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) populations in an unused and off-road vehicle area in the Mojave Desert: Chelonian Conservation and Biology, v. 4, p. 457–463.

Caid, N., P. Crist, R. Gilbert, and P. Wiederkehr. 2002. Environmentally sustainable transport:
concept, goal and strategy—the OECD’s EST Project. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Transport 153(4):219-226.

California Turtle and Tortoise Club. 2002. Western Rand Mountains ACEC vehicle closure. https://tortoise.org/conservation/randacec.html
Carr, L. W., and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of different vagility. Conservation Biology 15(4):1071-1078.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 40 Charis Corporation. 2005. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed Addition of Maneuver Training Land at Fort Irwin, CA. August 2005. Prepared for the U.S. Army National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California.

D'Antonio, C.M., and Vitousek, P.M., 1992, Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grassfire cycle, and global change: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 23, p. 63–

87. DeFalco, L.A., Detling, J.K., Tracy, C.R., and Warren, S.D., 2001, Physiological variation among native and exotic winter annual plants associated with microbiotic crusts in the Mojave Desert: Plant and Soil, v. 234, p. 1–14.

Desert Gazette. 2018. El Paso Mountains. http://digital-desert.com/el-paso-mountains/ (accessed 2018-5-30)
Doak, D., P. Kareiva, and B. Klepetka. 1994. Modeling population viability for the desert tortoise in the western Mojave Desert. Ecological Applications 4:446–460.

Edwards T., A.E. Karl, M. Vaughn, P.C. Rosen, C.M. Torres, and R.W. Murphy. 2016. The desert tortoise trichotomy: Mexico hosts a third, new sister-species of tortoise in the Gopherus morafkai–G. agassizii group. ZooKeys 562: 131– 158. doi: 10.3897/Zookeys. 562.6124.

Esque, T.C. 1992. Diet selection of the desert tortoise in the northeast Mojave Desert – FY 1991 update. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council Symposium 1992:64-68.

Esque, T.C. 1994. Diet and diet selection of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the northeastern Mojave Desert. Master’s Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Esque, T.C., Schwalbe, C.R., DeFalco, L.A., Duncan, R.B., and Hughes, T.J., 2003, Effects of desert wildfires on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and other small vertebrates:

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 48, p. 103–111.

Estrada, J. 2017. Events. Tortoise Tracks 37:2 page 1, Summer 2017.

Fahrig, L., and T. Rytwinski. 2009. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecology and Society 14(1): 21. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art21/
Federal Highway Administration and California Department of Transportation. 2017.

Olancha/Cartago Four-Lane Project on U.S. Highway 395 in Inyo County from 2.1 miles south of LA Aqueduct Bridge (#48-068R) to 0.2 mile south of Ash Creek Bridge (#48- 11). Final Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact and Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 41 Forman, R. T. T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 14(1):31-35.

Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette., A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshal, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Haenue , J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2002. Road ecology—science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Forman, R.T.T., D.S. Friedman, D. Fitzhenry, J.D. Martin, A.S. Chen, and L.E. Alexander. 1997.

Ecological effects of roads: toward three summary indices and an overview of North America. In: Canter K (ed) Habitat fragmentation and infrastructure. Minister of Transport and Public Works and Water Management, Delft, Netherlands, p 40-54.

Gelbard, J. L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17:420-432.

Gibbs, J.P., and W.G. Shriver. 2002. Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle populations. Conserv. Biol. 16, 1647–1652.

Goodlett, G. O. and G. C. Goodlett. 1993. Studies of unauthorized off-highway vehicle activity in the Rand Mountains and Fremont Valley, Kern County, California. Proc. 1992 Desert Tort. Counc. Symp. 1993:163-187.

Gucinski, H., M. Furniss, R. Ziermer, and M. Brookes. 2001. Forest Service roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-509.1, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Henen, B.T. 1992. Desert tortoise diet and dietary deficiencies that may limit egg production at Goffs, California. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council Symposium 1992:97.

Hessing, Mark. Botanist for Fort Irwin. E-mail sent to Connie Rutherford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Office, regarding off-road vehicle activity on Coolgardie Mesa. June 3, 2006. Cited in: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008. Lane Mountain milk-vetch (Astragalus jaegerianus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California. June 2008.

Jaeger, J.A.G., L. Fahrig, and K.C. Ewald. 2005a. Does the configuration of road networks influence the degree to which roads affect wildlife populations? International Conference on Ecology and Transportation 2005 Proceedings, Chapter 5 - Integrating Transportation and Resource Conservation Planning - Landscapes and Road Networks, pages 151-163.

August 29, 2005.

Jaeger, J.A.G., J. Bowman, J. Brennan, L. Fahrig, D. Bert, J. Bouchard, N. Charbonneau, K.

Frank, B. Gruber, K. Tluk von Toschanowitz. 2005b. Predicting when animal populations are at risk from roads: an interactive model of road avoidance behavior. Ecological Modelling 185 (2005) 329–348.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 42 Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross, and M.D. Nasserden. 1997. The effects of linear developments on wildlife: a review of selected scientific literature. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd, prepared for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Calgary, Alberta.

Jennings, B. 1992. Observations on the feeding habits and behavior of desert tortoises at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, California. Proceeding of the Desert Tortoise Council Symposium 1992:69-81.

Jennings, W. B. 1993. Foraging ecology of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the western Mojave desert. Master's thesis. Arlington, University of Texas: 101 pp.

Jennings, W. B. 1997. Habitat use and food preferences of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, in the western Mojave Desert and impacts of off-road vehicles. In J. Van Abbema (ed.), Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles-An International Conference, pp. 42-45. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York.

Karraker, N.E., and J.P. Gibbs. 2011. Contrasting road effect signals in reproduction of longversus short-lived amphibians. Hydrobiologia 664, 213–218.

Kemp, P.R., and Brooks, M.L., 1998, Exotic species of California deserts: Fremontia, v. 26, p. 30–34.

Kilgo, J.C., R.F. Labisky, and D.E. Fritzen. 1998. Influences of hunting on the behavior of white-tailed deer: implications for conservation of the Florida panther. Conservation Biology 12:1359-1364.

Knight, R.L., and Kawashima, J.Y., 1993, Responses of raven and red-tailed hawk populations to linear right-of-ways: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 57, p. 266–271.

Knight, R.L., Camp, R.J., Boarman, W.I., and Knight, H.A.L., 1999, Predatory bird populations in the east Mojave Desert, California: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 59, p. 331–338.

LaBerteaux, D.L. 2006. Mustard removal at the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area, Kern County, California. Report to the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, Inc.

LaRue, E. 1992. Distribution of desert tortoise sign adjacent to Highway 395, San Bernardino County, California. Proceedings of the 1992 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council.

LaRue, E. 1994. Follow-up monitoring report for Stoddard Valley-to-Johnson Valley Point-toPoint Corridor Run. Unpublished report prepared on behalf of the American Motorcyclists Association for the Barstow Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 43 LaRue, E. 2008. Latest information on tortoises and other special-status species in Morongo Basin. Morongo Tortoise Update.7-18-2008. Circle Mountain Biological Consultants, Wrightwood, CA. http://www.yucca-valley.org/pdf/general_plan/mb_tortoise_update_july2008.pdf LaRue, E. 2014. Mohave Ground Squirrel Trapping Results for Phacelia Wildflower Sanctuary, Los Angeles County, California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Mohave-GroundSquirrel/TAG/BlogPage/4/Month/4/Year/2018 Lei, S. A. 2004. Soil compaction from human trampling, biking, and off-road motor vehicle activity in a blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) shrubland. Western North American Naturalist 64:125-130.

Loughran, C.L., J.R. Ennen, and J.E. Lovich. 2011. Gopherus agassizii (desert tortoise). Burrow collapse. Herpetological Review 42(4), 593.

Lovich, J.E., and Bainbridge, D., 1999, Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California desert ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration: Environmental Management, v. 24, p. 309–326.

Lovich, J.E., C.B. Yackulic, J. Freilich M. Agha, M. Austin, K.P. Meyer, T.R. Arundel, J.

Hansen, M.S. Vamstad, S.A. Root. 2014. Climatic variation and tortoise survival: Has a desert species met its match? Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 214–224.

McLellan, B.N., and D.M Shackleton, 1988. Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries:
effects of roads on behavior, habitat use and demography. J. Appl. Ecol. 25, 451–460.

McLuckie, A.M., M.R.M. Bennion, and R.A. Fridell. 2007. Tortoise mortality within the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve following the 2005 wildfire. Utah Division of Wildlife Resource Publication 07-05.

Medica, P.A., R.B. Bury, and F.B. Turner. 1975. Growth of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in Nevada. Copeia 1975:639-643.

Minnich, J.E. 1970. Water and electrolyte balance of the desert iguana, Dipsosaurus dorsalis, in its native habitat. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 35:921-933.

Minnich, J.E. 1979. Comparison of maintenance electrolyte budgets of free-living desert and gopher tortoises (Gopherus agassizii and G. polyphemus). Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council Symposium 1979 Pp.166-174.

Murphy, R.W., Berry, K.H., Edwards, T., Leviton, A.E., Lathrop, A., and Riedle, J.D., 2011, The dazed and confused identity of Agassiz's land tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, Testudinidae) with the description of a new species, and its consequences for conservation: ZooKeys, v. 113, p. 39–71.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 44 Nafus, M.G., T.D. Tuberville, K. A. Buhlmann, and B.D. Todd. 2013. Relative abundance and demographic structure of Agassiz’s desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) along roads of varying size and traffic volume. Biological Conservation 162 (2013) 100–106.

Nagy, K.A. 1972. Water and electrolyte budgets of a free-living desert lizard, Sauromalus obesus. Journal of Comparative Physiology 79:93-102.

Nagy, K.A., and P.A. Medica. 1986. Physiological ecology of desert tortoises. Herpetologica 42:73-92.

Nagy, K.A., Henen, B.T., and Vyas, D.B., 1998, Nutritional quality of native and introduced food plants of wild desert tortoises: Journal of Herpetology, v. 32, p. 260–267.

Noss, R. F. 1993. Wildlife corridors. Pages 43-68 in D. S. Smith and P. C. Hellmund, editors.

Ecology of Greenways. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Noss, R. F. 1995. Maintaining ecological integrity in representative reserve networks. World Wildlife Fund, Canada.
[OECD] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002. OECD guidelines towards environmentally sustainable transport. OECD Publications, Paris, France.

Oftedal, O.T. 2002. The nutritional ecology of the desert tortoise in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. Pages 194-241 in T.R. Van Devender (ed.), The Sonoran Desert Tortoise; Natural History, Biology and Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Oftedal, O.T., L.S. Hillard, and D.J. Morafka. 2002. Selective spring foraging by juvenile desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in the Mojave Desert—Evidence of an adaptive nutritional strategy: Chelonian Conservation and Biology, v. 4, p. 341–352.

Oftedal, O.T. and M.E. Allen. 1996. Nutrition as a major facet of reptile conservation. Zoo Biology 15:491-497.

Parendes, L.A., and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon.

Conservation Biology 14:64.

Rytwinski, T., and L. Fahrig. 2011. Reproductive rate and body size predict road impacts on mammal abundance. Ecol. Appl. 21, 589–600.

Rytwinski, T., and L. Fahrig. 2012. Do species life history traits explain population responses to roads? A meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 147, 87–98.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 45 Roedenbeck, I.A., L. Fahrig, C. S. Findlay, J. E. Houlahan, J.A.G. Jaeger, N. Klar, S. KramerSchadt , and E. A. van der Grift. 2007. The Rauischholzhausen Agenda for Road Ecology. Ecology and Society 12(1): 11. [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art11/ Rudis, V.A. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation effects on bottomland hardwood community types and resource values. Landsc. Ecol. 10:291-307.

Sanson, L. 2016. Marines seek plan to move tortoises from Johnson Valley. Hi-Desert Star September 8, 2016. http://www.hidesertstar.com/news/article_c51696c6-7609-11e6- 847d-03224974e42a.html
Sazaki, M., W.I. Boarman, G. Goodlett, and T. Okamoto. 1995. Risk associated with longdistance movement by desert tortoises. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1994 Symposium. pp. 33–48.

W.H. Schlesinger, and C.S. Jones. 1984. The Comparative Importance of Overland Runoff and Mean Annual Rainfall to Shrub Communities of the Mojave Desert. Botanical Gazette 1984 145(1): 116-124.

Sharifi, M.R., A.C. Gibson, and P.W. Rundel. 1997. Surface Dust Impacts on Gas Exchange in Mojave Desert Shrubs. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34(4)(Aug., 1997):837-846.

Sherwood, B., D. Cutler, and J. A. Burton. 2002. Wildlife and roads—the ecological impact.

Imperial College Press, London, UK.

Spellerberg, I. F. 2002. Ecological effects of roads. Land Reconstruction and Management Series, Volume 2. Science Publishers, Enfield, UK.

Tierra Madre Consultants. 1991. Biological assessment for Lancaster City and Planning Area:

Relative density surveys for desert tortoises and cumulative human impact evaluations for Mohave ground squirrel habitat. Report prepared by Ed LaRue for City of Lancaster.

Tierra Madre Consultants, Riverside, CA.

C.R. Tracy, L.C. Zimmerman, C. Tracy, K.D. Bradley, and K. Castle. 2006. Rates of food passage in the digestive tract of young desert tortoises: Effects of body size and diet quality. Chelonian Conservation and Biology: December 2006, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 269- 273.

Zimmerman, L.C., Espinoza, R.E., and Barber, A.M., 2006a, The importance of physiological ecology in conservation biology: Integrative and Comparative Biology, v. 46, p. 1,191– 1,205.

Tratz, W.M. 1978. Postfire vegetational recovery, productivity and herbivore utilization of a chaparral-desert ecotone. Master’s Thesis. California State University, Los Angeles.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 46 Tratz, W.M., and R.J. Vogl. 1977. Postfire vegetational recovery, productivity and herbivore utilization of a chaparral-desert ecotone. Pages 426-430 in H.A. Mooney and C.E.

Conrad (eds.), Proceedings of Symposium on Environmental Consequences of Fire and Fuel Management in Mediterranean Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-3.

Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18–30.

Turner, F.B., P. Hayden, B.L. Burge, and J.B. Roberson. 1986. Egg production by the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in California. Herpetologica 42:93-104.

Turner, F.B., K.H. Berry, D.C. Randall, and G.C. White. 1987. Population ecology of the desert tortoise at Goffs, California, 1983-1986. Report to Southern California Edison Co., Rosemead, California.

Turtle Conservation Coalition. 2018. Turtles in Trouble: The World’s 25+ Most Endangered Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles. www.iucn-tftsg.org/trouble Umweltbundesalt (UBA). 2003. Reduzierung der Flächeninanspruchnahme durch Siedlung und Verkehr. Materialienband. Umweltbundesamt Texte 90/03, Berlin, Germany. Available online at: http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/2587.pdf.

Underhill, J. E., and P. G. Angold. 2000. Effects of roads on wildlife in an intensively modified landscape. Environmental Reviews 8:21-39.

U.S. District Court. 2011. Order re: remedy. Case 3:06-cv04884-SI. Center for Biological Diversity, et al., Plaintiffs v. BLM. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, USA. As cited in Berry, K.H., L.M. Lyren, J.L. Yee, and T.Y. Bailey. 2014. Protection benefits desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) abundance: the influence of three management strategies on a threatened species. Herpetological Monographs, 28 2014, 66–92.

U.S. Ecology. 1989. Proponent’s Environmental Assessment. California Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site. Appendices K and M, Volume II.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register 55(26):5820-5866. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) Recovery Plan. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 73 pages plus appendices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Lane Mountain milk-vetch (Astragalus jaegerianus) 5- Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.

Desert Tortoise Council/Comments/Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms MND.6-2-2025 47 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. 222 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Biological Opinion on Mojave Solar, LLC's Mojave Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California (8-8-11-F-3). Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a. 12-month finding on a petition to reclassify Astragalus jaegerianus as a threatened Species. 79 Federal Register 25084-25092, Friday, May 2, 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Determination of threatened status for the western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Final Rule. 79 Federal Register 59992-60038.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014c. Designation of critical habitat for the western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo; Proposed Rule. 29 Federal Register 48548-48652.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2013 and 2014 Annual Reports. Report prepared by Linda Allison for the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. van der Ree R., J. A. G. Jaeger, E. A. van der Grift, and A. P. Clevenger. 2011. Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: Road ecology is moving toward larger scales. Ecology and Society 16(1): 48. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art48/
von Seckendorff Hoff, K., and Marlow, R.W. 2002. Impacts of vehicle road traffic on desert tortoise populations with consideration of conservation of tortoise habitat in southern Nevada. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:449–456.

1 of 2
Monday, June 2, 2025 at 4:41:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Ofland Resort Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 at 3:59:53PM Pacific Daylight Time From: JohnW TJ <[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,
Here are my comments on the above issue.

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

I have questions and concerns about the findings of the MND:
1) Regarding Environmental Setting, what mitigation is planned to maintain healthful air quality during construction? When desert land is disturbed, especially in our windy environment, dust and airborne particles, including pathogens, can be irritating to eyes and skin, and can adversely a[ect people prone to asthma or COPD;
2) The biological survey done by Terra Nova dates from November of 2023.

Typically, a biological survey is good for no longer than one year. We are beyond that point.

In addition, the survey was done during hibernation season, so any tortoises in the area would not have been evident. Furthermore, the survey was done prior to the recent listing of the California Desert Tortoise as endangered. Should this not require a fresh report?
3) The project’s proximity to the National Park (it shares a border with that of the NP Bu[er Zone) means that, if any EIR was ever warranted, it is in this case. 4) As per the MND, the housing o[set required by SB-330  ties this project to another controversial and as yet unapproved project, the nearby solar farm. Does this approach signal that the city will take unprecedented measures to push through two environmentally sensitive builds that rely upon one another, and in doing so skirt protocol?
The MND feels like an unwarranted gift to a development that could potentially do great damage to our local environment, one which is essential to tourism. A full EIR is needed in order to demonstrate to the citizens of Twentynine Palms that this project, if approved, is done so in such a way that its legitimacy is unquestioned.

Regards,
John Talley-Jones
Twentynine Palms resident

2 of 2 Page 443 of 1452
1 of 1
Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 3:48:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Ofland Hotel Project (Project # 24001838) Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 at 10:14:58AM Pacific Daylight Time From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
CC: Juan Muñoz <[email protected]>
Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: Ofland Hotel MND Comments.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—On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (Local 11), please see aAached comment leAer on the above referenced project. Pursuant to TPMC § 19.28.100.C.5, please add this office to the noQficaQon list for any zoning/CEQA acQons or other hearings related to the Project and requested approvals. Please also confirm receipt of this message—many thanks.

Best,
J]^_`a R. Scdd]a, Ede. J]^_`a R. Scdd]a, Ede. J]^_`a R. Scdd]a, Ede.

Law Office of Jordan R. Sisson
3993 Orange St., Ste. 201
Riverside, CA 92501
Office: 951-405-8127
Direct: 951-542-2735
[email protected]
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message contains informaQon from the Law Office of Jordan R.

Sisson and is aAorney work product confidenQal or privileged. The informaQon is intended solely for the use of the individual(s)or enQty(ies) named above. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original transmission and its aAachments without reading or saving in any manner.

June 2, 2025
VIA EMAIL:

Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynine Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
[email protected]
Re: Ofland Hotel Project (Project #24001838)
Dear Mr. Gardner:

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”),2 the City is considering the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”).3
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.

Sincerely,
__________________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF-page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”) 2 Including “CEQA Guidelines” codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq. 3 https://app.box.com/s/wlqfpkrl186hkxg1v6ru6z3mrtorhnr2.

1 of 1
Thursday, June 5, 2025 at 10:55:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: No to Ofland
Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 at 7:08:05PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Kevin Maddrey <[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
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.

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. ...

1 June 2, 2025
To: Keith Gardner
From: Kat Talley-Jones
7054 Mantonya Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Dear Keith:

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.

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.

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.

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) 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.

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

2 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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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 water study should be a component of an EIR.

Conclusion:

The proposed Ofland Hotel project has potential to bring economic benefit, but only if

3 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.

1 of 2
Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 3:46:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: Ofland
Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 at 10:41:54AM Pacific Daylight Time From: mark zietz <[email protected]>
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>, Zach Zietz <[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
From: Mark and Debby Zietz
69222 Sullivan Rd.
29 Palms, CA
Subj: Ofland Luxury Hotel units
Dear Sir,
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, 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.

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.

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-oftowners? 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

2 of 2
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.

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.

Sincerely,
Mark, Debby, and Zachary Zietz
June 2, 2025

1 of 2
Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 8:19:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: FW: Ofland hotel Indian cove Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 at 5:46:33PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]>
CC: Nicole Criste <[email protected]>, Vickie Bridenstine <[email protected]>, Luke Searcy <[email protected]>
Another email comment
From: Zach Zietz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:56 PM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Subject: Ofland hotel Indian cove
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
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 e`ects 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 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

2 of 2
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.

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.

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.

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.

1 of 2
Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 8:22:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: FW: LDR Comment Letter for Ofland Hotel Twentynince Palms SCH # 2025050547 Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 at 5:52:24PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: Nicole Criste <[email protected]>, Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]> CC: Vickie Bridenstine <[email protected]>, Luke Searcy <[email protected]> Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: image001.gif, LDR_Comment Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms_SCH# 2025050547.pdf FYI
From: Bihi, Abdullahi@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 1:51 PM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Cc: Patel, Janki@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Subject: Subject: LDR Comment LeRer for Ofland Hotel Twentynince Palms SCH # 2025050547 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 Gardner,
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.

We have attached LDR final comment letter for review and consideration.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you so much
Abdullahi Bihi Abdullahi Bihi Abdullahi Bihi
Transportation Planner
District 8 Caltrans – Planning Division

LDR - CEQA
464 West 4th Street MS-726
San Bernadino, CA 92401
Office/Mobile# 909-963-8604
Email: [email protected]

1 June 09, 2025
Route & Postmile #: SR-62/27.985
Cross Street: S.E. corner of Lear Ave & Twentynine Palms Hwy GTS ID: 36443
SCH #: 2025050547
City of Twentynine Palms
Department of Planning
Attn: Keith Gardner
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Subject: Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms, APN: 0614-121-15 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.

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.

DISTRICT 8
464 WEST 4TH STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA, 92401
(909) 963-8604
www.dot.ca.gov

2 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.

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

3 that presents the percentage of trips assigned to each major approach or corridor (e.g., SR-62 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.

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.

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.

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.

Equitable Access

4 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. 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.

Sincerely,
Janki Patel
Branch Chief - Local Development Review
Division of Transportation Planning
Caltrans District 8

1 of 1
Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 8:21:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: FW: Public Comment on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 at 5:50:50PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]>, Nicole Criste <[email protected]> CC: Vickie Bridenstine <[email protected]>, Luke Searcy <[email protected]> FYI
From: Mark Pendergrass <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 10:52 AM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Subject: Public Comment on IniLal Study / Proposed MiLgated NegaLve DeclaraLon 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,
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.

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.

Mark Pendergrass

Cindy Bernard P.O. Box 624 Joshua Tree CA 92252

323/401-1999 [email protected]
June 2, 2025
Keith Gardner
City of Twentynine Palms
Planning Department
Email [email protected]
Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments for The Ofland Hotel luxury resort with 100 units and amenities including 2 lodges, pools and spas, recreational areas, playgrounds, food and beverage services, and 25 employee housing units on 152-acre vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Lear Avenue and 29 Palms Highway, in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California (APN 0614-121-15).

Dear Community Development Director Gardner,
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.

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.” 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 1

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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.

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.
2

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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. 3

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 1: Locations and approximate relative scale of the Harmony Solar Farm (SF), the Ofland Resort (OF) and the Earth Dome Resort (OR) overlaid on a detail of Exhibit CO-3 Special Status Biological Resources from the General Plan. 4

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 2: Undated photo looking west over Indian Cove, Susan Luckie House / Dr. Luckie Study Center built circa 1938 and nearby home (to the rear of Susan Luckie)
Exhibit 3: Detail of Indian Cove map, showing six homes to the east and south east of the potential Ofland development as location of potential 2nd development.
5

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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.

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.

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 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.
6

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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 th 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? 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.

Exhibit 4: Viewshed of Proposed Ofland Project prepared for the MBCA. 7

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 5: Looking northwest across the project parcel toward Lear and 62 , 9:15pm Exhibit 6: Looking west across the project parcel toward Lear and 62, 9:15pm 8

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 7: Looking west across the project parcel toward Monte Vista Exhibit 8: Looking southwest across the project parcel towards Sullivan and Indian Cove Rd. 9

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.
10

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

Badger (Special Status) Documentation:

Exhibit 9: Likely badger burrow with scat, April 22, 2025, Western edge of Shoshone Valley Rd. (Bernard Parcel),. 11

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 10: Likely badger burrow, April 2, 2025, project parcel, site adjacent to Exhibit 11 Exhibit 11a, Likely badger burrow, April 2, 2025, project parcel. 12

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments

Exhibit 11b, Likely badger burrow, same site as 11a, detail, April 2, 2025, project parcel.

Exhibit 12: Likely badger burrow, March 19, 2025, parcel adjacent to project parcel (Bernard Parcel), 13

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Tortoise (Endangered) Documentation:

Exhibit 13a: Tortoise in burrow, on parcel adjacent to project parcel (Bernard Parcel),, March 19, 2025 Exhibit 13b: Tortoise in burrow, on parcel adjacent to project parcel (Bernard Parcel),, March 16, 2025 14

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 13b: Tortoise in burrow, on parcel adjacent to project parcel (Bernard Parcel),, March 16, 2025 Exhibit 14: Tortoise in burrow, on parcel adjacent to project parcel (Bernard Parcel), August 17, 2024 15

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 15: Tortoise, Baseline and Shoshone Valley Rd. (Wilson Parcel), August 14, 2024 Exhibit 16: Tortoise, Baseline and Shoshone Valley Rd. (Wilson Parcel), August 30, 2023 16

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 17a and 17b: Witnessed tortoise dig burrow in berm on east side of Shoshone Valley Rd. (had to go back for camera), adjacent to project parcel (Bernard Parcel), June 29, 2023 Exhibit 18: Tortoise, Baseline and Shoshone Valley Rd. (Wilson Parcel), ASeptember 17, 2023 17

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 19: Tortoise, Sullivan and Mote Vista, August 16, 2022 Exhibit 20: Tortoise, Baseline and Shoshone Valley Rd. (Wilson Parcel), August 11, 2022 18

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 21: Witnessed tortoise enter burrow, (Bernard parcel, same site as Exhibit 14), March 12, 2022 19

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 22a and 22b: Believed to be the same tortoise, Monte Vista Dr., morning of September 21, 2021, and berm of Shodhone Valley road heading east (Bernard parcel), early evening, September 21, 2021, having crossed project parcel. 20

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 23a and 23b,Tortoise, adjacent to Shoshone Valley Rd. heading south, (Bernard parcel), May, 2019 21

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard (Endangered): Documentation
Exhibit 24: Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, southern edge of Sullivan Rd., west of the intersection of Sullivan and Shoshone Valley Rd, August 8, 2020
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.
22

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration 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.

Exhibit 25: Next Door map of the Indian Cove Neighborhood, screen shot taken June 2, 2025. 23

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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). 24

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 26a: Facebook post dated December 28, 2025, prior to Ofland linking itself with the Harmony Solar Farm project.

Exhibit 26b and 26c: Comments on Facebook post dated December 28, 2025. 25

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 27: Screen shot taken 6/2/2025
Note that the applicant fails to list Policy LU-1.3:

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.)
26

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
•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.

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.”
27

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
• 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 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.
28

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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 rights-of-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. 29

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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
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.

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.)
30

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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) 31

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

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.

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.

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 SR-62/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.
32

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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.

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. 33

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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.
34

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 28a: Google map of proposed development parcel showing roads that were partially cleared for a planned previous development.
35

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
]
Exhibit 28b: Google map of proposed development parcel showing intersection at Lear with existing commercial frontage road and planned extension of existing frontage road that is uncompleted.

Exhibit 28c: Google map of proposed development parcel showing planned extension of existing frontage road that is uncompleted and potential exit / entrance off of Highway 62 near the center of the parcel. 36

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
Exhibit 28d: Google map of proposed development parcel showing planned extension of existing frontage road that is uncompleted and potential exit / entrance off of Highway 62 to the east of the parcel center. Note that the striping on 62 indicates that Caltans considers this a probable future road. There is also a stop sign on 62 at the base of this road / path. 37

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

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.

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.
38

Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments
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.

FOOT NOTES

1. Dr. Luckie Study Center, National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park, https://www.nps.gov/jotr/learn/nature/dr-luckie-study-center.htm accessed 6/1/25

2. Effects of Noise on Wildlife, NPS.gov,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/effects_wildlife.htm, access 6/2/2025 39

Thank you for taking the time to seriously consider the comments of residents residing on the east side of the proposed Ofland development. We hope you agree with us that an EIR is necessary.

A
Cindy Bernard
697 11 Twentynine Palms Highway
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Todd Wilson
7273 Shoshone Valley Rd.

Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
-
Leslie Wilson
7273 Shoshone Valley Rd.

Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Jim Lawless
69850 Baseline Rd
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Doris Lawless
69850 Baseline Rd.

Twentynine Palms, CA 92277

1 of 1
Monday, June 16, 2025 at 8:24:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: FW: Comment Letter on Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 8:01:40AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: Nicole Criste <[email protected]>, Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]> CC: Vickie Bridenstine <[email protected]>, Luke Searcy <[email protected]> Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: 2025-6-13 Ofland comment letter.pdf FYI
From: Meredith Stevenson <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:36 PM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Subject: Comment LeNer on 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
Good evening,
Attached please find a letter from the Center for Biological Diversity regarding the IS/MND for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Project. As explained in the attached comment, we believed the 30-day deadline for the comments to be today, June 12, 2025, due to the CDFW comments on CEQAnet describing CDFW as a responsible/trustee agency (see Cal.

Pub. Res. Code § 21091(b)), but I realize the City set the deadline for June 2, 2025.

Additional detailed comments on the IS/MND are forthcoming.

When possible, please confirm that you received the letter.

Thank you,
Meredith Stevenson
Stai Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
574-309-5620
[email protected]

June 12, 2025

Sent via email
Keith Gardner, Planning Department
City of Twentynine Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms (State Clearinghouse No. 2025050547) Dear Mr. Gardner:

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.

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

June 12, 2025

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.

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 “consider[ation 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).)

June 12, 2025

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).) 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.

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.
• 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.
• Wildlife Connectivity: The General Plan identifies wildlife corridors within the City, and the Project lies entirely within one of those corridors: the Joshua TreeTwentynine 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.

June 12, 2025

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.)
• 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.
• 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. • Light Pollution: The MND provides only a one-paragraph explanation of light impacts to the area. (MND at 19.) While the Project proposes downwardspointing 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.
• 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.
• 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. • 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.

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

June 12, 2025

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.

Sincerely,
Meredith Stevenson
Attorney
2100 Franklin Street, Suite 375
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
Evan Levy
Attorney
2100 Franklin Street, Suite 375
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]

CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS

PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY

COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 24-000002, REZONING 25-000001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 25-000004, AND CONDITOINAL USE PERMIT NO. 34-000003 TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2024, an application was received from NV5, Inc on behalf of Ohland Hotels, requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment 24-000002, Rezoning 25- 000001, Development Code Amendment 25-000004, and Conditional Use Permit 24-000003 for 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. (to be built in two phases) located at the southeast corner of Highway 62 and Lear Avenue, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277, also identified as APN’s: 0614-121-15; and WHEREAS, the land use designation (zoning) for the subject property is presently SingleFamily Residential - Estate (RS-E); and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment and a Development Code Amendment to establish the Open Space – Conservation (OS-C) Zone; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to remove Shoshone Valley Road from the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and establish it as a local road; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment and a Rezoning to modify the land use district to Commercial Tourist (CT) and Open Space – Conservation (OS-C); and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City has reviewed the Initial Study and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Desert Trail, a newspaper of record, on May 14, 2025; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the applicable proposed General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, with adherence to the recommended Conditions of Approval; and

2 WHEREAS, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services; and
WHEREAS, Public Hearing notice for was published in the Desert Trail, a newspaper of record, on June 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, a notice was mailed to all property owners located within 600 feet of the project site on or before June 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65350 et. Seq. and California Government Code Section 65853 et. seq., the Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to the notice required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2025, at which time the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-__ General Plan Amendment 24-000002, Rezoning 25-000001, Development Code Amendment 25-000004, and Conditional Use Permit 24-000003 located at the southwest corner of Twentynine Palms Highway and Lear Avenue, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277, also identified as APN’s:0614-121-15: and WHEREAS, with respect to the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission makes the following Findings:

A. That the amendment will not adversely impact the existing community.

Given the open space buffers surrounding the area of the site proposed for development, and the mitigation measures introduced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, this project will not adversely impact the existing community.

B. That the amendment is consistent with the intent of the vision, goals and policies of the General Plan as a whole.

This General Plan Amendment follows the implementation policies LU1.4 through LU1.7, and thus is consistent with the Vision of the General Plan.

C. That the amendment prescribes reasonable controls and standards for affected land uses to ensure compatibility and integrity of those uses with other established uses.

Given the open space buffers surrounding the area of the site proposed for development, it is intended to be as non-intrusive to the neighboring residential uses as possible.

3 D. That the amendment provides for the protection of the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community.

The project is installing needed infrastructure to the neighborhood, as well as installing a 500-800 foot wide open space buffer are intended to protect the general health and welfare of the community.

WHEREAS, with respect to the Rezoning and Development Code Amendment, the Planning Commission makes the following Findings:

A. That the Zone Change or Development Code Amendment is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan.

Introducing the Open-Space Conservation (OS-C) land use district, along with placing Tourist Commercial near a major intersection is meeting with the spirit of the goals and policies of the General Plan.

B. That the Zone Change or Development Code Amendment prescribes reasonable controls and standards to ensure compatibility with other established uses.

Introducing the Open-Space Conservation (OS-C) land use district, and placing a 500- 800 foot buffer surrounding the area proposed for development protects the surrounding residential land uses from the commercial uses in the interior of the property.

C. That the Zone Change or Development Code Amendment provides reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species.

The mitigation measures introduced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be placed as conditions of approval on the project, thus protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species. Also, the creation of open space buffer on the exterior of the property also protects the natural habitat in that location.

D. That the Zone Change or Development Code Amendment ensures protection of the general health, safety and welfare of the community.

The creation of the Open Space Conservation Zone, along with the 500-800 buffer surrounding the area proposed for development, and along with the installation of required infrastructure for flood control and circulation purposes protects the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.

4 WHEREAS, with respect to the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission makes the following Findings:

Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission makes the following Findings:

A. That the proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated are in accordance with the purpose of this Development Code, the zoning regulations applicable to the site, the City of Twentynine Palms General Plan, and other applicable development policies and standards of the City.

The area of the project proposed for development is located in the proposed Commercial-Tourist (CT) zoning district. The project as proposed is in compliance with the required setbacks for the zone, is under the maximum height limitation of 45 feet and is in conformance with the maximum lot coverage of 80%.

B. That the proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to uses, properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The project has been conditioned to install the appropriate street improvements, landscaping, parking and on-site retention. The project design allows access to all proposed structures and will result in a safe, well-designed facility.

C. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and integrate it with the existing and planned uses in the vicinity.

The proposed project is located at the intersection of Twentynine Palms Highway and Lear Avenue and encompasses approximately 152 gross acres. The project has been conditioned to install the appropriate street improvements and dedications, landscaping, parking and on-site retention.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Twentynine Palms adopts Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-, and in so doing adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, General Plan Amendment 24-000002, Rezoning 25-000001, Development Code Amendment 25-000004, and Conditional Use Permit 24-000003 for the development of 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. (to be built in two phases) at the southeast corner of Twentynine Palms Highway and Lear Avenue, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, incorporated herein by reference as Attachment “A.” APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF June, 2024.

AYES: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

NOES: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

5 ________________________________________
Jessica Cure, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Cindy Villescas, City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-xx duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Twentynine Palms in a meeting held on the 25th day of June, 2025, in the City of Twentynine Palms, California.

Dated this 25th day of June, 2025.
________________________________________
Cindy Villescas, City Clerk

_<_m_sO ._.0 31922.20. OO_<=<=mm_OZ
3 4302 2.888
B 933$. m?oaama
8 5:5qu £02255
3 Nmo: N§N mvXms: 2.3an gm}. mag HEN ._.O” 22.23 0033.36: 3.62: .62: mmazm? gmmjzm" ,Ezm mowm mam::mm8823 833.8398 3 mauve: 9“5m .63 $33 Dmim: mg: :mm8828 oo?qmmnosamsom3 8 3m 163” ooqqmmtosamsnm «332mg mcwgmo...”

n>c._.H02" HIHm m3>nr Cam—H2230 Oedmncm ._._._mO”?>2nN>.—.n°2. DO 20... Oran—AFHZ-AmON Ovmz >._.._.>n_.=<_m2._.m CZmem <0: _._><m man—"HmU._._._mmmZUmN>20 2205‘ 41m 002.32... Hmm>mm. n>c._.H02 0mm:27 .31... 626.32. «33” E33 0255: A_.Qm3_m:mm©m3m=.n03v moan 1.:mechqu 4NNONmmnwoES ._.0” 513 039.2 mcchmn? 0:25 No 335 xmmo: wmmozaoQ _:onmHam3mmmmmm23m <0: Ems. Emmmmmmm:5 $50er 5.2? mxn?mmmim3< mambo: 3* 3m 9030me Ozmsq mmUmzsmam<m5u3mz?_cmsm<m35 93mg <5: 513m$9.383 20:03.0. m:<:o:3m3mr mag 003355 53526 .8 3m 0.2 2 ._.<<m2<:3m_um_3m.mag
_mzoocqmmm:m 4.3m; mag oozmamqmzoz. 532 wmm?

v 020:0 mm0030 033.000 053.2003 00303.0 030
030 0000.000.3 0300. Ex q0<0::0. 00:00 00053090
000002-0.00 <.0..8q 00030.5 000: <00: 3.0 0302 <<.:
03m3031000. 000300000 030 000:0 002.000. :0
00330:..2 001300360. 030 3.502 .03.? 0.000030
<53 <0E00.
amm?zmam52.58? 353333.55 amumoqcp93mg 3m: 93:03 :5
mcq0* :5 £6. <<:: .55 moqmm amm?zm?ma mm835:9: cosmmEmno: mumom. 39533 3mmmcqmm. manmm.:m.m-m8«<30613 2:: U?mmemmSm ammm:
um. Him 92.9% $6
m003363806 m?msama3* «mm—H5355Qm<m803m33 Em
_m3 €1.25 3 mxuqmmm3< 9.35.320 2:52.19 :5 3300me Omgqmm $35 qm<m_ou3m3. >mqummz?ma.Hamocaoovozms?ma coczncm30$. qmnqmmmz?m3:05:15 man323195055 magic: 8 Sm oz<|osm 3m.“mzmsmcmmc?cg 2:: no”: Sm 92:03:53.an <mEmm9“ 3m ammm:man5m 96303.0 m?mémé3 .835 #mm Zmzozm. 31A.

8.2. .33 513m£205 289 .8 .635.
m:omlm= <<::m?mmumozzmSm ammm: <<m
_mqozmqmzooc?mmm:5 9.2 .8
25 m3825?. am:9“ :5
.32: Oman—:2 0.822 9“ 0033.55 Um<mpon3m3 0.2 3 23:35.3 _um_3m 3 mm>rom $03 _um_3m.O> mmmd 5313‘ 0.235: mm;mommBOJmUs ._.<<m3<:.:m.umPBm. O> mmmd Em3.m:mm@m3m:.003 ,0: Fan Menu 0mm:3:

v:
r
n
r
00303060 3* 30

08. .3000 330,». 0005 00
m.30q0<3m mxmmzzm
:0:me 60603090100.“
02 0030: 9“ or:
n>c._.H02" diam m3>Hr Camuz>4m0 OCHMHUm._._._mO?m>zHN>HHOZ. DO 20... Dunn—AFnzxm O” Ovmz >._|_.>n_.=<_mz._.m :2..me <0: _._><m<m?HmHmU ._._._mmmZUm? >20 X2042 ._._._mnOZHMZA.Hmm>_..m.n>c._.HOZ mmm3< 038.20: 3 Sm 980me 356359: mag nmszmo.“
zmza 330: 5332. >mm90.312 0539 .3 3m 833:2?
_
2 SE am<m5n3m350:5 :m<mo: :5 w:20c:a5m
2 Em 0: 45 6293.8 man$.55"?
52 ”$30 mam 3m.“ :93 9395 :5 ummom.
50308 0033312. mxumJQSmowum<3m35
:05? mag 3383335, Emacuzo? 633m 8
3m Foam:2.55m. .32: 626.32. Ida" ?mnm<Z888 AZOmnm?o~m©8maEssmrnOBv mmsn mcznavo Ezm Am.Nomm93 >2. ._.ou xmzrmmasm? «(<9 0226 qmncmm? 3.0:: ?mom<Zomom?oAgomom?omomquama?:339.023 mcgmon0:25 33:3. 093” r53 3. mommm.“ouwmnom >_<__uU._. ._.o” [email protected]? 4353 388.8 mommaOS 0um 30mm 4553233 U 336 O>. mum: ._.o._.<<mZH<Z_Zm _u>_._<_m 0033.38? 32,533 Ezm mom

mumw:u£->:c:EEoo
m_omU 0mg: zmcobm
ztmuc:EmEE £59.
mm:_N::o_._a
:95 232
E 3365.3 .0 85:;
30>Bmomoz >8th

Ema: no<mmmm: manmZmmag _o<m_<:m.m:co}ooa. .8 3m 8:13
a :6 233% um;man385% mmm83mg um}
m?njmmgom?m.$9336? 3 mmm: 38 3m.“m::cm=<200% man833 .33sz m?nrmmgommnm: 3.9.3.2.“.8 Sm no.4: 33m .H8.3. n>c._._OZu ._.I_m m_<_>:.Om_m_2>._.mU OC._.m_Dm ._.Im me>Z_N>._._OZ. DO ZO._. OEQA :wa OmOvmz >._.._.>nI7\_mZHm CZrmmm <mm:n_mU ._.Im ._.Im _mm>_um.n>c._._OZ _\\ <<:m.?5 3m 30.3 0* Sign :m?rcozgooam : «8593 55m: <0: m=0<<Em832.39% roamcan? :5 «Cam 0*m: www‘m53 9: mm?:m_m:co}ooamw 934.5 m?oaama Anm?oaamwam@mn_oca.n03v 33$ 25%mw‘Nommjudo BS .82: mmasm? mm”39m: no<mam<m_on3m2 _ :m.<mmqq?mmmma 5 $5333ng 36mg mnmntmi. mam man o$n.m_m moammamm.“0: Erm? 92.3 05 3% Hjmzxm .aoq 9: EPA 35:52:0qu 9:32: 3.03” mms? ._.o. mmazmq was.“.403 :

21:90 <33 EmmamH030 :0<< 0300000 00580303.
_:0<0 000: *0:0<<.3m:92 35mm00 moim
E03 H00:05 :2 300mg?
_.302 mm00.30 00 0 012_.<0 00:00 3< :030 3a
m<00q0.
_«0 03?
0300000 3030 030 0,0: 0: 030.2% :06 3a 303 «008 H00030. _.<0 0000 qucm: 30 303 m000:0 200 30<00 :03 0 003000 «033: E30: 30 0300:? 0302 0030810300. .30 0000:
030 2920 0:0 in:
z 00 00 30 00005. <33 .30 0: 0:0 3020150000 030 .30 302000, 00%0: :0 303 00 0 0030.:m 000200200; 000 00 «0000: H0 :0.“ mama.50 00000002 00330 .8 010m3.0 01030; Im<3m000: 30 2000 030 30025 :0<< .30 03.02 <5: 00 3039000. _00: 0:? 000 W00
0303200 3‘ ”:0 303 000060200 .3 05 0:00.
_0.00 000 350: 0H0<002003m0800* H0 3030 .8 <53 030 30:00 <<3030:. 0002232 ”0 013m0500200 33220 €35 50 00:30:00 50 00”.
_003.10“ 0

00.0m?mszm0H3.0 000mm<3: 00 03 ”0:09 0* 3010 0:23 30: 03 030w 30:06 0:. OS 0<<3 0005020: .0 320 002000 030 8:002:03 03< 8:105 __<0 0003.

00.80, <0E0 .8 05 3E: m.<0:<<0.<00303.000 :10 00 0 00023020: 0.2 .3 30 0:0 2:0” 30< 203 2:0: S0< 0030. 0 2:0 00000 0.26 6x02 :0<0: .3 .30 n>c._.H02n diam m3>HF CamH2>4mU OCAmHUm._._._mO?m>2HN>4HOZ. DO 20... Oran—AKHZ—AmO” Ovmz >._.._.>n_._3m2._.m :2..me <0: _._><m<m_~H_uHmU ._._._mmmZUmN>20 2205 ._._._m002.32... Hmm mm.n>c._.H02 Ummq Z: .31: mug—:2. 3.03” UcnsmmmxI A3m2_m<§©m3m=.n03v moan Z0333 Esm o‘Nomm#3 >2. ._.ou .63. mmazm? O.ASm Esq Qm<m_ou3m3 <33 mamm?mm? Ezasmmm. 535mg $013.3

n>c._.H02" ._._.=mmZ>HF OEDH2>HMU OCdeUm ._..._mO?m>2HN>dH02. DO 20... OCH—AKHZ—AmO” Ovmz >._|_.>n_.__sm2._.m CZmem <0: _._> m<mZHmHmU._._._mmmZUm? >20 2205‘ ._._._m002.32... Hmm>1m. n>c._.H02 43356: Sq <05 23m. 3< mqms?m?jmqUS: 3< $32.3 38$ .3 39m: oo<m.: E3 .35 8 3< 33m: mag _mqm<<Eu .3 :. _<<mm$.me 3 36 35360300? _.<m:<mam:o<ma 02335 £30m 3m: 9: no855 .m:03m .8 3m. 39m: oo<m .m:o3m. 03m am:Em:3 39¢ 3m.“ :o3m <53 3< 0::qu? man3083? Us.“2.53 .3 mcomic: 8 xmmuz.333m3:<32:m:m.<<_._m:13:56:33; mmm3032 38% _mmmm: :5 E03 3< 3.33 mag mqmsq?m?jmqU058 .33 3. 43m 33cm? cmmS:E man895:: 35360308 3mm0mm:
m$0129.33 :5 mmmm3 833.9 mag 039 mammo.n35 m?m?m02m:

0.0 00...3m0 05000032301239 03000 3< 3053003000.
0 _30.03 00<0 3030.
_30..0<0 3.0 03.00. <<0:.0 303 .30
100..._A03030. ..200.0 30 .03m0100..._A00 3053303000. ._.30 << «00.0030 .0 3030 0 3030 30.0 <<0:.0 00 .03.0300 030 .30 3053303000. 05 003303.50 05 3030 .3.0 0 0.3.0.3030.0

0.0 N0300 002003.. :3... <<0.0030 030 300030.0 0000.0

0. _..0 0 <02 0000.0.0.000.
_3000..003 0.0<.30. <<0<.0. 0.300
< .0. 30<< 0. .3.0 .030 .0.
:oé 3:0: _.<m@023 8 muc?oE? :. 3m 33on 0* 593m33 oncomma no305 mammm.m033:3.
_mnuSoE$ 3m 20% ”Em 0.2 :mmnozm. m3<<3mca 33 _.<m:maEm
18me <m10cmqumqum oqmmz?ma3 5m 8% mag 80. .8 9: 2.2 3.28. man305 35603318.: QOEJSE? _.3 :mnu<3 mmm3m :99 mmzm?mzo: 3m<mmoommm.8 m303
éz. _.3 so.“ 250me .8 @325. GS
_:m<mmmm:3< 35:53:08 30033 5mm9“ 03m 3
.25 Szcx 3 m:636m.mag
NQ82 cczamoosm?co?ma mumo?omg .an3626:: 8:65
m mmsmm9“ mag mHBOmgmqm 80:01:
m3026.
$ :03? ca <<m
0 3m<mm:mma<

23. 3m .3 :5 0mm.“
m?rcoqjooam <<:o.m
m 3 cmQm<mpouma3
m<.:m:63 mam:.
_3m<mso.“ mmm:03m .3 632 25302 982:
2 3 ES .38 Smozw. :.mm5:556 ooiaoq.
0:5 amBmmw05 2%: m5.mag mam”?
mUmomcmm3 :6 30:28.53
2 m:0:E
H9mm09.5 cm303 amwmism9“ man:m
.33.. Amman—:2. 3.0.3" Nmn:Nmm?ANN.m~N©mBm=.n03v mms? Z0333 Esm NNomm:UmmES ._.ou .Amzsmmazmq 9.325 033 :91 Sam: no<m

?
tu m52: E0: >m>>mEm
>>2m9 3:580 385

n>c._.H02" ._._._Hmm3>mr CamHZ>HmU CadeUm ._._._mO?m>2HN>HHOZ. DO 20... GEO—AKHZ—Am0—»Ovmz >._|_.>n_.=<_mz._.m CZmem <0: _._><m<m?H1HmU ._._._mMmzam” >20 X205 ._._._mOOZHMZA.Hmm>_nm.n>c._.HOZ 3538 3 <98 3< onuomEo:HoOzmza. __3 m0533 «mmams? 3 mm:SJmo: 3 DE UmS. .35.. mug—:2. «33” .33: Z393 Awm<33mqaqm<©<m300h03v mms? Z0333 Esm NNomm?ow _u_<_ ._.o” x13 mmazm? magma" 20 8 Ozmsa 0225 30:5 :m<m8 Q0 m:$<.m<<m 39:59 no3mmmEm:mag <<m$6253 5.“ 358nt U::<0* 025m Sm: <<m<3 ijzmim 45 093.03 0* 05 Emmx2:qu 00:30: 39:33. : Em .m .8 oqmm?m m:36 .3003? Pm?:63 Sm U?onmq ormzzmpm. 03 m-mwZo 39233:”v 205 :mg nozczoz‘.v20 3me <oc.<<mom: Sow m::5 08390. Gama <3m5:5 8 mmm:92 Ozmsa 353 50x. ._.:m0330 $5 3m<d32$ :5 555.5 Ewan 3.8 Sm m: :6
m mo?m E8 0295 <3: cm. >50. .6 3< 02:6: 3m” 3m am<mpoumq <5: H28 mg; m:9.28 mag anozmmczamm Erma x003mm 8 3132535. .25 .ocmmag 300:5 3m<05.3 <5: :3 cmmmEm:mm3m<mm<mag 45 hocm3m<28.8 was.” $33.03.

u m .. A. .
.
.
.
.
.
‘
I
’- . .. u
. .
.
.
u
Q . .
.
.
.
‘ .

I
u . .
‘
i :- . ..
.
.
.
. .-
a
' ._
. .
.
u ‘ A
“
.
. '_ V I
000m00:0m0::. <<0:0<0 000:
6:00::000 8: 303: <00:m.
:::0000:m :0 m:0<0: 00m6:0:00
06 5:: :::0:00m 0:

5.__ 00 8:000
000x
_50:0:00 5:0: 0000080
m:300 50m 8 00m0:<00:0
__Moo8 mac80: 000::::03
:0: 8 30.
_50:.0 _.x0 8 33:
80 :00:0:.
m:00 30m.00::.0_ mm:0:0m+
08: 30:0: 00x0m.0::: 0:0
_::05 0000.05:0 0<0: ::0

3.:0: 0:060m.: 00m030::m
Em 0:0:30:m :_.0.._.:0:0 0:0
85:. .0:m0: :003 0:: ::0:0.
50:06 00:: 8: 0__::0
0: 8:6 02.2.6 ::0
m :00000 :0 E: ::0 0.000.50...
0 E6mv ::0 0:m:_ ::::.6 0<0:
:: :0 00m6:0:00m::00: :0000
.
0:.0:.: Em m0:0 0800003 8:
000::.0m:0x: 000: 0:0
::0 6:: 0::00m0m. 0:: Em
0 ::0 m::0 :0 0030. n>c._.H02" ._._._Hmm_<_>H_.CamH2>4mU OCde—vm._._._mO?m>2HN>HH02. DO 20... Oran—AKHZ—AmO.» Ovmz >._|_.>n_.=<_m2._.m CZmem <0: =><m<m_~H_uHmU._._._mmmZUm” >20 2205‘ 2.5 002.32... Hmm>1m.n>c._.H02 ._.oux93 Omazmn Um<m_o_03m20.80.8“ .35.. mung-5.. | 303" 3m} Nmm?ABNmnoch©©3m2h03v mag” Z0333 Esm
NNommSim >_<_ ._.on x39 mmasmn Nmn:NE? mcgmn? 022a 303” gm} msaUmcg N§N momwm9522. mg. no_um_3m.O> 0223 €ch Io?m_ cszm 08:

m8m: rcon22:53
95 m>mcm3 __m26:
263 mwm?__mum:
68 £32 gmmzcmuc:
52a m>mcm2, .nmnmw:
mc95 mag m5 .m>O 60058599.
=69, En €0.83 5., 30>
mEEoo co .0982
m
So mo_o> mmom.Ngas. 0:2, $652.5

City of Twentynine Palms Project #24001838: General Plan Text and Map Amendment, Development Code Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, CUP24-000003, GPA24- 000002, REZ25-000001 and DCA25-000004
Supplemental Response to Comments
July 16, 2025
Following the preparation of the Response to Comments for the above-referenced project, the City received three additional letter. Although all three were received after the close of the public comment period for the Initial Study, responses are provided below. The letters are provided in Appendix B.

34. Morongo Basin Conservation Association
Letter dated June 2, 2025, received June 19, 2025
Comment 34.A.

The Morongo Basin Conservation Association offers the following remarks on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NIMND) for the Ofland Hotel Project.

The site plan within the Initial Study does NOT include the entire parcel on which the development is proposed to be located. As such, performing a careful evaluation of the project within the context of the overall community, highway and adjoining land uses is not possible. A plan that protects wildlife including ‘edge-effects’ and acknowledges existing native plants and the seemingly uniform topography is needed for a development of this intensity on this property.

There is conflicting phasing of the project as shown within different site plans submitted for the development. We believe reducing the scale of the project by 20 to 30% would be appropriate.

Response 34.A.

The comment is noted. The Initial Study considered the site, its surroundings, and the entire City of Twentynine Palms as appropriate throughout the analysis, as specifically cited in the discussions of each issue area. Responses to the commenter’s individual concerns are provided below, because this comment is overbroad and cannot be further responded to.

The entire site is shown in Exhibit 3, and a close-up view of the development area is shown in Exhibit 4 of the Initial Study. The Initial Study provided analysis of the entire site, as evidenced by the text of the report, and all the technical studies, which encompassed the entire parcel.

The phasing of the project is described as two phases, but the analysis in the Initial Study considers build out of the project, thereby analyzing the worst case scenario for the project. The commenter’s opinion regarding the reduction in size of the project is noted.

Comment 34.B.

The attempt to frame this development as an island within conserved land fails by not considering the impact of the ‘edge effect’ on wildlife, needed access roads, wastewater treatment and storm water systems that would occur within the conserved land. Development limited to the northern portion of the parcel, with a buffer to the Highway, and the conserved open space consolidated, and closer to wildlife habitat within the Park to the south, would better serve to balance the conflicting imperatives of economic development and conservation.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Response 34.B.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but the consideration of the conservation lands that are proposed to surround the project development area were addressed and considered in the Initial Study and the biological report prepared for the project, including the impacts to species and waters of the State. The commenter’s opinion regarding the relocation of the project to the north is noted. However, the Initial Study analyzed the impacts of the project as proposed, as is proper and correct under CEQA. Responses to specific concerns are provided below.

Comment 34.C.

The comments below are organized by section in the document.

1. General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles (General Plan, front page on website) If approved, the Ofland Hotel Project (Project), as described, is not consistent with the following General Plan Vision statements.
…community activities should adapt to the natural environment, rather than the natural environment being changed or adapted to these activities …the City will encourage high quality development compatible with the missions of the Joshua Tree National Park and Marine Corp Air Ground Combat Center.

The Project is also not consistent with the following General Plan Guiding Principles.

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.

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.

The Project, as described, with its density, amenities, and activities is its own small town destroying the natural gateway into and out of the national park for wildlife and visitors.

Response 34.C.

The project’s consistency with the General Plan was thoroughly analyzed on pages 62 through 67, and the project found consistent, and impacts less than significant, based on an analysis of the goals and policies cited. The City Council will ultimately determine whether the project’s consistency with the cited goals and policies are sufficient to support the General Plan Amendment.

As regards the project being a “small town,” the project consists of 100 hotel rooms and 25 employee housing units. The City of Twentynine Palms currently consists of 9,681 housing units and a permanent population of 28,734 people.

Comment 34.D.

2. NIMND Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses (Page 5) “The site is bound by Twentynine Palms Highway to the north, Sullivan Road to the south, Shoshone Valley road to the east and an extension of Lear Avenue to the west (See Exhibit 3).

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

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

the north, and south. The parcel is undeveloped and vacant with desert vegetation and a dry drainage running from the northeast to southeast in the eastern half of the property, outside the development.”
Correction: There are six homes to the east including the historic Susan Luckie Reilly home owned by the Park.

Response 34.D.

Please see Response 31.D.

Comment 34.E.

What is missing from the NIMND Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses? The referenced NIMND Exhibit 3 in the Project document correctly shows the street boundaries and vacant land of the Project site. As noted above it doesn’t correctly list the number of homes.

In addition, the Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses are not shown. For a complete description of the actual setting and surrounding land uses see the City’s General Plan Update 11-2-22 Exhibit LU-7 Preservation Overlay (Page LU-58) and Exhibit CO-3 Special Status Biological Resources (Page CO-25).
(graphic provided in Appendix B)
Figure 1: Section of Exhibit LU-7 Preservation Overlays - Ofland Project parcel is the Red dot (added by author) -North of the Project is the Scenic Twentynine Palms Highway Buffer (green both sides to show this is a designated Scenic Highway)
-Southern boundary of the Project, Sullivan Road, abuts the Boundary of the Joshua Tree National Park Buffer (green angled lines).

Between the Hillside Preservation Overlay (maroon line) is sparsely developed open land flowing from the Park to the Marine Base. The yellow-colored background indicates this land is within and foundational to the Wildlife Corridor connecting the Park with the Marine Base.

The Exhibit CO-3, Special Status Biological Resources, highlights the sparsely developed open spaces that animals live-in and move through between focal areas (see Figure 2below). The Desert Tortoise (yellow circle) and American Badger (red circle) inhabit the open space in the Park and City Buffer Zone See Figure 2.

Response 34.E.

The land uses are correctly stated in the project description: the uses which currently occur on all sides of the project site are described. The characterization of sparsely populated lands between the southern boundary of the mountains and the Marine Base represents the commenter’s opinion, but given that homes at a density of 4 units per acre occur immediately west of the project site that the north boundary of the project is a State Highway, and that residentially and commercially designated lands occur to the west, northwest, north and east of the site, which are all privately held lands that can develop at their allowed densities and intensities, the project site is not located in an isolated area of open space.

The Biological Resources section of the Initial Study, at pages 28 through 33, specifically cites and analyzes the General Plan’s mapping of the wildlife corridor over the site, and Exhibit CO-3.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Finally, it is noted that General Plan Exhibit CO-3 does not identify the project site for American badger habitat. That habitat area is south and west of the project site. The “yellow circle” in Exhibit CO-3, also located south and west of the project site, delineates pallid bat habitat, not desert tortoise habitat (see legend on Exhibit CO-3 provided by commenter).

Comment 34.F.

3. Home ranges for Desert tortoise and the American badger The home range for a female desert tortoise is around 25 acres and for a male tortoise 50-125 acres. These home ranges can vary significantly based on factors including location, resources, and rainfall. (Google Search “desert tortoise foraging area”) In the Mojave Desert, American badgers typically have home ranges that vary from 1 to 2.5 square miles. These ranges can be significantly larger for males than females, with some male home ranges exceeding 1,500 acres. Badgers often have multiple dens within their home range, which they use for shelter, raising young, and resting. (Google Search “American badger foraging area”) The Biological Assessment completed for the Project found no evidence of badger or tortoise.

However, observations by local residents suggest the assessment is not correct. See Section 6 page 8 below for sightings by a local resident. This Project will fragment the home ranges of resident animals, including an unknown number of endangered desert tortoises. The promised deed-restricted open space does not solve the fragmentation problem. Figure 4 shows the extent of the viewshed. Animals will be disturbed by the lights, noise, and other activities in the Project area.

To add more certainty about whether there are tortoises in the area the USFWS would require that a 31.M. (Zone of Influence) survey be performed in conjunction with the original project footprint survey. Since tortoises move, the project footprint may still be in the tortoises home ranges where they use resources, including burrows, food, drinking basins (which they create), geophagy pits, and mates. The tortoise may have been outside during the footprint of the Project area during the original survey.

Response 34.F.

The commenter’s information regarding habitat ranges for tortoise and badger are noted. Please see Response 34.E. regarding habitat areas identified in the General Plan. The Initial Study and biological resources study both correctly identified that burrows occur on the property. They also correctly identified that no individuals or their sign were found at the time of the survey. They also both state that the species could move onto the site prior to development, and consistent with both CEQA requirements and the request of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Initial Study provides for worker education programs and pre-construction surveys to assure that the species is not negatively impacted (BIO-1, BIO-4 and BIO-5, pages 32-33).

As it relates to the requirements of the USFWS for a ZOI study, please see Responses 22.H.,

22.K., 31.K., 31.L.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Comment 34.G.

1. Mojave Desert Sentinel Landscape
https://sentinellandscapes.org/media/mtbfvh1m/mojavedesert_sl_profile_070824.pdf “The Mojave Desert Sentinel Landscape in California covers about 3.5 million acres of the western Mojave Desert and is located north of Los Angeles and the Inland Empire. The partnership includes five military installations: the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, National Training Center Fort Irwin, Edwards Air Force Base, Naval Air Weapons StationChina Lake, and Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow. It encompasses multi-mission public lands and over 40 protected species, including the Mojave desert tortoise and western Joshua tree.

The presence of impacted protected species and natural resources off- installation limits the ability of both the military and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to test, research, train, and operate on the additional 2.8 million acres of military installations that surround the sentinel landscape. The Mojave Desert Sentinel Landscape unites a broad coalition of state, federal, tribal, county, local, and nongovernmental partners to tackle challenges from incompatible development and climate change. Key objectives of the landscape partners include recovering threatened, endangered or sensitive species, restoring habitat and ecosystem function by creating species corridors and improving soil health; and managing watersheds to build resilience to a warmer, more arid climate. These efforts support the evolving needs of the Department of Defense (DOD) missions in the region and protect the desert’s vulnerable soil and water resources, native vegetation, and working lands.” (emphasis added)
In the southern portion of the Sentinel Landscape are the linkages connecting Joshua Tree National Park to the Marine Base. The local Sentinel partners include the Park, Desert Tortoise Council, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Mojave Desert Land Trust, San Bernardino County, and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California. The City of Twentynine Palms has jurisdiction over parcels within the Sentinel Landscape that are important to the success of this Project. The City should consider becoming a Sentinel partner instead of obstructing DOD needs with the Project.

Response 34.H.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. The City’s decision whether to become a partner has no bearing on the CEQA analysis for this project.

Comment 34.I.

4. CEQA 1. Aesthetic – Would the project impact
a) Adversely affects a scenic vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
Impacts to a, b, and c
The Project would impact the aesthetic resources described in CEQA. As shown in Figure 4, the Viewshed of the Project is visible south into the Indian Cove area of the Park and beyond, north toward Copper Mountain and into the Marine Base, east into Twentynine Palms, and west to the town of Joshua Tree, Landers and Hwy 247. The proposed deed-restricted acreage outside the

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

dense project would suffer from the “edge effect” as the light glare and noise from activities would extend beyond the 152-acre project boundary and further fragment the wildlife habitat.

The methodology used to create the map is described below.

Methodology for Viewshed Calculation of the Proposed Ofland Hotel Project A viewshed raster was created in ESRI Spatial Analyst using the “Visibility Tool”. The input vantage points are a selection of nine dwelling points along the periphery of the site and the onsite movie screen structure inside. These points were assigned heights and locations based on the proposed project from slide 7 of the Nov 2023 “Yonder” PowerPoint presentation. The dwellings were estimated to be 10-foot tall, and the movie screen was estimated to be 20-foot tall.

An interpolated thirty-foot DEM (Digital Elevation Model) was used for ground surface elevations.

For calculations inside the “Visibility Tool” structure heights were used indicated as OFFSETA [Surface offset] inside the point shapefile. A value of 5.25 (5 foot 3 inches) was used as OFFSETB [Observer offset]. The methodology used to calculate observer height was the standing height of an average US male (5 feet 9.5 inches, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention between 2007 and 2010) less a distance of 6.5 inches for the distance from the top of the observers’ head to the eyes.

The output raster image from the “Visibility Tool” is shown on the map. (graphic provided in Appendix B).

Response 34.I.

The commenter’s map is acknowledged, but its purpose unclear. CEQA does not require, nor does the City consider whether a project is visible from another property to be an impact. For comparison, were that the case, most single family homes in the City would have significant impacts on their neighbors, since most would be visible from their neighbors. The map provided does not provide a viewshed analysis, insofar as the Initial Study correctly characterizes, at pages 16 through 19, that the project will contain single story structures in the center of a 152 acre site, and that the views of the surrounding mountains, which are scenic vistas in the City, will not be impacted by the project.

Comment 34.J.

Impacts to d)
This Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As stated in the NIMND all the outside lighting fixtures will be shielded. While this is helpful it does not fully address the impacts on aesthetics. This is because unless guests retire in darkened bedrooms when the sun sets all the windows in occupied buildings will glow with visible light from hundreds of windows.

Lighted windows face all sides of the Project site and would be easily visible to the neighbors in Indian Cove to the east and west. The darkness in the desert at night enhances the pinpoints of light, which will detract from the dark skies. Importantly, as Figure 4 shows, the light spreads and the wildlife seeking safety in the dark to live, eat, and mate would instead be threatened by predators.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Response 34.J.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, as correctly stated in the Initial Study, the City’s lighting requirements include shielding and downward orientation, and prohibit spillage onto adjacent properties. In addition, the development area for the project is at the center of the 152 acres, surrounded by a conservation buffer of 500 to 800 feet, and the distance, combined with site topography, will assure that lighting is not visible from the neighbors. As it relates to the light affecting wildlife resources, the conservation buffer area will not contain any lighting, and will provide dark conditions for wildlife.

Comment 34.K.

The NIMND states (page 18) that “No scenic vistas or resources are located within the proximity to the Project.” This statement is incorrect. The uncluttered view from Scenic Twentynine Palms Highway south beyond the Park entrance to the mountains is the sweeping scenic vista enjoyed by desert residents and visitors. The Project’s 100+ buildings, movie theatre, and more (Image 5 above) would block this scenic vista. If the Project is approved it will be necessary to travel south to Sullivan Rd, the south boundary of the Project and the boundary of the Park Buffer Zone, to enjoy the vista.

Joshua Tree National Park Buffer Zone (See Figure 1, Page 2, this letter) The General Plan Update 11.2.22 describes the reason for this 4,187.58-acre Buffer Zone “Twentynine Palms is located adjacent to the Joshua Tree National Park, which provides the City with essential economic benefits. Given the area’s topography, the City enjoys spectacular scenic vistas along the National Park’s boundary. The intent of the Joshua Tree National Park Buffer Overlay is to protect, enhance and expand the scenic vistas and resources adjacent to the National Park by discouraging development that could potentially impact these resources.

Strongly discourage intensification of existing allowable development densities within the National Park Overlay and development standards shall be established with the goal of preserving the scenic vistas and resources along the National Park.” (General Plan Land Use, Page LU-60) (emphasis added)
The Project cuts the scenic vista from Twentynine Palms Hwy. in half leaving only the Buffer Zone to the north in the viewshed.

Response 34.K.

The project site is located north of the Buffer Zone referenced by the commenter. The Initial Study correctly states that the project will not interfere with the views of travelers along Highway 62 and other local views toward the mountains within the National Park. The location of the hotel cabins, which will be less than 13 feet tall, and the lodge, which will be 25 feet tall, a distance of at least 500 feet from the highway, along with the topography and native plants on the site, will prevent any interference with the scenic vistas that are the surrounding mountains. The Initial Study correctly determined that impacts associated with scenic resources and vistas would be less than significant.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Comment 34.L.

6. CEQA Biological Resources
Wildlife Corridors Overlay (See Figure 1, page 2, this letter) The Overlay covers 25,518.68 acres (General Plan Update 11.2.22 Page LU-63) “Twentynine Palms is located between two (2) ecological sites, the Joshua Tree National Park and the mountains north of the Marine Base. The intent of the Wildlife Corridors Overlay is to preserve the ecological function of the wildlife corridors by establishing a set of development standards and site design patterns that allow the movement of protected species through the wildlife corridors. Properties located within the Wildlife Corridors Overlay shall adhere to the site design standards outlined for this Overlay in the City’s Development Code. Additional policies regarding Wildlife Corridors are provided in the Conservation & Open Space Element.” (emphasis added)
General Plan Land Use Policies and Implementations
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.

Implementation Policy LU-3.2
Encourage residential development that enhances the visual character, quality and uniqueness of the City’s desert environment.

Implementation 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.

Goal LU-4 Adequately address the potential impacts of new development on the existing community and the City’s infrastructure system.

Implementation Policy LU-4.1
Consider and address the potential impacts of new development on surrounding properties.

Implementation Policy LU-4.2
Require that development proposed adjacent to the Joshua Tree National Park and Marine Base be consistent in context and character to these two (2) resources.

Implementation Policy LU-5.2
In the event that the overlay standards differ from those of the underlying land use designations, the more restrictive standards shall apply.

The above Land Use Policies and Implementations make clear the type of development that is encouraged under the General Plan and the resources that should be protected because they support the community and the General Plan. Clearly, the proposed Project is not consistent with the intent of the General Plan.

Response 34.L.

As it relates to General Plan consistency, please see Response 34.C. It is also noted that the project site is not currently designated for open space. Rather, the site is designated for residential

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

development, and could accommodate 61 single family homes with a height of up to 35 feet. The tallest structure proposed on the project site, the lodge, is proposed to be up to 25 feet in height.

The project proposes development of 42 of 152 acres, and the conservation of 110 acres.

Therefore, the Initial Study correctly analyzed land use impacts, and found them to be less than significant.

Comment 34.M.

7. CEQA Biological Resources (NIMND Page 28)
Presence of Desert tortoise on Project land and surrounding land Tortoise burrows reported by Chris Tiffany to Pat Flanagan (author of these comments) “I walked the Ofland property from the corner of Baseline and Shoshone north to Sullivan, then west to about midway between Indian Cove Road and Shoshone heading south. This is the area where I spotted the tortoise burrows and took the photos. This was around April 13, 2025.” “The large tortoise was located on the western bank of the wash adjoining Canyon Road just north of the bend in the road leading to 49 Palms Canyon.”
Additional observations related to tortoise sightings and a badger burrow within 200 feet of the parcel border will be provided in comments from local residents. As noted on page 3 the requirement by the USFWS for a ZOI (Zone of Influence) survey would provide more certainty about tortoises in the project area.

Response 34.M.

The commenter’s photos and observations are noted. However, based on the description of the commenter’s walk, the pictures were taken on the land south of the project site, since Sullivan is the southern boundary of the project, and Baseline is located ½ mile south of the project site.

Comment 34.N.

The NIMND states that Mitigation BIO-1 for Desert Tortoise solves all problems of tortoise sightings.
“If an Agassiz’s desert tortoise is found on site during construction, all activities likely to affect that animal(s) must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps. No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without prior authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and USFWS.” (Page 32)
This mitigation assumes that the City accepts responsibility for lowering the population of the endangered (CDFW April 2024) desert tortoise (take) within functioning live-in and move through habitat in a wildlife linkage connecting the national park to the marine base. This is inconsistent with the stated objectives of the City General Plan and the Mojave Desert Sentinel Landscape as noted below.

The General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles state that the City will encourage high quality development compatible with the missions of the Joshua Tree National Park and Marine Corp Air Ground Combat Center (see page 1, this letter).

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Similarly to meet the needs of the Mojave Desert Sentinel Landscape: “Key objectives of the landscape partners include recovering threatened, endangered or sensitive species, restoring habitat and ecosystem function by creating species corridors and improving soil health; and managing watersheds to build resilience to a warmer, more arid climate. These efforts support the evolving needs of the Department of Defense (DOD) missions in the region and protect the desert’s vulnerable soil and water resources, native vegetation, and working lands.” (emphasis added, see page 4, this letter)
Response 34.N.

The comment is noted. However, the Initial Study does not state that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 “solves all problems” relating to desert tortoise. It does, however, correctly state that the implementation of the measure will reduce impacts to the species to less than significant levels by eliminating take of the species. It is also important to note that the CDFW considered the mitigation measure sufficient, as amended, to reduce impacts to the species (please see Comment 8.B and Response 8.B.).

Comment 34.O.

8. CEQA Land Use and Planning – Would the project
a) Physically divide an established community?
As mentioned in the correction on page 2, the number of homes to the east of the project is six, not one. One of the homes is the historic Susan Luckie Reilly home, which is one of the first, if not the first, house in the Indian Cove neighborhood. This is a crucial point as the Project argues the Indian Cove neighborhood is only west of the development. In fact, the Indian Cove neighborhood is both west and east of the Project parcel and the Project will divide it.

Response 34.O.

Please see Response 34.D.

Comment 34.P.

Summary A project the size and density of Ofland is out-sized for this location regardless of the 100 acres preserved with deed restrictions. The Project fragments the functioning habitat in an important wildlife corridor that supports biodiversity, including populations of the endangered desert tortoise, in the park and the marine base. The Project downgrades Scenic Twentynine Palms Highway and degrades the park viewshed and the Morongo Basin for visitors and residents. The City’s General Plan including Update 11-2-22, supports the needs of wildlife habitat, biodiversity, the viewshed, and residents’ quality of life in this small desert town, and the missions of the marine base and Department of Defense.

Based on the issues described in this letter, the City should not approve this Project with a MND but require either a redesign acknowledging an EIR may be warranted, or an Environmental Impact Report to expose and analyze all CEQA elements for the decision makers and public to evaluate. As an example, the updated Biological Resources Assessment must include the desert tortoise ZOI survey.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

We hope our comments within this letter may serve as guideposts upon which a development of this magnitude could be appropriately accommodated in the community. MBCA recognizes the important role of tourism in our economy as well as the need to support the environment that draws visitors.

We welcome the opportunity to be part of a solution to finding the balance needed that we believe this project, in its current form, fails to provide.

Please keep the Morongo Basin Conservation Association informed of any actions as they relate to this project. [email protected]
Please confirm receipt of these comments. Thank you for your consideration.

Response 34.P.

The commenter’s opinions are noted. Based on Responses 34.A. through 34.O., the Initial Study correctly analyzed the impacts of the project on the environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures, and found that with implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts would be less than significant.

35. Center for Biological Diversity
Letter dated June 24, 2025
Please note that the commenter provided a letter on June 12, 2025, which was included in the original Response to Comments. Where appropriate here, the responses to that letter are cited below.

Comment 35.A.

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms (the “Project”). The Center has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and is concerned that the IS/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 35.A.

Please see Response 32.A.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Comment 35.B.

I. The City Failed to Provide Adequate Public Notice and the Requisite 30-Day Comment Period.

As a threshold matter, the City failed to adequately provide notice of its intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. The City must give notice by (1) posting on the agency website and (2) by at least one of three means: publication of the notice of intent in a newspaper of general circulation; posting on and off site in the project area; or direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous property. (Pub Res C §21092(b)(3); 14 Cal Code Regs §15072(b).) For the notice to be adequate, it must contain “[t]he starting and ending dates for the review period during which the lead agency will receive comments on the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration,” including “[i]f the review period has been shortened pursuant to Section 15105.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15072(g)(2).)
Here, the City opted to (1) post the notice on its website and (2) mail the notice to residents. (See Exs. A & B.) This would have provided sufficient notice; however, the notices mailed to residents lacked the June 2, 2025 public comment deadline, leading to confusion regarding the public comment deadline and inadequate notice in violation of 14 Cal Code Regs §15072(g)(2). (See id.)
Additionally, the website notice provided an incorrect comment deadline, as it allowed for only 20 days for public review instead of the requisite 30 days. 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 (“CDFW”) 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’s public comment deadline should have been June 12, 2025, allowing for 30 days of public comment.

Response 35.B.

As it relates to the need for a 30 day comment period, please see Response 32.B. The project requires no permits from a State agency, and is considered a local project under CEQA. The City correctly advertised the availability of the Initial Study for a 20 day period.

As it relates to the Exhibits provided by the commenter, the commenter appears to have confused the Public Hearing Notice (appended as Exhibits A and B to their letter) with the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) sent to the commenter and other parties, responsible and trustee agencies on May 14, 2025. The NOI explicitly stated that the comment period was from May 14 through June 2, as evidenced by the commenter’s first letter, which stated “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.” Clearly, the commenter was aware of the comment period, since the NOI was provided with the Initial Study sent to the commenter. The City met the requirements of law, and separately advertised the NOI, providing the correct amount of time, and the correct distribution to multiple websites, newspaper advertising and website posting.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Comment 35.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 “consider[ation 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
Supplemental 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 35.C.

Please see Response 32.C.

Comment 35.D.

III. The MND’s Project Description Is Inadequate.

An accurate, stable, and finite project description remains the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.) MND’s must, at the very least, provide adequate detail “needed for evaluation and review of the environment impact.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15124). “When an agency fails to provide an accurate project description, the environmental review process is tainted by that informational defect and the adoption of a negative declaration in those circumstances is inappropriate.” (Tulare Lake Canal Co. v. Stratford Public Utility Dist. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 380, 402.) Here, the project description lacks clarity and falls short of accurately describing uses of the proposed Project area. Namely, the IS/MND fails to provide any estimate of the Project’s maximum occupancy, and it fails to provide the number of employees that will be commuting and/or living on the Project site: key facts for determining the Project’s impacts.

This IS/MND defect led to the City underestimating the Project’s impacts in violation of CEQA.

For example, the IS/MND’s noise, traffic, and emissions analysis largely depends on how many guests and employees will be commuting to the Project site on a given day. Of course, if the Project limited occupancy to one guest per cabin, these impacts would be much less than if the Project allowed six guests per cabin, impacting conclusions regarding noise levels, traffic congestion, and GHG emissions, among others. The IS/MND therefore precluded informed decision-making about the Project’s effects and thus consideration of mitigation measures. (See Cleveland National Forest Found. v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 515) [“An adequate description of adverse environmental effects is necessary to inform the critical discussion of mitigation measures[.]”].)
Response 35.D.

The commenter implies that this hotel will operate differently than any other hotel, without support or evidence. The project description, provided on pages 1 through 4 of the Initial Study, correctly states that the project will provide 100 hotel rooms, 25 employee housing units, a restaurant open to the public and a number of ancillary facilities. By definition, the maximum occupancy is 100 hotel rooms, and 25 employees. The analysis of these project components is conducted in each issue area, and is based on the total hotel rooms, housing units and restaurant space.

Professionally accepted standards, such as CalEEMod modeling for air quality and GHG impacts; and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation factors for hotels and restaurants were used to calculate the project impacts. These standard references account for employees, hotel guests and restaurant customers based on full occupancy of the hotel. Furthermore, although the Initial Study analysis could have been modified to reduce trip generation and air

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

quality emissions, for example, because of the on-site employee housing, no such reduction was applied. The project description and the analysis in the Initial Study provide a complete understanding of the project’s potential impacts, and mitigate those impacts appropriately.

Comment 35.E.

IV. Residents’ Opinions Do Constitute Substantial Evidence Here.

Throughout its response to comments, the City argues that the evidence presented by public commenters is not “substantial evidence” with little to no explanation. (See e.g. Agenda Packet at 185, 227, 237.) The City is incorrect because public comments on matters within ordinary experience may constitute “substantial evidence.” (Georgetown Preservation Society vs. County of El Dorado et al. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358, 363 [aesthetics]; Keep Our Mountains Quiet v.

County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 735-736 & fn. 13 [Noise; traffic safety]; Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1340 [noise]; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 937 [aesthetics].) And even if substantial evidence were lacking, the City’s failure to conduct any analysis on several aspects of the Project and its myriad impacts to support its conclusions described infra would render adoption of the IS/MND and Project approval unlawful. (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 82 [“the existence of substantial evidence supporting the agency’s ultimate decision … is not relevant when one is assessing a violation of [CEQA’s] information disclosure provisions”].) Response 35.E.

The comment makes sweeping comments regarding the lack of substantial evidence provided by neighbors and other commenters, and asserts that the City provided “little to no explanation” in the Response to Comments to support its statements. To the contrary, however, the Response to Comments, which comprises 121 pages, provides support for the City’s position by referencing specific pages and sections of the Initial Study, specific pages and sections of the technical reports appended to the Initial Study, and specific references to facts provided in the record.

Further, the courts have found that opinion is not substantial evidence, including “a lay opinion is not substantial evidence” (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1351 [involving claimed traffic impacts].) And also “Unsubstantiated opinions, concerns, and suspicions about a project, though sincere and deeply felt, do not rise to the level of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental effect.” (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1352.). Finally, CEQA “Unsubstantiated opinions, concerns, and suspicions about a project, though sincere and deeply felt, do not rise to the level of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental effect.” (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1352.) Since the comment references only “myriad impacts” without detail, it is not possible to further respond to this comment. Responses to specific issue areas are provided below.

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Comment 35.F.

V. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Assess and Mitigate Numerous Impacts.

The IS/MND lacks adequate detail in the description and analysis of the Project’s myriad impacts.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15063(c), the purpose of an Initial Study is to provide a preliminary analysis of a proposed action to determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration or an EIR. The Initial Study provides a factual basis for the Negative Declaration or serves to focus an EIR on the significant effects of a project. (See Guidelines §§ 15063, 15070; see also Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 270.) Courts have consistently held that when an agency fails “to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate.” (Nelson, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 270.) “The scope of the environmental review conducted for the initial study must include the entire project.” (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1222.)
Below, we provide just a few illustrative examples of the MND’s shortcomings in this respect, though this is not a comprehensive list. The below information provides ample support of a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment.

Accordingly, the City must prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); see also No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.)
Response 35.F.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but the comment is overbroad and fails to provide any detail to allow for a further response. Responses to specific issues are provided below.

Comment 35.G.

A. The IS/MND Lacks an Adequate Analysis of and Mitigation for the Project’s Impacts to Biological Resources.

The IS/MND lacks adequate detail in the description and analysis of special-status species that occur, have the potential to occur, or historically occurred in and near the Project area. Below we provide just a few illustrative examples of the MND’s shortcomings in this respect, though this is not a comprehensive list. The below information provides ample support of a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

Accordingly, the County must prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); see also No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.)

1. The IS/MND Makes Contradictory Statements Regarding Biological Resource Impacts.

At a broad level, the IS/MND fails to provide an adequate factual basis for its conclusion that the Project site “sustains minimal biological resources.” (IS/MND at 32.) Instead, the IS/MND itself, as well as the biological assessment and General Plan, recognize the habitat value of the Project site and contradict this conclusion. Specifically, the IS/MND describes the Project site as an “undeveloped vacant parcel” that provides “suitable habitat for dominant plant species, wildlife, and species of concern.” (IS/MND at 29.) The IS/MND also found the “potential for five plant and

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

six wildlife special status species including invertebrates, reptiles, mammals, and birds to occur within the Project area.” (IS/MND at 29 [emphasis added].) Similarly, the limited biological survey in Appendix B found the Project site has characteristics of valuable wildlife habitat, recognizing that the “project site is located in a span of primarily undeveloped, open desert terrain.” (Appendix B at 16.) Only a tiny portion of the parcel is disturbed habitat, while the vast majority of the parcel is undisturbed creosote bush scrub habitat, rich with biological resources. (Appendix B at Figure 4.) In just a one-day visit, for example, the surveying biologist found 20 plant species and two bird species. (Appendix B at appendix E.) Crucially, the biologist concluded that “desert tortoises may be currently present or may enter the project area in the future.” (Appendix B at 18 [emphasis added].) The surveying biologist also noted that “relatively short-term assessments and studies of this nature are limited in their scope by the seasonality, timing and duration of surveys, and the nocturnal and fossorial habits of many desertdwelling animals. Therefore, the species observed to date do not reflect the total number of species that potentially occupy the project site and area.” (Appendix B at 16.) This preliminary biological survey, performed on a single day in October, demonstrated that there are more than enough biological resources present on the Project area to require an EIR.

The City’s General Plan echoes these conclusions, recognizing that the Morongo Basin is “home to numerous flora and fauna” and that “[w]hile the desert environment may seem harsh and uninhabitable, many species have made this their preferred habitat, where they are allowed to thrive.” (General Plan Exhibit CO-7, 10.) As the City recognizes in its General Plan, just because the Project area exists in a desert where vegetation may seem sparse does not mean that the primarily undisturbed habitat of the Project area “sustains minimal biological resources.” Response 35.G.

The commenter’s opinions are noted, but the comment’s conclusion is not supported. Vacant land contains native and non-native species. The Initial Study and the biological resources report acknowledge and disclose that fact.

The Initial Study and the biological resources report also disclose which species were observed, which were potentially present, which are sensitive or endangered, and which are absent, and provides explanations for all these determinations. The presence of native and non-native species, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, is not the basis for requiring an EIR.

The commenter does not explain why, in their opinion, the presence of wildlife requires an EIR, whereas the Initial Study and the biological resources report detail, species by species, what the impacts to each will be, and how those impacts can be mitigated. The analysis and the conclusions of the Initial Study, as amended, correctly disclose and analyze the impacts to biological resources.

Comment 35.H.

2. The IS/MND and Biological Resource Assessment Lacks Adequate Descriptions of Potentially Present Special-Status Species in or Near the Project Site.

Beyond contradicting itself, the IS/MND and biological resources assessment gloss over potential impacts to special-status species in and around the Project site. The CEQA Guidelines plainly state that a Project can be expected to have significant impacts to biological resources if the