Agenda — Twentynine Palms City Council, July 22, 2025 (part 5 of 10)

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 18 of 64 ends

Project has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, subd. IV(a); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(1) [when performing an initial study, agencies shall make a mandatory finding of significance where a proposed project has the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a listed species], California Fish and Game Code § 2085 [CESA candidate species treated like threatened or endangered species].) The following subsections identify deficiencies with the MND’s analysis of the many special-status species that may occur on or utilize the Project area. a. Desert Tortoise
The Mojave Desert Tortoise is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). (55 Fed. Reg. 12178 12191, 14 CCR § 670.5.) Importantly, on June 13, 2025, shortly after the end of the review period for this Project, the California Fish and Game Commission proposed changing the regulatory language implementing CESA to uplist the Mojave Desert Tortoise from threatened to endangered. (California Fish and Game Commission, 2025.) This uplisting was based on years of public process and scientific review by the California Fish and Game Commission dating back to 2020. The tortoise has been the official State Reptile since 1972. (Assembly Bill 1089, Chapter 683, 1972.) Consequently, the Project’s impacts to the desert tortoise must be considered significant and fully evaluated and disclosed to the public. (Nelson v. Cnty. of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 284 [information before County showing that mining exploration project could significantly impact plant and animal life in the area meets the fair argument test to require preparation of an EIR].) Proper assessment and mitigation is especially crucial, considering that the population within the Western Mojave Recovery Unit (which includes the Project area) declined by approximately 50% from 2004 to 2014. (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2022.) Due to this alarming and rapid population decrease, particular effort must be taken to fully analyze and mitigate any potential impacts to this highly sensitive species.

There is ample evidence suggesting the desert tortoise uses habitat immediately adjacent to all sides of the project area. According to iNaturalist, multiple research grade observations of the Mojave Desert Tortoise were made within 200m of the Project site, with one observation as recent as October 2024. (iNaturalist 2019; iNaturalist 2024.) Further, residents near the Project site submitted numerous photos of desert tortoises near the project area. (See Morongo Basin Conservation Association June 2 Comments at 8; Cindy Bernard June 2 Comments at 14-21.) The IS/MND itself recognizes that the habitat type of the Project area is “habitat typically utilized by desert tortoises.” (IS/MND at 30.) Despite this overwhelming evidence of the tortoise’s presence, as noted by CDFW, the only biological survey of the Project area over a year and a half ago failed to follow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey guidance, and tortoises could have easily moved into the Project area since that survey. (See CDFW Comment at 2.) The IS/MND assumes that any impacts will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures outlined in Bio-1, requiring additional surveys in the future. (IS/MND at 29.) This is insufficient. Courts have repeatedly found that surveys play a critical role in an agency’s baseline investigation: a crucial first step before adequately assessing a Project’s potential impacts. (See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1398 [surveys are “often the sole evidence relied on by lead agencies in evaluating a project's biological impacts”]; see also N. Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water

Page 555 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 19 of 64 ends

Dist. Bd. Dir. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 644-45 [baseline upheld when supported by studies that “sample[d] various habitats, fish communities, and lifestages” near the project.].) In other words, the City cannot properly assess impacts on tortoises without knowing how many are present in the first place. Bio-1 improperly defers these crucial surveys without explaining why it would be infeasible to complete them before approving the Project in violation of CEQA’s informational disclosure requirements.

Given that the project area is typical desert tortoise habitat and that tortoises have been observed on all sides of the Project area, the Project’s impacts will remain significant and must be considered in an EIR. In that analysis the City must, at a minimum, consider the adoption of the following additional feasible mitigation measures:
• Perform focused surveys in line with the 2019 US Fish and Wildlife Service survey guidance; • Perform preconstruction surveys prior to the proposed Project implementation; • Commit to secure an “incidental take permit” from CDFW, in addition to the Federal “take” permit, prior to any groundbreaking activities;
• Require an on-site biological monitor during project implementation who has wildlife agency permits to move desert tortoise out of harm’s way;
• Create a translocation plan;
• Fence all worksites, roads, and other areas of disturbance associated with the proposed Project;
• Create a detailed raven plan that effectively discourages ravens from being drawn to the site during proposed project implementation as well as during the restoration efforts and fencing removal;
• Mitigate “take” that may occur from the nearly 900 daily car trips created by the project. • Mitigate “take” that may occur from ongoing hotel activities, such as guest interference with tortoise movement and tortoises moving underneath guests’ vehicles in the 132 proposed parking spots.

Response 35.H.

The Initial Study fully discloses that there is potential for desert tortoise to occur on the site. It further explains that pre-construction surveys must be prepared to assure that there will be no take of the species. Contrary to the commenter’s implications, CDFW (please see Comments 8.A. through 8.I., and the full comment letter provided in Appendix A) provided specific and thorough comments regarding the species. Specifically, CDFW stated in their comment letter that the desert tortoise was proposed for State listing (see Comment 8.B.) – contrary to the commenter’s statement that it occurred after the letter was written. Furthermore, CDFW wrote: “CDFW appreciates that the draft MND provided a mitigation measure, BIO-1, to minimize the Project’s impacts to desert tortoise. CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-1 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) for inclusions in the final MND.” As provided in Response 8.B., the City modified Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to address the Department’s concerns, including specific reference to the need for an ITP. Following the release of the original Response to Comments, the City consulted again with the project biologist, who reviewed CDFW’s comments. Their findings are provided in Appendix C, and duplicated below.

The project site is located within the geographic range of the desert tortoise and that individuals have been previously documented in the vicinity of the project site. The closest recorded California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrence is located approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the project. The Biological Resources Assessment was conducted by a qualified

Page 556 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 20 of 64 ends

desert tortoise biologist who is familiar with desert tortoise suitable habitat and is able to identify desert tortoise and desert tortoise sign (scat, carcasses, and burrows). No desert tortoise individuals or their sign were observed during the October 2023 biological assessment. Based on the lack of desert tortoise sign, the close proximity to the adjacent residential development, and the small footprint of development, the potential for desert tortoise to be directly impacted by the proposed project is very low. However, the presence of desert tortoise cannot be completely ruled out. Therefore, WSP concurs that appropriate avoidance and minimization measures to ensure potential impacts to desert tortoise are addressed appropriately under CEQA and agrees with CDFW’s recommendation to revise the mitigation measure (BIO-1) … …Additionally, a biological monitor who holds the appropriate handling authorization for desert tortoise will be present during ground-disturbing activities; if necessary, a desert tortoise translocation plan, should tortoises be encountered during pre-construction surveys or construction will be prepared for the proposed project and temporary exclusionary fencing around work areas and along access roads to prevent tortoise ingress will be implemented in coordination with the biologist.

Based on the biologist’s professional expertise, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is hereby amended as follows:

BIO-1. Prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit and any ground disturbing activities occurring on the Project site, pre-construction clearance surveys consistent with the requirements of the USFW 20219, “Preparing For Any Action That May Occur Within The Range Of The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. This clearance survey will be completed by a qualified desert tortoise biologist(s) over the entire project footprint with spacing of 10-meter transects and will occur within 14-days of any vegetation removal or soil impacts. If a desert tortoise is found during the surveys, consultation with the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CFDW and USFW is necessary to secure an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and determine the appropriate mitigation.

If a desert tortoise or its sign is found on-site during construction, all activities likely to affect the species must cease and the City, CDFW and USFWS must be contacted to determine appropriate steps. No take of the tortoise(s) may occur without an ITP.

CDFW did not request additional species surveys. As the State’s expert in biological resources, the Department’s comments clearly indicate that it believes that the City has adequately mitigated for impacts to desert tortoise, with amendment of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The Department’s conclusion supports the City’s finding that impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels, and that an EIR is not required to analyze impacts to desert tortoise.

Finally, as it relates to the commenter’s proposed mitigation measures, those would all be developed if the species were identified on-site during the pre-construction surveys, since they would be standard requirements of an ITP. Therefore, should the species be identified prior to the initiation of construction, the ITP will address the need for monitoring and translocation.

As it relates to observations of tortoise by MBCA, please see Response 34.M. As it relates to comments from Ms. Bernard, please see Response 31.M.

Page 557 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 21 of 64 ends

Comment 35.I.
b. Burrowing Owl
i. Western Burrowing Owls are facing significant threats to their long- term survival in the Mojave desert region.

The Project site is located within the range of the Western Burrowing Owl, a small ground-nesting bird of prairie and grassland habitats, listed as a candidate species under CESA. (California Fish and Game Commission, 2024.) Historically, the species was found broadly across California in wide lowland valley bottoms, flat coastal lowlands, and interior deserts. However, burrowing owls have been eliminated or nearly wiped out as a breeding species from about one-third of their former California range (DeSante & Ruhlen, 1995; Barclay, 1999; Center for Biological Diversity, et al. Listing Petition, 2024), currently remaining most abundant in the Imperial Valley and parts of the Central Valley. (DeSante & Ruhlen, 1995.)
The factors affecting California’s burrowing owls today include loss of nesting and foraging habitat to urbanization; nest destruction during urban development and agricultural activities by surface disturbances such as disking, blading, grading, and over covering. (Rosenberg et al., 1998a; Desmond et al., 2000; Haug and Oliphant, 1987; Haug et al., 1993); pesticide use (Rosenberg and Haley, 2003; James et al., 1990; Baril, 1993; Hjertaas, 1997; Sheffield, 1997b); burrowing rodent elimination (Anderson et al., 2001; Gordon, 1996); attempted relocation to accommodate urban development, which rarely results in successful breeding and forces remaining owls onto smaller patches of habitat (Trulio, 1997; Delevoryas, 1997; Harris, 1987); predation of young birds by non-native species (Green and Anthony, 1989); and mortality due to vehicle collisions and other anthropogenic causes. Protecting burrowing owls and their habitat from continued destruction and habitat loss is therefore of utmost importance to the species’ persistence in California.

Unlike other areas of the species’ range, breeding burrowing owls were historically uncommon in the southern desert ranges. Today relatively large populations nest in agricultural areas in the Palo Verde Valley and Mojave Desert. However, these populations are now threatened by expanding urban development and large-scale solar development. (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. Listing Petition, 2024.) Burrowing owl habitat is shrinking at an alarming rate as the communities surrounding the Project area, including Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree, and Yucca Valley intensify development. This proposed Project will continue to degrade and eliminate habitat for the burrowing owl in this region.

Response 35.I.

The background information provided on burrowing owl is noted. Responses to the commenter’s concerns are addressed below.

Comment 35.J.
ii. The analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to burrowing owls and proposed mitigation measures are wholly inadequate.

On October 10, 2024, CDFW advanced the Western Burrowing Owl to candidacy under CESA, protecting these owls from harm during the ongoing review process. (California Fish and Game

Page 558 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 22 of 64 ends

Commission, 2024.) Consequently, the Project’s impacts to the Western Burrowing Owl must be considered significant and fully evaluated and disclosed to the public.

Here, the biological survey confirmed that “suitable land cover [for burrowing owls was] present within and immediately adjacent to the project site.” (Appendix B, at 20.) As such, the biologist “recommended to conduct a focused burrow search and, if deemed necessary, implement focused surveys in accordance” with the 2012 CDFW guidelines. (Appendix. B at 20.) In its comment to the MND, CDFW also recommended that the Project conduct a habitat assessment consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. (CDFW Comment at

5.)
Nevertheless, the IS/MND yet again fails to establish an adequate baseline by failing to complete necessary burrowing owl surveys. CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report provides that once a qualified biologist has confirmed burrowing owl habitat on the site, a qualified biologist must conduct burrowing owl surveys according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. A qualified biologist must conduct breeding season surveys for nesting burrowing owls during nesting season (February 1 to August 31) and may also conduct surveys for wintering burrowing owls if the construction starts during the wintering season (September 1 to January 31). However, non- breeding season surveys do not substitute for breeding season surveys, as results are typically inconclusive. The habitat assessment and surveys must encompass the Project site and a sufficient buffer zone to detect owls nearby that may be impacted, up to 500 meters (1,640 feet) around the Project site.

A biologist must also conduct take-avoidance, preconstruction burrowing owl surveys no fewer than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012.) Depending on the time between the initial survey efforts conducted in support of the Draft EIR and project construction, CDFW recommends that additional surveys, following the “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFW, 2012) be repeated throughout the survey season immediately prior to construction. Habitat assessments and surveys must continue to occur each year of Project construction, as conditions may change annually and suitable refugia for burrowing owl, such as small mammal burrows, can be created within a few hours or days.

Response 35.J.

The Initial Study correctly characterized the habitat on the project site as suitable, and provided for pre-construction surveys in Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Following the release of the original Response to Comments, the City consulted again with the project biologist, who reviewed CDFW’s comments. Their findings are provided in Appendix C, and duplicated below.

Page 559 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 23 of 64 ends

The project site contains marginally suitable habitat for burrowing owl. This species typically avoids nesting in areas with dense or tall vegetation. The creosote bush scrub habitat on-site exceeds 6 feet in height and is considered moderately dense compared to other areas within the surrounding valley. Additionally, the closest documented CNDDB occurrences of burrowing owl are located more than 8 miles west and 10 miles east of the project site. Based on existing conditions and the distance from known populations of burrowing owl, the likelihood of burrowing owls to occur on the site are low.

A qualified avian biologist conducted the original Biological Resources Assessment in October 2023, and no burrowing owl individuals, or burrowing owl signs were detected during the survey.

Therefore, breeding season surveys were not conducted for the species at that time. However, due to the mobile nature of the species, given that the project’s construction schedule is not known, and the recent change in its status to a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a formal habitat assessment will be conducted to determine absence/presence of burrowing owl. Additionally, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbance activities to avoid any potential indirect and direct impacts to the species. Accordingly, WSP recommends that the biological mitigation measure (BIO-3) is revised as follows:

BIO-3 Prior to the initiation of Project activities, a Qualified Avian Biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment and focused burrow survey for burrowing owl that is consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the habitat assessment identifies burrowing owl habitat or sign (e.g., feathers, pellets, prey remains etc.), the Qualified Avian Biologist shall perform breeding season surveys for burrowing owl consistent with the 2012 Staff Report. If no burrowing owl habitat or signs are found during the survey, no additional focused surveys will be required.

In addition, two pre-construction avoidance surveys shall be performed prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site to confirm presence/absence of burrowing owl conforming with the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

An initial avoidance survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to commencing ground-disturbance activities, and a second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. Should the species be identified on the site through any of the surveys, a qualified biologist shall contact CDFW to determine the next steps. If impacts to burrowing owl cannot be fully avoided, a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) should be obtained pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2080.

Consequently, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 in the Initial Study is hereby amended.

Comment 35.K.
c. American Badger
The IS/MND also fails to adequately disclose, analyze, or mitigate impacts to American badgers, despite the Project’s location in suitable American badger habitat. (App. B at 14.) As with the tortoise, the last survey was conducted nearly a year and a half ago. This is inadequate: as CDFW noted, American badgers can quickly dig new dens every night. Furthermore, as recent as

Page 560 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 24 of 64 ends

December 2023, a research grade observation of an American badger was posted on iNaturalist in the Indian Cove area near the Project site. (iNaturalist 2023.) Given that suitable American badger habitat occurs in and near the Project area, a targeted survey of American badger occurrence—including unoccupied dens—must be conducted to establish an adequate baseline.

Permanent destruction and alteration of suitable American badger habitat, as well as impacts to habitat connectivity (discussed in detail below) would result from the proposed Project.

The vague mitigation measures in Bio-4 provide insufficient detail for the public and decision makers to ascertain whether such measures would adequately mitigate the Project’s impacts to American badgers in the Project area in violation of CEQA. Additionally, the MND’s conclusion that such mitigation will reduce impacts to less than significant ignores that the American badger is a wide-ranging mesocarnivore that is particularly sensitive to habitat fragmentation. (Crooks, 2002.) Discussed further infra, the Project area connects Joshua Tree National Park in the south to the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Ground Air Combat Center and other viable habitat to the north. The permanent destruction and alteration of suitable American badger habitat in the Project area due to the proposed Project would potentially impact the local and regional viability of the population by fragmenting the species’ habitat further. The Project’s impacts to the American badger must be fully evaluated and disclosed to the public in a full EIR.

Response 35.K.

As stated in the biological resources report, “Although habitat is suitable for American badger, no burrows diagnostic for this species were found…” The General Plan identifies suitable habitat for the species west and south of the project site, as shown in Exhibit CO-3, but not on the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-4, when taken together with Mitigation Measure BIO-5, requiring worker education for construction personnel on the site, will assure that if American badger is found in the development area, it will be protected. Upon consultation with the project biologist (Appendix C), they concur with the findings of the Initial Study, as cited below:

The potential for the American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse to occur on the Project site was evaluated in the Biological Resources Assessment. Based on the poor habitat quality, absence of documented CNDDB occurrences, and lack of reported sightings within or in the vicinity of the Project site, the potential for American badger or pallid San Diego pocket mouse to occur within the site is considered low. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to result in direct or indirect impacts to these sensitive species. However, while the likelihood of occurrence is low, the possibility that these species may be present on or near the site at some point cannot be entirely ruled out. Accordingly, WSP recommends that both American badger and pallid San Diego pocket mouse are included among the species considered during the pre-construction clearance surveys. If individuals of either species are detected during these surveys, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to ensure they are not adversely affected. As such, no revisions to the Initial Study are required.

As it relates to the connection between the MCGACC and the National Park, the project site is bounded on the north by Highway 62, which bisects Twentynine Palms. The Highway is an existing hazard for all wildlife of much greater scale or impact regarding fragmentation than the development of 42 acres of land and the conservation of 110 acres proposed by the project. To the contrary, by preserving 110 acres of the site, the project assures the long term availability of natural habitat south of the Highway. The Initial Study correctly concluded that the impacts to the American badger were mitigable, and that impacts would be less than significant.

Page 561 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 25 of 64 ends

Comment 35.L.
d. Migratory Birds
The IS/MND also fails to adequately assess the Project’s impacts on migratory birds. The Project area provides habitat for many special status birds, and according to the eBird database, the Project area provides habitat for the golden eagle, prairie falcon, and loggerhead shrike, with photos documenting each of these species near the project area. (eBird, 2025.) Collisions with buildings are one of the primary sources of mortality for birds. (Basilio et al., 2020; Klem, 2009.) Recent studies have shown that birds are experiencing significant declines, with estimates indicating losses of up to three billion birds in the past half-century. (Rosenberg et al., 2019.) Considering that the Project area provides habitat for numerous special- status birds, this potential impact must be analyzed and mitigated in a full EIR.

Response 35.L.

The commenter asserts that the analysis of migratory birds is insufficient without support. To the contrary, the Initial Study and the biological resources report specifically analyze the impacts to loggerhead shrike, golden eagle and prairie falcon. As shown in Table 2 of the biological resources report, the potential for golden eagle and prairie falcon is low, due to lack of suitable nesting habitat, but the potential for loggerhead shrike is high, due to nesting and foraging habitat. The biologist and the Initial Study concluded that the development area must be surveyed for nesting birds, to assure that no impact to the nests occur. Since the MBTA requires nesting season surveys, and the three species are covered by the MBTA, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 assures that impacts to these species will be reduced to less than significant levels.

The project biologist also reviewed CDFW’s comments, and recommended minor changes to Mitigation Measure BIO-2, as provided in Appendix C and below:

The Initial Study and Biological Resources Assessment acknowledged the presence of suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike, a CDFW SSC. Potential impacts to this species and other migratory and special-status birds were considered in the evaluation of project-related biological resource impacts. Upon review, WSP concurs with CDFW’s recommendation to revise the mitigation measure (BIO-2) by incorporating the additional language into the final MND …:

BIO-2. If possible, the removal of vegetation and grading preparatory to construction shall occur outside the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). A nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to construction activities.

If no nests are found, construction may proceed. If active nests are found, a buffer zone of 500 feet for birds of prey and/or 300 feet for other birds will be put in place around the nest and work within the buffer shall be avoided until the young have fledged as determined by the qualified biologist. This buffer may be decreased at the discretion of the biological monitor as long as construction activities have no direct or indirect impact to nesting birds.

The Initial Study is hereby amended to include the revised language shown above.

Page 562 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 26 of 64 ends

Comment 35.M.
e. Other Wildlife and Flora
The IS/MND inexplicably states that only six special status wildlife species may occur within the Project area. (IS/MND at 29.) This blatantly contradicts the biological survey, which found that sixteen special status wildlife species may use the Project area. (Appendix B at 11- 14.) In fact, the IS/MND fails to even mention the monarch butterfly (may pass through the Project site); the golden eagle (may forage onsite); the prairie falcon (may forage onsite); Bendire’s thrasher (may forage onsite); pocketed free-tailed bat (moderate potential to occur); and big free-tailed bat (moderate potential to occur) (Appendix B at 11-14), let alone provide any factual basis for its conclusion that the Project will result in less than significant impacts to these species. (IS/MND at 29-31.) As a result, the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and the City must prepare a full EIR to assess and mitigate impacts to these special-status species.

Response 35.M.

The commenter asserts impacts selectively. For example, the biological resources report states that the monarch butterfly may pass through the area, but also states “however, no host plant (milkweed spp.) was detected during the biological assessment.” It is well established that milkweed is required to support larval growth for monarch butterfly, and therefore correct that the Initial Study did not identify impact to the species. The same is true of the other species listed by the commenter, which were all found to have the potential to forage on the site, but not to have nesting or roosting habitat on the project site. It is also important to note than none of these species are listed as endangered or threatened at either the federal or the State level. The Initial Study correctly analyzed the impacts to wildlife.

Comment 35.N.

3. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Assess the Project’s Impacts on Wildlife Connectivity. a. The Project Is Located in a Wildlife Corridor.

The IS/MND recognizes that the Project lies within a wildlife corridor: the Joshua Tree- Twentynine Palms Connection, which connects the Joshua Tree National Park to large tracts of undeveloped land to the north of Route 62, including the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base. (IS/MND at

32.) This corridor also connects the higher-elevation pinyon-juniper and Joshua tree ecosystems within Joshua Tree National Park to the lower elevation creosote and desert wash ecosystems (Penrod, 2008) and more broadly connects the Mojave desert to the Sonoran desert. (Ibid.) The Project area constitutes about one-third of the width of one of the habitat corridors in the Joshua Tree-Twentynine Palms Connection, meaning that the development of the parcel could have serious ramifications for the corridor’s ability to function as a throughway for wildlife. In its General Plan, the City even made it a goal to preserve the Joshua Tree-Twentynine Palms connection by implementing eleven different policies. (General Plan CO-29-30.) This wildlife corridor is especially critical because much of the land on the northern border of Joshua Tree National Park is interrupted by the urban areas of Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms, with the Project site providing an undeveloped area for wildlife movement.

The Global Human Footprint Index, which is maintained by Columbia University and uses many factors to determine how substantially habitat is impacted by humans, shows that the Project area

Page 563 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 27 of 64 ends

is at the center of the least developed area between these urban areas, just half a mile from Joshua Tree National Park. (Columbia University, 2024.) (graphic provided in Appendix B) b. Wildlife Corridors Are Critical for Species’ Survival.

Effective, functional wildlife corridors are continuous and wide enough to overcome edge effects of development, dominated by native vegetation, and have equal or higher habitat quality than core habitat patches. (Bennett et al., 1994; Brooker et al., 1999; J. A. Hilty & Merenlender, 2004.) Development can diminish the quality of wildlife corridors by increasing edge effects and fragmenting existing habitat, creating barriers to wildlife movement, and reducing wildlife’s resilience to climate change.

First, edge effects from development include increased noise, light, and human presence that can disrupt habitats and wildlife. Edge effects of development can impact key wide-ranging predators, such as bobcats, American badgers, and mountain lions (Crooks, 2002; Delaney et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Riley et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2015, 2017; Wang et al., 2017), as well as smaller species with smaller home ranges, such as song birds, bats and other small mammals, and herpetofauna. (Benítez-López et al., 2010; Bunkley & Barber, 2015; Cushman, 2006; Delaney et al., 2010; Gray, 2017; Kociolek et al., 2011; McClure et al., 2013; Slabbekoorn & Ripmeester, 2008; Ware et al., 2015.) Limiting movement and dispersal can affect species’ ability to find food, shelter, mates, and refugia after disturbances like fires or floods. Individuals can die off, populations can become isolated, sensitive species can become locally extinct, and important ecological processes like plant pollination and nutrient cycling can be lost. Negative edge effects from human activity, like pollutants, invasive weeds, and increased fire frequency, have been found to be biologically significant up to 300 meters (~1000 feet) away from anthropogenic features in terrestrial systems. (Environmental Law Institute, 2003.) Habitat fragmentation also severely impacts plant communities. An 18-year study found that reconnected landscapes had nearly 14% more plant species compared to fragmented habitats, and that number is likely to continue to rise as time passes. (Damschen et al., 2019.) The authors conclude that efforts to preserve and enhance connectivity will pay off over the long-term. (Damschen et al., 2019.) In addition, connectivity between high quality habitat areas in heterogeneous landscapes is important to allow for range shifts and species migrations as climate changes. (Cushman et al., 2013; Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Krosby et al., 2018.) Loss of wildlife connectivity decreases biodiversity and degrades ecosystems while reducing climate change resilience.

Second, development diminishes the quality of wildlife corridors by adding barriers to wildlife movement over the landscape. As detailed in a 2021 Center Report (Yap et al., 2021), roads and development create barriers that lead to habitat loss and fragmentation, which harms native wildlife, plants, and people. As barriers to wildlife movement, poorly-planned development and roads can affect an animal’s behavior, movement patterns, reproductive success, and physiological state, which can lead to significant impacts on individual wildlife, populations, communities, landscapes, and ecosystem function. (Brehme et al., 2013; Ceia-Hasse et al., 2018; Haddad et al., 2015; Marsh & Jaeger, 2015; Mitsch & Wilson, 1996; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000; van der Ree et al., 2011.) Habitat fragmentation has been found to increase local extinction risk in amphibians and reptiles (Brehme et al., 2018; Cushman, 2006; Delaney et al., 2021), cause high levels of avoidance behavior and mortality in birds and insects (Benítez-López et al., 2010; Kantola et al., 2019; Loss et al., 2014), and alter pollinator behavior and degrade habitats. (Aguilar et al., 2008; Goverde et al., 2002; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000.)

Page 564 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 28 of 64 ends

Third, it is widely recognized that the continuing fragmentation of habitat by humans threatens biodiversity and diminishes our (humans, plants, and animals) ability to adapt to climate change.

In a report for the International Union for Conservation of Nature, world- renowned scientists from around the world stated that “[s]cience overwhelmingly shows that interconnected protected areas and other areas for biological diversity conservation are much more effective than disconnected areas in human-dominated systems, especially in the face of climate change” and “[i]t is imperative that the world moves toward a coherent global approach for ecological connectivity conservation, and begins to measure and monitor the effectiveness of efforts to protect connectivity and thereby achieve functional ecological networks.” (Hilty et al., 2020.) Response 35.N.

Please see Response 35.K. The project site proposes the preservation of 72% of the land for conservation, which will also preserve the corridor. The project site is bordered on the north by Highway 62, which bisects the entire City of Twentynine Palms. As a result, it is at the northern border of the corridor, not at its center. In terms of the preservation of natural habitat south of the Highway, the project will assure the preservation of the corridor to a far greater extent than would occur with development of 61 homes, with their driveways, home footprints and fences. The Goal stated in the General Plan at CO-29, cited by the commenter states “Designate, maintain and enhance the quality of permanently protected open space used by both endangered and special status species.” The project site, and all lands surrounding it, are designated for development in the General Plan, and are not designated or slated for conservation. The project will impose a conservation designation on 110 of the 152 acres. Therefore, the project will implement this Goal, despite its not being required to do so. Further, Implementation Policy CO-1.8 reads “Encourage developers to preserve, protect and at a minimum salvage naturally occurring desert plant materials for incorporation into project landscaping to the greatest extent possible.” In this case, natural desert plants will be preserved in the conservation area, and included in the project’s landscaping, which provides for native plant species and their use within the development area.

The project, therefore, has implemented the goals and policies of the Conservation and Open Space Element. The impacts to the corridor as they relate to this project site will be less than significant.

Comment 35.O.
c. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Assess and Mitigate Impacts on Wildlife Connectivity.

Despite the Project site falling in this critical corridor, the IS/MND concludes that the Project’s impacts would be less than significant because some open space will surround the hotel. This conclusion utterly lacks any factual basis. Instead, the IS/MND itself reveals the importance of the Project area to wildlife: it admits that the Project area lies “within a designated wildlife linkage area”; that the limited, one-day biological assessment found a moderate potential for myriad listed species inhabiting the Project area, including the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, San Diego pocket mouse, loggerhead shrike, seven special-status bat species, and five special- status plant species; and that the Project lies nearly adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park. (IS/MND at 32, 44; Appendix B at 8-14.) The factors unequivocally support a fair argument that the Project area is important for habitat connectivity and cut against the MND’s unsupported conclusion that a buffer around the development within the Project area will mitigate any degradation of the parcel’s quality as a habitat corridor caused by the Project. (IS/MND at 32.) Critically, the IS/MND does not even attempt to compare the quality of the post-development habitat for migrating wildlife to the baseline condition of the pre-development habitat. (IS/MND at 32.)

Page 565 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 29 of 64 ends

In sum, the proposed Project would further fragment habitat in the Joshua Tree- Twentynine Palms wildlife corridor by destroying open space and increasing traffic in an already-constrained linkage, which will fortify existing barriers to movement, and diminish connectivity. The proposed Project would result in habitat fragmentation and increased edge effects by developing a mostly intact native habitat and increasing human presence in this key wildlife corridor, necessitating a full EIR.

Response 35.O.

See Response 35.H. through 35.N. The project site will preserve 110 acres of open space which would otherwise be developed for residential units. The existing Highway 62, which the project site abuts, is a significant barrier to connectivity which carries thousands of daily trips. Lear Avenue carries local trips for an existing single family neighborhood developed at a density of 4 units per acre. The biological resources report, completed by a qualified biologist and encompassing the site in its entirety, found limited resources, and no evidence of any protected species occurring on the property. The Initial Study nonetheless provides mitigation to assure that the project will reduce its impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. Finally, the CDFW, which is the State’s trustee agency for biological resources, found that the Initial Study, with minor modifications, addressed the impacts to biological resources adequately (See Comment Letter 8). The Initial Study and biological resources report provide a complete analysis of the potential impacts of the project on the site and its surroundings.

Comment 35.P.

4. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Noise Impacts on Wildlife.

The IS/MND entirely fails to consider the effects that noise from the Project and its associated construction will have on wildlife. Many studies demonstrate that high levels of anthropogenic noise harm wildlife and plants across diverse taxa. For example, field observations and controlled laboratory experiments have shown that traffic noise can significantly degrade habitat value for migrating songbirds. (Ware et al., 2015.) Subjects exposed to 55 and 61 dBA (simulated traffic noise) exhibited decreased feeding behavior and duration, as well as increased vigilance behavior. (Ware et al. 2015.) Such behavioral shifts increase the risk of starvation, thus decreasing survival rates. Another study found a 28% decrease in bird abundance in areas when traffic noise was present compared to when there was no traffic noise. (McClure et al., 2013.) Another study found noise pollution above 58 dBA resulted in reduced foraging efficiency in pallid bats likely because noise disrupted their hearing while they were hunting. (Bunkley & Barber, 2015.) This species, as noted in the biological survey, is moderately likely to occur in the Project area. (Appendix B at 12.) Another study found that bats that rely on hearing to forage abandon foraging efforts in noisy areas, decreasing foraging efficiency. (Luo et al., 2015.) Reduced foraging efficiency could lead to reduced fitness and survival, which could have impacts at the individual, population, and ecosystem level. This suggests that noise from the Project could have significant adverse impacts on the seven bat species that are moderately likely to use the Project site, all of which rely on auditory cues and echolocation for foraging. (Appendix B at 12-14.) Chronic or long-term noise pollution can also impair foraging and anti-predator behavior, reproductive success, density, and community structure across diverse taxa. (Barber et al., 2010; Francis & Barber, 2013; Habib et al., 2007.) Even plants can be impacted by chronic noise

Page 566 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 30 of 64 ends

pollution. In a study conducted in New Mexico, continuous noise from natural gas wells was found to reduce tree seedling recruitment and evenness, likely due to noise altering the movement and behavior of seed-dispersing and pollinating wildlife. (Phillips et al., 2021.) This indicates that the numerous special-status and sensitive plants that may be located in and near the Project area could be significantly adversely impacted by the Project.

The Project will create many new sources of noise on the Project site. In addition to noise produced by construction activities, the Project would create nearly 900 car trips per day (IS/MND at 74), and each of the 100 proposed units will have its own air conditioning unit. (IS/MND at 74.) The hotel will have the capacity to host up to 400 guests at a time, plus staff, and these guests will add noise to the area when using the swimming pool, conversing, using their cars, and spending time outside. The Project even proposes music playing outside from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m (IS/MND at 72, 80) and allows “outdoors activities” in the Open Space, leaving it ambiguous as to what those activities may be and how much noise they will produce. (IS/MND at 80.) All this supports a fair argument that the Project could have significant adverse impacts on specialstatus and sensitive species in and near the Project area. The City must consider and mitigate this impact in a full EIR.

Response 35.P.

The commenter’s general information regarding noise levels and impacts to wildlife are noted.

Based on the information, impacts to wildlife could occur if noise levels reach 55 to 61 dBA. As provided in Table 6 of the Initial Study, page 71, the monitored existing noise level adjacent to Highway 62 ranges from 59.9 to 60.0 dBA (Location L4, immediately north of the Highway).

Surrounding the site, at monitored Locations L1 and L3, noise levels currently range between

45.7 and 51.3 dBA. The Initial Study and noise report further quantify daytime operational noise levels at 33.4 to 38.5 dBA Leq, and nighttime operational noise levels at 25.8 to 32.5 dBA Leq, both of which are well below the 55 to 61 dBA cited by the commenter. Furthermore, as shown in Table 7, page 73 of the Initial Study, combined operational and ambient noise levels will be between 48.2 and 51.4 dBA at three of the five receiver locations, and will reach 63.3 dBA at the receiver location along the Highway (R1), and 60.0 dBA at the receiver location along Lear Avenue (R3), mid-way along the project’s west boundary. Most significantly, at the two louder locations, the project itself will not increase noise levels over ambient levels at all, and at the three other locations, will only increase noise levels by 0.1 to 0.2 dBA. Therefore, where the noise levels are currently below the commenter’s stated noise impact levels of 55 to 61 dBA, the noise levels will remain well below those noise levels, and where the noise levels are currently 60.0 and 63.3 dBA, the project will not increase those noise levels, due to the distance of the development area and the existing noise environment from adjacent residential development and Highway traffic, respectively. Finally, given that operational noise levels will range from 25.8 to 38.5 dBA, the project will not generate noise levels in the range that the commenter asserts would have an impact on wildlife (55 to 61 dBA), and impacts would be less than significant and would not require mitigation. The Initial Study correctly assessed noise levels, and as demonstrated above, the project would not impact wildlife from a noise perspective.

Page 567 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 31 of 64 ends

Comment 35.Q.

5. Light Pollution and Other Edge Effects of Development Will Negatively Impact Wildlife.

Impacts of light pollution are varied, and different species respond to artificial light at night in different ways. Individual impacts of light pollution include numerous physiological (e.g. hormone levels) and behavioral changes (e.g. shifts in activity patterns) that can impact an animal’s ability to survive and thrive in its environment. (Aulsebrook et al., 2020; Dominoni, 2015; Gaston et al., 2014; Kempenaers et al., 2010.) These individual impacts cascade into ecological changes such as phenological mismatches and shifts in predation patterns that can disrupt population and ecosystem-level dynamics, including mortality, fecundity, and community productivity, among others. (Ditmer et al., 2021; Gaston et al., 2013; Sanders et al., 2020.) The City must provide a full analysis of light pollution in an EIR and mitigate accordingly.

Response 35.Q.

The commenter’s general statements on light pollution are noted. The comments fail to provide evidence that the project itself would have the impacts stated. As described in Responses 26.B. and 33.D. and elsewhere in the Response to Comments, the City has strict lighting standards which limit outdoor light. The project will add indoor lighting scattered over 42 acres of the 152 acre site, but indoor lighting will not occur throughout the night, since guests will either close drapes or shut off lighting when asleep. The movie theatre and pool will also have limited use at night, and traffic on the property will be substantial less at night than during daytime hours, and limited to the parking area and lodge, since cars will not be able to circulate through the site. The project will not create a significant light impact, and the Initial Study correctly determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Comment 35.R.

B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Adverse Aesthetic Impacts.

The IS/MND’s discussion of aesthetic impacts fails to meet CEQA’s requirements for disclosure and analysis of the Project’s effects on scenic vistas and visual character. The City improperly concludes that the Project would result in “no impact” and “less than significant impact” to scenic vistas and visual character, respectively, without supporting those conclusions with substantial evidence or any factual basis. The IS/IS/MND includes no technical viewshed analysis, visual simulations, or GIS-based modeling. Instead, it relies almost entirely on generalized and subjective statements regarding building height, setbacks, and distance from public vantage points.

CEQA requires meaningful evaluation of whether a project may result in significant aesthetic impacts, particularly when, as here, the Project is located near a nationally significant resource— Joshua Tree National Park—and mountain landscapes identified as scenic resources in the City’s General Plan. (IS/MND at 17.) The Project site itself is an undeveloped parcel with elevated terrain and expansive, unobstructed views of surrounding mountain ranges and desert vistas—conditions that make it uniquely visually sensitive. The IS/MND’s assessment is inadequate for several reasons.

Page 568 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 32 of 64 ends

First, as a threshold matter, analysis of aesthetic impacts is highly subjective. For this reason, aesthetic effects are not considered “the special purview of experts,” and personal opinions of residents and other commenters “can constitute substantial evidence.” (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402.) As a result, the City’s dismissal of residents’ opinions regarding the Project’s aesthetic impacts in its response to comments runs contrary to CEQA.

Second, rather than providing a substantive analysis of potential adverse aesthetic impacts, the IS/MND simply asserts that views from surrounding roads “will not be impacted,” or “will remain unobstructed,” and that development “will not dominate the landscape” due to building height, setbacks, and site layout. (IS/MND at 17–18). However, the conclusions are unsubstantiated. The IS/MND does not provide any viewshed analysis or any visual modeling to evaluate actual visibility from key public viewpoints, including Joshua Tree National Park, SR- 62 (a scenic highway), or surrounding ridgelines and turnouts. It also fails to acknowledge that even low-profile, single-story development can significantly degrade the visual character of an undeveloped desert viewshed— particularly in flat, open terrain with minimal vertical structures.

Third, the IS/MND utterly overlooks a crucial aesthetic impact: the view from Joshua Tree National Park and its foothills, which the Project’s many buildings, swimming pools, movie theater, and more will undoubtedly impact. Instead, the IS/MND considers only the view of the desert landscape from points near the Project site. (See IS/MND at 17.) This paints only half the picture: the Joshua Tree National Park border lies just half a mile from the Project site (See Agenda Packet at 251), and the IS/MND even admits that scenic resources delineated in the General Plan include the desert landscape adjacent to the Joshua Tree National Park near the Project site. (IS/MND at 17.) Just over one mile from the Project site, within the national park, a substantial elevation gain from the Project site’s 2600 feet to 3000 feet undoubtedly supports a fair argument that the Project may have aesthetic impacts on scenic vistas from the designated scenic Joshua Tree foothills and the national park. (See Ex. C.) The MND’s bald statement that no significant aesthetic impacts will occur simply because the Project is not located within the actual Joshua Tree buffer overlay defies logic, especially considering Morongo Basin Conservation Association’s viewshed study showing the Project site can be seen from well within Joshua Tree National Park. (See Agenda Packet at 435.) Finally, the IS/MND similarly fails to adequately analyze and disclose the Project’s creation of new sources of substantial light or glare, which will likely have significant effects on nighttime views in the area. While the IS/MND states that outdoor light fixtures will be shielded and focused downward in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, this generalized assurance is insufficient.

The Municipal Code’s general outdoor lighting ordinance contains exceptions to the outdoor lighting requirements (see City of Twentynine Palms Municipal Code § 19.78.040.C), and the IS/MND fails to account for light generated by other sources such as illuminated pool and spa, or the outdoor movie screening area. It also omits any analysis of the cumulative effects of resortwide lighting—including signage, walkways, parking areas—on dark skies. This is a major oversight, as many commenters expressed concern, and the City “must . . . consider any fair argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant.” (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.) This omission is especially problematic give the Project’s proximity to Joshua Tree National Park, which is recognized as an International Dark Skay Park. (NPS 2024.) The introduction of substantial new lighting into an otherwise unlit desert area raises significant concerns for nighttime sky visibility, both from nearby public roads and from within the Park itself.

Page 569 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 33 of 64 ends

In light of these deficiencies, the City’s conclusion that the project would have no or less- thansignificant impacts on aesthetics is unsupported. To comply with CEQA, the City must conduct and disclose a viewshed analysis evaluating visibility from key viewpoints, address potential light and glare impacts, and propose feasible mitigation to reduce any potentially significant adverse aesthetic effects.

Response 35.R.

The commenter is incorrect in stating that the analysis of aesthetic impacts is simply an assertion not based in fact. The application package submitted by the applicant included an architectural submittal which provides, at page A.8.41, visual simulations of the project. These are reproduced below, and demonstrate that the scale, height and distance of the project development area will indeed not impact views of the surrounding mountains, which remain clearly visible in the recreation below. The views are taken from the scenic highway that is Highway 62 at Lear Avenue, and therefore show that impacts of views from the traveler on the Highway will be unaffected.

Page 570 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 34 of 64 ends

It is unclear where the commenter intends that the increase in elevation of 400 feet will impact views into the project, but given that they are one mile distant, and that slopes and roadways undulate through the Park, the following demonstrates the views from:

Indian Cover campground to the
northeast (looking toward the
project site):

Page 571 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 35 of 64 ends

From the
Indian
Cover
Nature Trail
trailhead
northeast
(looking
toward the
project
site):

From midway up the
road to the
Forty-nine
Palms
Oasis
northwest
(looking
toward the
project
site):

The commenter’s claims that the project will be visible from the Park are not substantiated, and do not represent an understanding of the topography of the area. The Initial Study correctly considered impacts to both scenic vistas and visual resources and character.

As it relates to the MBCA’s map showing viewshed, please see Response 34.Q.

Page 572 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 36 of 64 ends

Comment 35.S.

C. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Adverse Air Quality Impacts.

The IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s air quality impacts is flawed. It fails to disclose and study the Project’s full suite of air quality impacts and fails to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to mitigate those impacts. The City must require an EIR to adequately analyze the Project’s air quality impacts, acknowledge their significance, and consider and adopt feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts.

1. This Project would add development to a region already suffering from poor air quality.

Experts have linked these air pollutants to increased risk of cancer, birth defects, low birth weights, and premature death, in addition to a variety of cardiac and lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, stroke, and heart attack. (Laurent 2016; ALA 2025.) Although invisible, ozone poses considerable health risks, prompting the EPA to strengthen its National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in 2015. (ALA 2016.) Additionally, Particulate Matter can easily escape the body’s natural defenses and enter the blood stream, impacting human health.

The project would affect an area already in violation of the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), undoubtedly supporting an argument that the Project’s air quality impacts are significant. (IS/MND at 22.) The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District is in severe nonattainment for federal ozone standards and nonattainment for the PM 10 standard. (IS/MND at 22.) State and local air agencies have determined that attainment will require massive emission reductions from all pollution sources. However, the IS/MND here fails to even adequately address the Project’s increase in emissions, analyze to what extent the project will hinder ambitious reductions required under the State Implementation Plans, and provide adequate mitigation measures.

Specifically, the IS/MND overlooks fugitive dust, a term used to describe the fine particulate matter – PM2.5 and PM10 – that results from ground disturbance, such as construction, road-building operations, or mining. Fugitive dust can impede breathing and cause respiratory irritation, cough, airway obstruction and poor lung function. (Blodgett, 2004.) Chronic or long- term exposure can lead to lung inflammation, bronchitis and emphysema and produce a severe lung disease known as silicosis, a form of pulmonary fibrosis. (Hnizdo, 2003.) Fugitive dust emissions would result from Project operations. (IS/MND at 26.)

Page 573 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 37 of 64 ends

Response 35.S.

The general information provided by the commenter regarding air quality impacts is acknowledged. However, as it relates to the Initial Study’s analysis of all air quality impacts, the commenter is mistaken. The Initial Study, and the CalEEMod modeling done for the project include the emissions of “fugitive dust” in their analysis of both PM10 and PM2.5. Specifically, Table 1 on page 25 of the Initial Study provides PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities, and Table 2, also on page 25, provides these emissions for operations. In both cases, the emissions fall far below the emission thresholds established by MDAQMD, which has jurisdiction over air quality impacts in the City and region. The Initial Study correctly concludes that impacts associated with air emissions, and “fugitive dust” in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, will be less than significant and do not require mitigation.

Comment 35.T.

2. The IS/MND Underestimates the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.

The Project impacts one of the most heavily polluted areas in the country. San Bernadino County ranks first among the nation’s worst in ozone pollution and seventh worst for PM pollution. (ALA 2025.) A comprehensive analysis of air quality impacts is acutely important where, as here, the project is in an area already experiencing adverse air quality. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 723-724.) Here the Project will have several key impacts, which the IS/MND fails to adequately disclose, assess, and mitigate.

First, to evaluate impacts to sensitive receptors, the IS/MND claims that because the nearest sensitive receptors are 500 feet away, the Project’s emissions will not impact them. (IS/MND at

26.) The IS/MND makes this startling claim with no evidence. It does not estimate what the pollutant concentrations will be at the sensitive receptors. It does not even estimate how the pollutant concentrations from the Project site might decrease with distance. Moreover, it does not account for the fact that, because much of the Project’s pollutants will largely come from hundreds of daily vehicle trips to and from the Project site, distance from the Project site itself means nothing if a sensitive receptor is on a driving route. As described supra, ozone and particulate matter pose substantial health risks to members of the community. Simply stating that because the Project is 500 feet from a sensitive receptor there will be no impact to sensitive receptors is a far cry from the factual basis necessary to establish that there will not be a significant impact. (Pub. Res. Code § 20164.5.)
Response 35.T.

Contrary to the assertion in the comment, the Initial Study fully explains why the project would not significantly impact local sensitive receptors. First, it explains MDAQM’s CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, and how those guidelines identify specific land uses that must be evaluated for localized impacts, including industrial projects, distribution centers, transportation projects, dry cleaners and gasoline stations. The project contains none of these land uses, and therefore does not require analysis based on that MDAQMD standard. The Initial Study goes on to explain that because the calculations of construction and operational emissions found that the emissions from the project will all be below MDAQMD’s thresholds of significance, local receptors at a distance ranging from 30 to 500 feet from the property line would also not experience emissions above the threshold of significance. In addition, the project will be buffered from neighboring properties by the conservation buffer proposed, and would therefore occur at a

Page 574 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 38 of 64 ends

distance at least 500 feet, and as much as 800 feet from the property line. Emissions occurring at this distance will not impact surrounding residents, the closest sensitive receptors to the project.

The Initial then explains impacts from vehicle trips, included in Table 2 described above, and from the generators to be used in the wastewater treatment plant, which were part of the modeling in CalEEMod, and are regulated with MDAQMD and CARB. These facilities, as stated in the Initial Study, will occur in an enclosed structure. The Initial Study does analyze impacts to sensitive receptors, and correctly found that impacts would be less than significant.

Comment 35.U.

Second, the IS/MND underestimates air quality impacts from vehicle emissions because it relies on the assumption that employees will live nearby. (IS/MND at 76 [E.g. “The local population is expected to fulfill the Project’s employee needs.”]; id. at 23 [“employees would be expected to be existing City residents or future residents.”].) Given the City’s limitations in available housing, however, it is unlikely that the entirety of generated employment opportunities would be filled by persons residing in the community and the 25 employee units onsite. Rather, it is likely that employees would be commuting from other communities, impacting air quality more than the City disclosed in the EIR.

Response 35.U.

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not supported in the analysis. The emissions calculated for the project were based on the standards established in the ITE manual for hotels, which includes employee commutes. No reduction in trips was taken for the on-site employee housing.

Therefore, the analysis of trips includes an assumption that employees will all travel to the site for work, and is conservative. Furthermore, the CalEEMod model, provided in Appendix A, at page 50, shows that the modeling assumed a trip length of 17.7 miles, based on the total daily VMT calculated in the model. A distance of 17 miles for a worker trip would extend to the Town of Yucca Valley to the west, the unincorporated community of Joshua Tree, and include all of the City. There are no population centers to the east, north or south of the City. Therefore, the analysis considered not only the shorter trips of employees who would reside in the City, but also those of employees who might commute from other communities. The Initial Study correctly analyzed air emissions and did not underestimate them.

Comment 35.V.

C. The IS/MND’s Air Quality Mitigation Measure for Construction Emissions Is Unenforceable and Deferred.

Generally mitigation measures should not be deferred, and feasibility findings should not be delegated to staff. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(1)(B), 15025(b)(2).) Specific details of a mitigation measure “may be developed after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review provided that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will [be] considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.’” (Golden Door Properties v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 518.) The IS/MND fails to meet these requirements.

Page 575 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 39 of 64 ends

The IS/MND notes that the Project will be subject to a “dust control plan” prepared during constriction—at a later date and outside of the public process – to address fugitive dust. (IS/MND at 23.) But the lead agency is expected to develop mitigation in an open public process. (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 93.) The IS/MND offers no reason why a dust control plan cannot be developed as part of the Project’s environmental review, nor does it include objective standards to guide the City’s approval of the plan. As written, the measure creates an enormous loophole and allows the Project applicant and the City to determine—at a later date, without oversight or objective standards, and without supporting its decision with substantial evidence—whether mitigation will be implemented. It is inappropriate to defer analysis of fugitive dust mitigation until after Project approval, especially since formulating a plan appears to be entirely feasible.

Response 35.V.

The preparation of a dust control plan is a requirement of both the City and MDAQMD (please see Comment 1.B.), which is to be submitted with the grading permit for the project. It is not a mitigation measure. As shown in Comment 1.B., the District has specific and prescriptive requirements for the plan, and will require that the project comply. The preparation of the plan, as a standard requirement which is input into the CalEEMod modeling, is required by the District to assure that it implements its plans for PM10 and PM2.5 reductions. It is based on the final grading plan, which will be prepared if the project is approved and moves to construction. It is in no way deferred mitigation, since its requirements and performance standards are well established.

Comment 35.W.

D. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Adverse Traffic Impacts.

The IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s traffic impacts is similarly flawed. It fails to adequately disclose and study traffic impacts of 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. (IS/MND at 84-85.) The City must require an EIR to adequately analyze the Project’s traffic impacts, acknowledge their significance, and consider and adopt feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts.

The IS/MND fails to adequately assess or mitigate the project’s traffic impacts, instead resting its conclusions on several unsupported assertions. First, the IS/MND optimistically claims that “[t]he local population is expected to fulfill the Project’s employee needs without needing to attract workers from outside the region” (IS/MND at 76) and that locating the Project near housing will not increase traffic as a result of employees commuting to the Project site. But as noted infra, the IS/MND does not cite any evidence showing that local residents would fill these jobs or even how many jobs the Project will create (nor how many guests would be creating traffic). Indeed, Appendix H does not even mention employee commutes in its trip generation estimates, nor how employees will contribute to traffic. Accordingly, the 25 employee housing units and predictions of short commutes for locals will have an unknown impact on trip generation and traffic. These unknowns render the IS/MND’s sparse traffic analysis unreliable.

Page 576 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 40 of 64 ends

Response 35.W.

Please see Response 35.U. The trips calculated for the project include employee trips, and include trip distances that allow for longer trip distances. ITE is the recognized standard for the analysis of trips for all land uses, and bases its analysis categories on all trips generated by a land use, including employee trips. The traffic analysis conducted for the project and provided in Appendix H is comprehensive and thorough, was conducted in conformance with professional standards and the City’s requirements for traffic analysis, and correctly analyzed traffic impacts associated with the project as a whole.

Comment 35.X.

Second, the IS/MND leaves out assessment of the impact of the Project’s food/beverage services and retail space on transportation and local traffic. The Project will have trucks moving in and out to provide supplies for these services, as well as general products for the hotel. (See IS/MND at

2.) Trucks serving facilities also often idle on public streets and clog local roads, creating traffic congestion and hazards to local drivers who depend on these roads. As a result, the City should design the project to avoid congestion caused by vendor trucks on local roads and limit the number of trucks travelling to the Project site during normal commuting hours to avoid harm to locals who rely on nearby roads.

Response 35.X.

The commenter is incorrect. The traffic analysis, at Table 4-1, Project Trip Generation Summary, calculated both hotel trips and food and beverage (restaurant) trips, including separate trips to the restaurant from non-guests. As it relates to truck trips to service the hotel and restaurant, please see the discussion of ITE standards in Response 35.W. – ITE considers all trips to a land use in its estimation of trips, and calculates fleet mix based on these trip patterns. Given that the traffic analysis found that the project would not significantly impact traffic and result in acceptable levels of service, vendor trucks will not cause congestion on local roads.

Comment 35.Y.

The Initial Study describes the project, including all road improvements, on pages 2 and 3. The analysis of the impacts associated with the project include the need for road improvements on Lear and Sullivan, which will occur on the project site. There has been no omission of these improvements in the analysis, including construction activity impacts. As it relates to wildlife connectivity, please see Responses 35.O.

Page 577 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 41 of 64 ends

Comment 35.Z.

Finally, as discussed supra, the City’s IS/MND fails to assess how traffic increases associated with this project will affect the species in the surrounding area. Traffic congestion degrades air quality and harms habitat through generating waste, which stormwater runoff carries into waterways. (Kim et al., 2023; Nixon & Saphores.) The City must carefully consider potential harms of increased runoff, as well as mitigation measures, in a full EIR.

Response 35.Z.

The commenter’s concerns regarding impacts to biological resources are addressed in Responses 35.G. through 35.O. As the comment relates to stormwater runoff, although the comment is overly broad and unspecific to the project, the Initial Study analyzed drainage at pages 55 through 61, and addressed the City’s requirements for compliance with NPDES standards, and the avoidance of impacts to the drainage channel that occurs to the east of the development area. No change to the Initial Study is required.

Comment 35.AA.

E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Assess, Disclose, and Mitigate Impacts on Water Quality.

The IS/MND also fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s impacts on water quality and adopt mitigation measures to mitigate those impacts. Instead, the IS/MND vaguely admits that “[r]unoff from stormwater can transport pollutants that collect on the ground surface and affect water quality of receiving streams, rivers, and channels.” (IS/MND at 57). However, these impacts are mentioned in only the broadest terms, and the IS/MND performs no actual analysis to quantify potential impacts, nor provides information on potential levels of pollutants and contaminants, levels of stormwater and urban water runoff, or locations of water quality impacts.

The IS/MND also fails to provide any targeted mitigation for water quality impacts, providing only deferred mitigation. Specifically, the IS/MND relies on a future Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to mitigate impacts on water quality. This is inadequate and fails to provide any concrete and enforceable measures to protect water quality in any water bodies throughout the Project area. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [“Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”].) The IS/MND provides no detail on what such standards entail, nor how such standards can guarantee less than significant impacts on water quality. The City must prepare an EIR that includes enforceable mitigation that is targeted to water quality impacts and demonstrate that such mitigation measures are effective.

Response 35.AA.

The Initial Study fully analyzes hydrological and water quality impacts, based on a project-specific hydrology study provided as Appendix F. The study and Initial Study demonstrate that the project will meet City standards for the control of pollutants by complying with established standards, including the need for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to protect storm water from on-site pollutants consistent with federal NPDES standards. As with a dust control plan described in Response 35.V., the SWPPP is a standard requirement that is prepared, reviewed and approved with final grading permits based on established performance standards and requirements. It is not deferred mitigation, because it is required to meet the City’s stormwater pollution prevention standards. The analysis of water quality was correctly analyzed in the Initial Study.

Page 578 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 42 of 64 ends

Comment 35.BB.

F. The City Failed to Complete a Mandatory Water Supply Assessment.

56.) But section 10912’s “project” definition still requires a water supply assessment for any project that “would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.” (Cal Wat Code § 10912(a)(7).) Here, this is undoubtedly the case, as beyond the 100 guest units (cabins) and 25 employee housing units, the Project will require water for irrigation, swimming pools, spas, splash pads, and food and beverage services, none of which the IS/MND mentions as sources of water demand let alone attempts to quantify. (IS/MND at 2, 57.)
Beyond its lacking water supply assessment, the IS/MND failed to adequate assess the Project’s water supply and demand for several reasons. First, the IS/MND only took into account water usage per room, along with irrigation. This is insufficient, considering in-room water consumption accounts for only about 37.27% of hotels’ total direct water consumption. (Rodriguez, 2025.) Nowhere does the IS/MND disclose or assess water demands of its laundry service to provide fresh towels for guests, for example, nor its pools, spas, splash pads, and food and beverage services. (IS/MND at 2, 57.)
Second, even if the MND’s assessment could consider only guests’ water usage in their rooms, the tool used to calculate the 115 gallons/day/room water demand for the hotel rooms is 25 years old and fails to adequately inform decision makers of current conditions. (IS/MND at 58 [citing the American Water Works Association Research Foundation’s Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water created in 2000]; see also AWWARF, 2000; e.g., Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367 [EIR using ten year old “scientifically

Page 579 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 43 of 64 ends

outdated information” was not a reasoned, good-faith effort to inform decision- makers and the public].) More recent estimates for California hotel rooms indicate that typical hotel rooms use around 218 gallons/day/room: nearly double what the IS/MND estimates (See Walker, 2011) or an average of 181 gallons per guest. (Alhudaithi et al., 2022.) And for cabins, this water usage will likely be more, as cabins often have room for more guests than a single hotel room.

Response 35.BB.

The City was not required to complete a Water Supply Assessment for the project. As required by State law, the hotel will contain 100 rooms. The project also includes residential units for employees, a pool and drought tolerant landscaping. For reference, 500 dwelling units in the City, would generate demand of 32,120,000 gallons per year1, without accounting for irrigation water, which generates a demand greater than the household, by about 150%. As a result, total water demand for 500 residential units would be 80,300,000 gallons per year. The proposed project is expected to generate demand for 10,981,304 gallons per year, including irrigation of landscaping.

The project, therefore does not qualify for the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment. Even if the factor of 981 liters/259 gallons per room provided in Mr. Alhudaithi’s report (appended by the commenter) were used, which includes all hotel facilities, including kitchens, pools, and laundry, the project would generate a total demand of 9,453,500 gallons annually. It must be assumed that landscaping was not calculated in Mr. Alhudaithi’s report, as it is not mentioned. If the Initial Study’s calculation of 6,354,929 for irrigation water is added to Mr. Alhudaithi’s factor, the total water demand of the project would be 15,808,429 gallons per day, assuming 100% occupancy every day of the year. Based on the commenter’s own evidence, the project would still not require the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, because it would generate 19.7% of the water demand for 500 residential units in the City.

The Initial Study correctly analyzed water demand reflective of the land uses proposed, including hotel facilities such as the pool and restaurant, and correctly concluded, based on the UWMP prepared by the Twentynine Palms Water District, that the project water demand would be well within the District’s production for 2045, which the District estimates would exceed demand by 612 acre feet per year (Initial Study page 58). These projections are based on anticipated growth in the District. The project’s demand will total 33.7 acre feet per year, or 5.5% of the District’s excess production. Even if the project were to demand 15.8 million gallons annual, per Mr.

Alhudaithi’s calculation, it would represent 7.2% of the District’s anticipated over-production in 2045. The impacts associated with water demand have been correctly assessed in the Initial Study.

Comment 35.CC.

Page 580 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 44 of 64 ends

from Governor Newsom, declaring that California must “redouble near-, medium-, and long- term efforts to adapt its water management to a changing climate, shifting precipitation patterns, and water scarcity.” (Executive Order N-7-22 (2022).)
The California Center on Climate Change has recognized the problem climate change presents to the state’s water supply for decades and predicts that if GHG emissions continue under the business-as-usual scenario, snowpack could decline up to 70-90 percent, affecting winter recreation, water supply, and natural ecosystems. (Cayan 2007.) Climate change will affect snowpack and precipitation levels, and California will face significant impacts, as its ecosystems depend upon relatively constant precipitation levels and water resources are already under strain. (Cayan 2007.) The decrease in snowpack in the Sierra Nevada will lead to a decrease in California’s already “over-stretched” water supplies. (Cayan, 2007.) All of this means “major changes” in water management and allocation will have to be made. (Cayan, 2007.) Thus, climate change may change how the Project will utilize water, and it may also impact other activities outside the Project area.

Climate change will also impact water quality, as changes in precipitation, flow, and temperature will likely exacerbate water quality problems. Changes in precipitation affect water quantity, flow rates, and flow timing. (Gleick 2000.) Shifting weather patterns are also jeopardizing water quality and quantity in many countries, where groundwater systems are overdrawn. (Epstein 2005.) This changing reality has been uniquely felt in San Bernadino County for years. to this day, all of San Bernadino County remains in a drought. (Drought.gov 2025.) Accordingly, a Water Supply Assessment is critical to adequately assess and mitigate the Project’s water demand, as well as climate change’s effects on the Project’s planned water supplies.

Response 35.CC.

The commenter’s general comments on climate change and its impact on water supplies generally are acknowledged. The comment makes no specific assertions regarding the project’s water demand, but is also based on a faulty assumption. The Twentynine Palms Water District is required by State law to include climate change and its vulnerability to it in its UWMP, and did so in its current Plan. It is also required to consider water supply reliability and multiple dry year scenarios in the Plan. The District’s current Plan includes these analyses, and therefore reflects current and projected water demand and supply consistent with climate change data and changes incorporated into the Plan. Therefore, the Initial Study used the local water supply and demand expert, the District, as a source of expert data on water demand and supply, and correctly analyzed the project’s impacts in relation to that issue.

Comment 35.DD.

G. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Assess, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The MND’s analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions falls short of CEQA’s requirements. The Project will inevitably result in an increase of GHG emissions during construction and operation.

But the IS/MND fails to adequately assess all emissions sources, as well as require adequate mitigation.

Page 581 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 45 of 64 ends

1. Climate Change Is a Catastrophic and Pressing Threat to California.

A strong, international scientific consensus leaves no doubt that human-caused climate change continues to pose an increasingly dire threat to human society and natural systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international scientific body for climate change assessment, concluded in its 2014 Fifth Assessment Report that: “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen,” and further that “[r]ecent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.” (IPCC 2014.) The United States echoed these findings in its own 2014 Third National Climate Assessment and 2017 Climate Science Special Report, prepared by scientific experts and reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and multiple federal agencies. The Third National Climate Assessment concluded that “[m]ultiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years” and “[i]impacts related to climate change are already evident in many regions and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.” (Melillo 2014.) The 2017 Climate Science Special Report similarly concluded:
[B]ased on extensive evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

The U.S. National Research Council also concluded that “[c]limate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting— a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC 2010.) And based on observed and expected harms from climate change, in 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gas pollution endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations. (74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) [U.S. EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule].) These authoritative climate assessments decisively recognize the dominant role of greenhouse gases in driving climate change. As stated by the Third National Climate Assessment: “observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.” (Mellilo 2014.) The Assessment makes plain that “reduc[ing] the risks of some of the worst impacts of climate change” will require “aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions” over the course of this century. (Melillo 2014 at 13, 14, & 649.)
Humans and wildlife have already begun feeling climate change impacts. Human- induced climate change has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people. (IPCC 2022.) This rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts, as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt. (IPCC 2022.) Climate change increasingly places stress on species and ecosystems—causing changes in distribution, phenology, physiology, vital rates, genetics, ecosystem structure and processes—in addition to increasing species extinction risk. (Warren 2008.) Climate-change- related local extinctions are already widespread and have occurred in hundreds of species. (Wiens 2016.) Catastrophic levels of species extinctions are projected throughout this century if climate change continues unabated. (Thomas 2004; Maclean 2011; Urban 2015.) In California, climate change will

Page 582 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 46 of 64 ends

transform our climate, resulting in increased temperatures and wildfires, as well as reduced snowpack, lower precipitation levels, and less water availability.

The United States has contributed more to climate change than any other country. Specifically, the U.S. is responsible for 27 percent of cumulative global CO2 emissions since 1850, and it remains the world’s second highest emitter on an annual and per capita basis. (World Resources Institute 2020.) Nonetheless, U.S. climate policy is wholly inadequate to meet the international climate target to avoid the worst climate impacts by holding global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. An international team of climate policy experts and scientists have even ranked U.S. climate policy as “insufficient,” concluding that “the US’ climate policies and action in 2030 need substantial improvements.” (Climate Action Tracker 2022.) The IPCC’s most recent report, entitled Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, found that warming is proceeding even faster than anticipated, and the best-case scenario for climate change is slipping out of reach. (IPCC 2022.) The report now estimates that, over the next 20 years, the world will cross the global warming threshold of 1.5°C. And unless immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions occur, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C—or even 2°C—will be beyond reach. The United Nations Secretary General described the report’s forecasts as an “atlas of human suffering.” (Borenstein 2022.) Although some sources of GHG emissions may seem insignificant, climate change is a problem with cumulative impacts and effects. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 [“[T]he impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis” that agencies must conduct].) One source or one small project may not appear to significantly contribute to climate change, but the combined impacts of many sources can drastically damage California’s climate as a whole.

Therefore, project-specific GHG emission disclosure, analysis, and mitigation remains vital to California meeting its climate goals and maintaining our climate.

Given the increasingly urgent need for drastic action to reduce GHG emissions, the MND’s failure to fully disclose, analyze, or mitigate the Project’s climate change effects is all the more alarming.

Response 35.DD.

The commenter’s information on worldwide climate change impacts is acknowledge. Responses to specific issues are provided below.

Comment 35.EE.

2. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose the Project’s GHG Impacts.

Here, the City failed to gather adequate information on the Project’s GHG impacts, offering the public little information to understand Project activities that will generate GHG emissions. The IS/MND presents only a list of potential GHG sources (IS/MND at 48); however, as described supra, nowhere does the IS/MND provide an estimate of how many employees will be commuting to the Project site daily, nor the number of guests the Project can host. Without this critical information, the IS/MND fails to provide adequate information to support its conclusions regarding GHG emissions.

Page 583 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 47 of 64 ends

Additionally, the IS/MND omits one of the key sources of the Project’s GHG construction emissions: destruction of more than forty acres of creosote bush scrub. (IS/MND at 18.) Nowhere does the IS/MND estimate anticipated loss of sequestered carbon as a result of grading the Project area. In failing to disclose this impact, the IS/MND fails to account for carbon emissions from intact habitats that would be dug up and paved over during construction as well as the annual loss of carbon that existing habitats would have continued to sequester if the City did not approve the Project.

As detailed in a 2023 Center Report, “Hidden in Plain Sight: California’s Native Habitats are Valuable Carbon Sinks” (Yap et al., 2023), diverse native California habitats are important carbon sinks that should be included in carbon calculations. In the Project area, the desert landscape consists of creosote bush scrub. Although the carbon storage and sequestration potential of such habitats are often overlooked, carbon in these systems is stored in the form of soil organic carbon (e.g., extensive root networks, soil microbial communities, mycorrhizae), soil inorganic carbon (e.g., calcite/caliche), and above-ground vegetation (Janzen, 2004; Meyer, 2012; Mi et al., 2008; Thomey et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2010; Zamanian et al., 2016.) The City must assess this impact in a full EIR.

Response 35.EE.

First, as it relates to analyzing all of the project’s impacts, the CalEEMod modeling, appended to the Initial Study as Appendix A, includes all of the assumptions used to generate GHG impacts for the project, including the hotel rooms, employee housing, building, landscaping and parking lot areas, as required for calculation of emissions.

As it relates to the Initial Study not including a discussion of carbon sequestration, the commenter is correct that there is no such discussion in the Initial Study. None of the questions in Appendix G of CEQA address carbon sequestration, and it is not an issue area recognized in CEQA.

However, the project will preserve 110 of its 152 acres, and develop only 42, resulting in the preservation of 72% of the site to continue to facilitate carbon sequestration in the long term. If the site were, on the other hand, to be developed for 61 homes on 152 acres, the damage of the development of those homes, combined with the roads, driveways, outbuildings and ancillary structures they would require, would result in far greater reductions in carbon sequestration than the proposed project.

Comment 35.FF.

VI. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose and Assess the Wastewater Treatment Plant’s Impacts.

The MND also utterly fails to disclose and assess impacts of the Project’s on-site wastewater treatment plant. (IS/MND at 3.) Wastewater treatment plants emit substantial amounts of methane, which went unmentioned in the IS/MND’s GHG emissions assessment. (Poore, 2023.) Additionally, wastewater treatment produces substantial noise pollution, which will impact nearby residents and wildlife, also unmentioned in the IS/MND. (Amor, 2022.) This is inadequate under CEQA, as “[t]he scope of the environmental review conducted for the initial study must include the entire project,” not only the hotel. (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1222.)

Page 584 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 48 of 64 ends

Response 35.FF.

The Initial Study and Appendix A, the CalEEMod model, correctly assumed and included wastewater treatment in its calculation of GHG emissions, including methane. The model calculates these impacts regardless of the location of the plant, and is instead based solely on the amount of effluent treated. Therefore, methane impacts associated with the project have been included in CalEEMod’s calculations of CO2 equivalents.

As it relates to the noise impacts of the plant, it will be located in an entirely enclosed structure, which will dampen noise from treatment activities. Furthermore, the plant is proposed immediately south of the Highway 62 right of way, and away from sensitive receptors, including hotel guests.

The wastewater treatment plant and its impacts were considered throughout the Initial Study, and no change is required.

Comment 35.GG.

VII. The Project Is Inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subdivision (d)(5) requires that an IS/MND analyze a project’s consistency with applicable land use plans. (See also CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, § XI.) Inconsistencies with plans that were enacted to protect the environment are significant impacts in themselves and can be evidence of other significant impacts. (Id.) Here, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan in numerous ways. Most glaringly, the Project proposes resort development on land designated as Single-Family Residential-Estate, requiring rezoning to re-designate much of the Project site to Tourist Commercial. (IS/MND at 62.) Beyond this, the Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to: 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 CI-8.2 Seek opportunities to improve street or parkway design of scenic corridors that enhances the scenic resources; Policy LU-4.1 Consider and address the potential impacts of new development on surrounding properties; 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; 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; and 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.

Rather than recognize and evaluate impacts associated with these inconsistencies, the IS/MND cherry picks policies from the General Plan and misleadingly claims that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. (IS/MND at 63-67.) This is incorrect and undermines the IS/MND as an informational document in violation of CEQA and state planning and zoning law.

Page 585 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 49 of 64 ends

Response 35.GG.

The commenter’s interpretation of the General Plan is noted. However, the Initial Study did analyze General Plan goals and policies, at pages 62 through 67, and found that the General Plan does contain goals and policies that support the adoption of a General Plan Amendment. As allowed by both State law and the courts, it is not required that a project comply with all General Plan goals and policies when a City considers a General Plan Amendment. The policy decision is ultimately that of the City Council, which will consider the project’s consistency with the General Plan in their public hearing.

Finally, it is unclear what impacts the commenter believes will occur as a result of their list of policies. For example, the site is not included in the City’s Housing Element Inventory for meeting its RHNA, nor has residential development been proposed for the site in decades. In addition, the Initial Study did consider the impacts of the project on surrounding properties, and found that the inclusion of 72% of the site in conservation was a beneficial impact to adjacent development, and that the development of a hotel on 42 acres (or a density of 2.3 units per acre, half of the density of residential development to the west) would provide for economic development, jobs and increased sales tax for the City, while preserving a substantial portion of the site in perpetuity.

Comment 35.HH.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the IS/MND for the Ofland Hotel Twentynine Palms Project. The IS/MND has not adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated impacts to biological resources, scenic vistas, water quality, water supply, 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.

Page 586 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 50 of 64 ends

Response 35.HH.

The City has, and will continue to develop the administrative record for the project in conformance with all laws. The commenter’s assertion that an EIR must be prepared has been addressed in Responses 35.A. through 35.GG. The Initial Study provides a comprehensive analysis of the project’s impacts on the environment, mitigated those impacts where necessary, and assures that the project will have less than significant impacts on the environment.

Finally, the Center has and will continue to be provided notices regarding the project, as it has previously requested.

36. Jordan Sisson
Letter dated June 24, 2025
Comment 36.A.

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

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

In short, based on a review of relevant documents, Local 11 shares many of the concerns regarding the Project that other commenters have raised (e.g., biological impacts, piecemeal review, etc.). For the sake of brevity, we wish to highlight our concerns regarding the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) study, which screened the Project out from further VMT analysis based on the assumption that the Project is a local serving hotel. However, as discussed below, substantial evidence demonstrates that this luxury “glamping” resort does not fall within the definition of local serving, especially when considering how that screening threshold has been applied by various traffic experts and cities, including but not limited to the Project’s traffic consultant in recent cases involving hotels and glamping facilities.

For these reasons (discussed further below), Local 11 respectfully requests that the City reject the Entitlements and IS/MND (collectively “Project Approvals”) until an adequate CEQAcompliant review has been conducted that fully mitigates the Project impacts. The remaining portion of this comment letter highlights why a full VMT analysis is warranted under the circumstances, which references Figures 1 through 17 attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Response 36.A.

The comment provides background information and broad assertions which are addressed individually below.

Page 587 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 51 of 64 ends

Comment 36.B.

I. PROJECT VMTS MAY BE SIGNIFICANT
Here, the IS/MND concludes the Project would not have a significant VMT impact because the Project was deemed to be “local serving” and, therefore, screened out from any further VMT analysis. (Staff Report, PDF p. 94 [IS/MND, p. 88].) According to the Project’s “VMT Screening Study” prepared by Urban Crossroads dated November 7, 2023 (Appendix I of the IS/MND [“APPI”]), the local serving screening threshold is from the “City of Twentynine Palms Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-07 (August 2020)” (“City VMT Guidelines”) and consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018)” (“OPR Technical Advisory”).7 (APP-I, p. 1.) As relevant here, the VMT Screening Study provides a one-page discussion on why the Project is considered local-serving. (Id., at p. 3; see also Exh. A, Figure 1.) As discussed below, Local 11 questions the above conclusion that the Project qualifies for the local serving screening threshold, as well as the presumption that VMT impacts are less than significant, given the following eight issues not addressed in the VMT Screening Study.

1. The City VMT Guidelines Do Not Define Local Serving Hotel, But Substantial Evidence Demonstrates That This Luxury Glamping Project is a Destination/Resort Hotel.

Here, the Project includes 100 “luxury resort” “glamping” units and “lodges” that permit “special events” and utilize “golf cart(s)” to access various recreational amenities (e.g., lounge areas, retail spaces, food and beverage space, outdoor movie screen, playground, swimming pool, spa, etc.). (Staff Report, PDF pp. 2, 7-8, 23-24, 91, 95, 112-113.) The City VMT Guidelines, which were adopted in August 2020 after several public hearings between the Planning Commission (“PC”) and City Council (“CC”). The City’s VMT Guidelines do not define what qualifies as a “local serving hotel,” which staff could not define during the Planning Commission study session held in June 2020. However, City staff noted the joint effort of multiple public agencies that relied on information provided by environmental consulting firm Fehr & Peers, which has provided VMT guidance to numerous local jurisdictions.

For example, Fehr & Peers prepared the City of San Bernardino VMT Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) Guidelines (Aug. 2020), which states some uses may be considered local serving in nature, including “[h]otels (non-destination or resort; no banquet or special event space)[.]”14 (See Exh. A, Figure 2.) Another example is the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (“SBCTA”)— which has 20-plus member agencies including the City—which Fehr & Peers prepared its Recommended TIA Guidelines for VMT and Level of Service (“LOS”) Assessment (Feb. 2020), which similar provides a screen threshold for “[l]ocal-serving hotels (e.g. nondestination hotels)[.]” (See Exh. A, Figure 3.) Numerous lead agencies have used similar definitions of what qualifies as a local serving hotel, which could be presumed to have a less than significant impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary Similarly, other project analyses have been careful to distinguish the typical characteristics of what could be considered a localserving hotel.

As described, the Project is characterized as a luxury resort hotel and, thus, does not fall within the definition of a local serving hotel. Nor does the VMT Screening Study provide evidence to demonstrate that this luxury resort Project is not a destination hotel, which is further supported based on the issues discussed further below.

Page 588 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 52 of 64 ends

Response 36.B.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, it is important to understand that the City is not bound by other jurisdictions’ policies, and developed its VMT policy to tailor to the City’s particular needs and character. The policy conforms to OPR standards, and was adopted based on its applicability in Twentynine Palms. Further, the project is not a resort hotel, but rather a convenient stop for visitors to the National Park. The project has limited services, is geared to independent and not serviced travelers, and will not provide resort amenities beyond a pool and small restaurant.

The City requested a review of the commenter’s letter by the traffic consultant who prepared both the traffic analysis and the VMT analysis for the project. Their comments are attached as Appendix D, and duplicated below. As regards this assertion by the commenter, Urban Crossroads finds:

The proposed Project is a service-oriented land use consisting of small structures, providing hospitality (overnight accommodation) to visitors attracted to nearby regional destinations, and employment options for nearby residents. The Project will also provide limited food services and spa amenities for guests and nearby residents. The Project itself is not a destination or regional attraction for employees or retail shoppers or food enthusiasts, and although it provides “luxury” or “resort-style” camping options, it does not provide the range of on-site activities associated with destination-oriented resort complexes.

As indicated in the Ofland Twentynine Palms PowerPoint presentation to Planning Commission, the project is described as an “Outdoor-Oriented Boutique Hotel that serves as a basecamp for visitors of Twentynine Palms and the Joshua Tree National Park and is centered and designed around helping those reconnect with nature”.

As addressed in the VMT Screening analysis, “It is reasonable to assume that the Project will provide lodging to visitors attracted to the area for nearby destinations and points of interest. The visitors from long distances will require overnight accommodations and this Project will serve that need.” The Project is located west of the Joshua Tree National Park Visitor Center located at 6533 Freedom Wy, Twentynine Palms, and northwest of the Joshua Tree National Park North Entrance Station. Visitors to these attractions essentially pass by the Project site inbound to their destination.

The official National Park Service website for Joshua Tree National Park suggests visitors “enter the park through the North Entrance to save time. There is often a long entrance line at the West Entrance and no line at the North Entrance.” The Project is well-located for visitors to Joshua Tree National Park who wish to use the North Entrance or travelers who wish to visit the Sky’s The Limit Observatory and Nature Center.

Other regional destinations close to the Project include the Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command and Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, as well as Mojave National Preserve, Amboy Crater, and Route 66.

In addition, the Project’s small on-site restaurant will be open to the public and summer passes to the pool will be offered to the public. Other than guests, such amenities will primarily serve nearby residents.

Page 589 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 53 of 64 ends

Comment 36.C.

2. THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER HOW THE SAME TRAFFIC CONSULTANT HAS APPLIED THIS LOCAL SERVING HOTEL SCREENING THRESHOLD TO OTHER HOTEL PROJECTS.

For example, in a December 2024 VMT study considering a mixed-use project in Moreno Valley that included an approximate 58,409 square foot hotel among other uses (e.g., 800 residential dwelling units, office, parks, civic center, restaurant uses, commercial retail), Urban Crossroads distinguished between “locally serving” hotels versus a “resort” or “destination hotel” (See Exh. A, Figure 4). The Urban Crossroad study cited the City of Moreno Valley VMT guidelines, which include a screening threshold for “[l]ocal-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels).” Here, unlike the Moreno project, the Ofland glamping Project is not part of a larger mixed-use development and is admittedly a “luxury resort.” (See Staff Report, p. 2.) Furthermore, according to the IS/MND’s “Traffic Study” (included as Appendix H [“APP-H”]), Urban Crossroads estimated the Project’s trip generation as a “resort hotel” under the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Code 330. (See Exh. A, Figure 5; see also APP-H, PDF p. 69.) Another example is a November 2021 VMT study that considered a 10-cabin luxury “glamping” facility and 54-bed student staff housing project at Lake Arrowhead where Urban Crossroads, after citing OPR’s Technical Advisory, found that development’s glamping facility did not meet the local serving screening criteria because the “lodging uses serve[d] a regional area to local points of interest.” (See Exh. A, Figure 6a.) Here, like the Lake Arrowhead development, the Ofland Project is a “glamping” development (i.e., a much larger one at 100 units) and also serves a regional area, accessing a local point of interest (i.e., Joshua Tree National Park).

Also instructive is a September 2021 VMT study for a mixed-use specific plan in the City of La Quinta, which included a “100-room resort hotel” among other uses (e.g., 758 single-family dwellings, 442 duplex units, a 4-hole practice golf course and driving range, etc.). (See Exh. A, Figure 6b.) Citing the La Quinta VMT guidelines, the Urban Crossroad study noted that the development was not located in a low VMT area (i.e., based on the traffic analysis zone (“TAZ”) area data), the resort hotel did not meet the low vehicle trip screening threshold (i.e., 110 daily trips consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory), nor considered the 100-room “resort” to be a “small local-serving hotel (“non-destination hotel).” (Id.) Here, like the La Quinta development, the Ofland Project is a 100-unit luxury resort development. Additionally, although the VMT Study provides no TAZ data, the Project is not located within or near the City’s downtown area (presumably a lower VMT TAZ area), unlike two recent hotel development projects considered by the City (discussed further in the following section). Furthermore, the Project is estimated to generate 849 total trips (after internal trip credits are accounted for) (see Figure 5), which is more than three times larger than the City’s 250 daily trip screening criteria (a threshold that is more than double what OPR recommends).

This is further substantial evidence that the luxury glamping Project does not fall within the local serving hotel screening definition.

Response 36.C.

The examples cited all occur in other jurisdictions, which certainly have their own VMT policies.

Furthermore, all three projects were part of larger developments, and not freestanding hotels. As described by Urban Crossroads in Appendix D:

Page 590 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 54 of 64 ends

There are various types of luxury or resort hotels. There are some large-scale resort hotels where the amenities become attractions themselves, representing the reason visitors are attracted to the region. For example, visitors might travel to a golf resort for a golfing weekend. Alternatively, luxury resorts may supply comfortable lodging to visitors who choose the area because of other nearby attractions. For the proposed Project, on-site activities are not anticipated to be the draw.

Instead, guests would stay at the Project property to visit nearby attractions.

The commentor references 3 facilities:
1) Town Center at Moreno Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (December 2024), VMT Screening Applied. The hotel is part of a larger mixed-use development including residential, office, and retail land uses. The hotel component is considered locally serving as it provides lodging for visitors that seek services and activities within the local area. Similarly, this Yonder 29 Palms project hotel will provide lodging for visitors to the nearby National Park and other nearby services.
2) Cedar Suites and Willow Creek Housing and Glamping Facility in Lake Arrowhead (November 2021), Full VMT Analysis Performed. The VMT screening analysis states that 75% of the bookings will be associated with conferences, while 25% of the bookings will be for individual travelers. Guests are anticipated to seldom leave the facility. In comparison, Yonder 29 Palms is not a conference hotel.
3) Travertine Specific Plan in La Quinta (September 2021), Full VMT Analysis Performed. The analysis prepared for the Travertine Specific Plan addresses a major mixed-use project consisting of a large-scale planned community of homes and a resort community that includes golf practice / academy and banquet facilities. In that case, the residential land uses were found to have a significant VMT impact, but for the non-residential land uses (including the resort), the project’s effect on VMT was not considered significant because it did not result in a cumulative link-level boundary VMT / service population increase.

The use of the label “resort” does not exclude the property from being locally-serving. For the proposed Project, resort hotel trip rates (ITE Code 330) are used because the project is oriented to a high level of comfort for a camping type experience. For example, most of the rooms have shared bathrooms. Because it’s an enhanced camping experience, characterizing it as a resort type of facility is appropriate in terms of the level of comfort. But on-site activities are not anticipated to be the draw to the region. The property will serve people who are coming to these nearby attractions. If the level of activity were to become the attraction itself, it might not be locallyserving. But if the hotel is providing a high level of comfort for visitors coming to the area, it’s locally-serving.

Comment 36.D.

3. THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER HOW IT HAS APPLIED THE CITY VMT GUIDELINES TO OTHER RECENT PROJECTS, SUCH AS THE WANDER HOTEL AND PROJECT PHOENIX NEAR THE CITY’S DOWNTOWN.

The Project’s IS/MND Traffic Study (i.e., APP-H) lists other cumulative developments, including the 90+ room Wander Hotel project and the 95-room “business hotel” within a larger mixed-use development known as Project Phoenix. (See Exh. A, Figures 7 [APP-H, PDF p. 37].) As shown in Figure 8, the Project Site (shaded in blue) is much further west of the Wander Hotel and Project Phoenix (cumulative projects “TP14” and “TP9”, respectively). As compared to the Project Site location (Figure 9), the locations of the Wander Hotel and Project Phoenix are within or in much closer proximity to the City’s urban downtown core. (approximately five miles away from the

Page 591 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 55 of 64 ends

Project Site. (See Figure 10a [City Land Use Map] & Figure 10b [General Plan Land Use Element, Adopted Specific Plan Map].) As discussed further below, neither of these hotel developments were screened from a VMT analysis as a local serving hotel, even though they are much more in line with the goals and purposes of the City’ VMT Guidelines (e.g., encouraging infill development, preventing sprawl, focusing commercial development near existing urban core). Below draws further comparison between these three hotel developments as it relates to the application of the City’s VMT Guidelines.
a) 93-Room Wander Hotel (Located Just South of the Downtown Area) For the 93-room Wander Hotel development (approximately one mile south of Downtown [3 minute drive]), the City did not utilize a local serving hotel VMT screening threshold but instead conducted a VMT impact analysis based on the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (“SBTAM”). (See Exh. A, Figure 11.) In addition to its proximity to the City’s downtown core, other noteworthy factors of this hotel development include:
• The development site was located on a property zoned Service Commercial (“CS”), which allows for hotels, motels, and resorts with a CUP (see TPMC § 19.16 subds. .020.B & .030). • The development was estimated to generate approximately 6.70 average daily trip (“ADT(s)”) per hotel room based on ITE Code 310 (i.e., Hotel);
• When the Planning Commission approved that development in November 2021, the staff report documents also cited the “infill nature of the project” as a rationale why that hotel project would have a lower VMT as compared to the City and San Bernardino County average; and • The City relied on the San Bernardino County VMT Guidelines for significance thresholds. b) Project Phoenix’s 95-Room Business Hotel (Located in the Downtown Area) For the mixed-use Project Phoenix, which included a 95-room business hotel, the City did not utilize a local serving hotel VMT screening threshold but instead screened the project out due to its location in a “low VMT traffic analysis zone” (“TAZ”) area. (See Exh. A, Figure 12.) Noteworthy factors of this hotel development include:
• The development site was located within the Downtown Specific Plan and zoned Downtown Tradition (“DT”), which allows for hotels, motels, and resorts uses with a CUP (see TPMC §

19.175.010.C);
• Urban Crossroad estimated the development’s trip generation at 4.02 ADTs per room under ITE Code 312 (Business Hotel); and
• When the Planning Commission approved that hotel development in August 2022, the project’s CEQA addendum supported its presumption of less than significant VMT impacts based upon the TAZ information and the development’s “mixed-use nature”, which included an “existing mix of businesses, homes, shopping, and employment opportunities in the immediate area of the [p]roject.”
c) Ofland’s 100-Unit Luxury Glamping Project (Located 5 Miles from Downtown) Here, unlike the Wander Hotel or Project Phoenix, this 100-unit luxury glamping Project is seeking to be screened out via a local serving hotel screening exemption, despite the following relevant factors:

Page 592 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 56 of 64 ends

• Unlike the Wander Hotel and Project Phoenix, the Project Site is substantially further away from the City’s downtown urban core, near the southern edge of the City’s boundary (approximately five miles away). (See Exh. A, Figures 8 through 10b; see also Staff Report, PDF p. 137.) The Project is neither infill by nature (unlike the Wander Hotel) nor part of a large downtown mixed-use project with diverse existing uses in the immediate area (unlike Project Phoenix).
• Unlike the Wander Hotel or Project Phoenix (zoned CS and DT, respective), the Project Site is currently zoned RS-E, which is the most restrictive zone under the “single-family residential district(s)” (i.e., allowing a maximum of 0.4 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of

2.5 acres). (See TPMC § 19.10 subds. .020 & .040.) This density is also equivalent to the second most restrictive zone under the “rural living district(s)” (i.e., RL-2.5 zone). (See TPMC § 19.08 subds. .020 & .040.) Furthermore, neither the RS nor RL districts permit hotels, motels, or resorts; instead, these districts allow relatively minor lodging uses (e.g., host-home, bed and breakfast, vacation home rental, etc.). (See TPMC §§ 19.08.030 [RL districts],

19.10.030 [RS districts].)
• Unlike a more generic hotel room in Wander Hotel (i.e., ITE Code 310 generating 6.70 ADTs per room) or a business room in Project Phoenix (i.e., ITE Code 312 generating 4.02 ADTs per room), the Traffic Study estimates the 100 glamping units will generate a higher 7.87 ADTs per room under ITE Code 330 (i.e., Resort Hotel) (before internal trip credits), which is in addition to the trips generated by the food and beverage component of the Project. (See Exh.

A, Figure 5.) Furthermore, it seems that, according to the ITE descriptions, a “primary difference” between a resort hotel (ITE Code 330) and a regular hotel (ITE Code 310) is that a “resort hotel caters to the tourist and vacation industry[,]” which is further evidence that the luxury glamping Project is not local serving.
• Unlike the Wander Hotel, the Project’s VMT Study is not looking at relevant provisions of the San Bernardino County TIS Guidelines, which in turn references the SBCTA that has clarified local serving hotels as “non-destination hotels” and similar interpretations by other agencies. (See Figures 2 & 3.)
• Unlike the Wander Hotel, the Project’s VMT Screening Study provides no SBTAM modeling information or provides any explanation why such evidence-based data could not be provided.

Similarly, unlike Project Phoenix, the Project’s VMT Screening Study does not include any TAZ information or explain why such data could not be provided.

In light of the above, there is substantial evidence that exempting this luxury glamping Project from a full VMT analysis is inconsistent with the City’s application of its VMT Guidelines. This is further substantial evidence that the local serving hotel screening threshold does not apply under the circumstances of this Project.

Response 36.D.

The commenter’s comparisons are noted, but appear to ignore the attraction that is Joshua Tree National Park. The proposed project is geared to the tourist who is visiting the Park, which as described in Response 36.B, is a major attraction in the area. Neither the Initial Study nor the traffic and VMT analyses claim that the attraction for the project will be either the City’s downtown, or the business community.

Furthermore, as stated by Urban Crossroads (Appendix D):

There are two examples outlined in the comment above, in addition to the proposed Project:

Page 593 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 57 of 64 ends

1) Although a full VMT analysis was performed for the Wander Hotel project cited above, the VMT analysis reinforced the finding that the hotel did not generate a significant VMT impact.

VMT guidelines regarding the screening of projects do not preclude the preparation of full analyses, which are prepared on a case-by-case basis. Unlike the Wander Hotel, the proposed Project explicitly serves as a “basecamp for visitors of Twentynine Palms and the Joshua Tree National Park”.
2) The Project Phoenix hotel cited above is a business hotel, which provides lodging to visitors who travel for work, whereas the proposed Project serves people otherwise traveling for recreation / pleasure to & from nearby regional attractions. Although these two projects serve different clientele, in both cases the local-serving hotel screening threshold directly applies to the proposed use. The VMT technical memorandum prepared for the proposed Project explicitly describes the Project as a “non-destination hotel”, serving visitors of Twentynine Palms and the Joshua Tree National Park.

Comment 36.E.

4. OPR DOES NOT SET ANY SCREENING THRESHOLD FOR LOCAL SERVING HOTELS, BUT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN LOCAL SERVING VERSUS REGIONAL SERVING RETAIL.

The Project’s VMT Screening Study cites OPR’s Technical Advisory. (See APP-I, PDF p. 2.) While OPR’s Technical Advisory does not address local serving hotels, it does distinguish between “local serving” and “regional-serving” retail, whereby the former can sometimes result in shorter trips (i.e., presumed to have less than significant impacts) and the latter may result in longer trips (i.e., presumed to have significant impacts). (See Exh. A, Figure 13a.) This language was cited by Urban Crossroads in the above-referenced Lake Arrowhead glamping project. (see Figure 6.) Here, no quantified evidence or market study is presented to demonstrate that the luxury glamping resort Project would reduce trip duration compared to existing overnight accommodations.

Additionally, there appear to be numerous affordable accommodations along 29 Palms Highway..

Unlike more affordable hotel accommodations, staying at luxury resorts tends to be a discretionary decision by the hotel guest that would induce more VMTs rather than replace existing ones (similar to decisions to shop at regional shopping centers or attend entertainment centers). This is additional substantial evidence that the Project’s VMTs are not less than significant.

Response 36.E.

The commenter appears to compare apples and oranges. Retail development does not compare to hotel development, nor can retail trips be compared to hotel trips. Retail centers of any type attract trips throughout the day in a pattern that is geared to customers’ needs. Hotel trips, on the other hand, focus on guests’ daily activities, and are much more similar to residential patterns than retail patterns. As described in Appendix D:

The Project is not a destination or regional attraction for employees or retail shoppers or food enthusiasts, and although it provides “luxury” or “resort-style” camping options, it does not provide the range of on-site activities associated with destination-oriented resort complexes.

As indicated in the Ofland Twentynine Palms PowerPoint presentation to Planning Commission, the project is described as an “Outdoor-Oriented Boutique Hotel that serves as a basecamp for

Page 594 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 58 of 64 ends

visitors of Twentynine Palms and the Joshua Tree National Park”. Visitors to these attractions essentially pass by the Project site inbound to their destination. According to the Desert Sun article How many visitors crowded into Joshua Tree National Park last year? 3.2 million (January 30, 2024), a record-breaking 3.2 million people visited Joshua Tree National Park in 2023.

According to the National Park Service website (nps.gov/jotr) for Joshua Tree National Park, there are no hotels within the park and campgrounds are usually full on weekends October through May, and on weekdays in spring.

The provision of different lodging experiences at a variety of price points nearby Joshua Tree National Park supports the National Park Service goal of “ensuring that every visitor has the chance to explore and connect with the incredible, iconic spaces of our national parks” (nps.gov).

The Project serves a particular need for visitors who lack camping equipment and want a high level of comfort in a camping-type experience while visiting the regional attractions which brought them to the area.

Comment 36.F.

5. THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE SITE FURTHER SUGGESTS THE PROJECT IS REGIONAL SERVING RATHER THAN LOCAL SERVING.

While the Code does not define “local serving” hotels, the Project includes a rezone that serves Commercial Tourism, as opposed to local serving or general commercial uses. Chapter 19.16 of the Code provides various commercial districts, including Office Commercial (“CO”), General Commercial (“CG”), Neighborhood Commercial (“CN”), and Tourist Commercial (“CT”). (TPMC §

19.16.020.) While hotels/motels are included in both CG and CT, CT uses (e.g., resorts, RV parks, hotels/motels, entertainment facilities, etc.) are “primarily intended to serve visitors of the Joshua Tree National Park and the Marine Corps Base.” (Id.., subd. D.) Here, the Project includes a rezone to this CT designation, which is further evidence that the Project’s luxury resort is more regional- serving rather than a local-serving hotel.

Response 36.F.

As clearly stated in the Initial Study, the traffic and VMT studies and all project materials, the project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to designate 42 acres as Tourist Commercial and 110 acres as Open Space for permanent conservation. Again, the commenter appears to be unfamiliar with both the National Park and the MCGACC, both of which are located within the City, and attract high visitation rates annually (also see Response 36.E.). Appendix D also states:

As indicated in the VMT Screening analysis, the Project will provide lodging to visitors attracted to the area for nearby destinations and points of interest. The visitors from long distances will require overnight accommodations and this Project will serve that need. Visitors to the Joshua Tree National Park Visitor Center and Joshua Tree National Park North Entrance Station are coming to access these attractions and pass by the Project site inbound to their destination.

Page 595 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 59 of 64 ends

Comment 36.G.

6. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY’S URBAN CORE ON A NON-INFILL SITE, WHICH APPEARS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE VMT SCREENING THRESHOLDS.

As previously mentioned, during the adoption of the City’s VMT Guidelines, staff repeatedly stressed the pros and cons of the proposed VMT methodology, including the intent of streamlining infill development in the urban core, as well as avoiding urban sprawl. Here, however, the Project is not near the urban core of the City, but rather along its periphery. (See Exh. A, Figures 8 and

9.) It appears that applying the local serving hotel screening threshold to the Project would not achieve the relevant aim of the City’s VMT Guidelines (e.g., streamlining urban and infill commercial projects).

Response 36.G.

The commenter’s opinion is noted. However:

The Project Type screening criteria does not specify that it only applies to infill / downtown land uses. It is appropriate to apply the Project Type screening criteria when it is reasonable to assume that the project will serve local land uses and/or activities and in this case, the provision of accommodations near an existing destination fulfills that purpose.

Comment 36.H.

7. CALTRANS ALSO URGED THE CITY TO CONDUCT A VMT ANALYSIS.

Here, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) submitted comments on the IS/MND, which included recommendations that a more thorough VMT analysis be provided, noting that high-end glamping may generate new trips rather than substitute for existing travel demand. (See Exh. A, Figure 14.) In response, the IS/MND claims the Project was screened out based on practice purportedly “encouraged by OPR in order to streamline VMT analysis when appropriate and encourage projects that reduce VMT.” (Id.) However, as discussed above, OPR does not provide any recommendation on local-serving hotels. Additionally, no objective, quantifiable evidence is provided to show that the Project would reduce overall VMTs. The VMT Screening Study makes conclusory claims (see Figure 1) rather than giving data-backed documentation (e.g., SBTAM modeling, TAZ information). For all the reasons discussed above, there is substantial evidence that demonstrates the Project is a regional-serving, destination/resort hotel rather than a local-serving one. Thus, the response to this Caltrans comment is inadequate.

Response 36.H.

As it relates to Caltrans’ comment letter, please see Response 29.F. Furthermore, as provided in Appendix D:

Page 596 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 60 of 64 ends

or “resort-style” camping options, it does not provide the range of on-site activities associated with destination-oriented resort complexes.

The statement that high-end glamping may generate new trips rather than substitute for existing travel demand is based on an assumption that the resort would be the reason for traveling to the area, rather than a service to lodge visitors who are attracted to the nearby National Park.

The OPR guidance is general and intended to allow local jurisdictions to implement VMT guidelines that are appropriate for local conditions: “Of land use projects, residential, office, and retail projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT. For that reason, OPR recommends the quantified thresholds described above for purposes of analysis and mitigation. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types.”
2 (emphasis added). The Advisory does not define land uses beyond general terms such as residential, retail or office. That was not its intent. Rather, as made clear in the Advisory, beyond providing a general framework for consideration and evaluation, the Advisory was intended to support localized guidelines, not create them. The City has developed its own policy, which was correctly used to determine that the project would have a less than significant VMT impact. No change to the Initial Study or the VMT analysis is required.

Comment 36.I.

8. Additional Mitigation Should Be Considered
Here, the Project is a luxury glamping resort Project, which does not fall within the definition of a local serving hotel. A complete VMT analysis is warranted, including the consideration of all feasible mitigation measures, including but not limited to transportation demand management (“TDM”) measures urged by OPR (see Exh. A, Figure 13b), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) (id., Figure 15 [measures T-1 through T-50]), and the County of San Bernardino (referencing SBCTA Guidelines that promote CAPCOA TDM measures). So too, the City should consider relevant policies under the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”), particularly TDM policies/strategies under the RTP/SCS Mobility goals (see Figure 16), and project-level mitigation measures identified under SCAG’s RTP/SCS Program EIR that minimize traffic impacts and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts related to mobile emissions (Figure 17).

Response 36.I.

Mitigation is required if an impact is significant. As detailed in Responses 36.B. through 36.H., the Initial Study correctly analyzed VMT impacts of the project, and found them to be less than significant. As a result, mitigation is not required. Furthermore, the project will provide housing for 25 of its employees, will be required to provide bicycle parking, and will provide an internal system of paths for pedestrian, bicycle and NEV use which will substantially reduce internal vehicular trips. These project features are already provided in the project design, and are not required as mitigation.
2 OPR Technical Advisory, page 17.

Page 597 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 61 of 64 ends

Comment 36.J.

II. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Local 11 thanks the City for the opportunity to provide these comments. As discussed above, the Project does not appear to fall within the local serving hotel screening threshold and, thus, warrants a full VMT analysis, including mitigation. Local 11 respectfully requests that the City deny the Project Approvals until the issues discussed above, as well as other issues raised by other commenters, are addressed in a CEQA-compliant review.

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 of the Project Approvals, as required under other applicable law. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21092.2, 21167(f); Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail and inform us of any fees associated with this request.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter be placed in the Project’s administrative record.

Response 36.J.

As described in Responses 36.B. through 36.I., the Initial Study correctly analyzed VMT impacts, and found that the project would have less than significant impacts on VMT, consistent with the City’s adopted policy. A full VMT analysis is not required, as summarize in Appendix D:

In conclusion, the proposed Project is a service-oriented land use consisting of small structures, providing hospitality (overnight accommodation) to visitors attracted to nearby regional destinations, and employment options for nearby residents. As indicated in the Ofland Twentynine Palms PowerPoint presentation to Planning Commission, the project is described as an “OutdoorOriented Boutique Hotel that serves as a basecamp for visitors of Twentynine Palms and the Joshua Tree National Park”.

This luxury resort will supply comfortable lodging to visitors who choose the area because of other nearby attractions. Visitors to these nearby attractions essentially pass by the Project site inbound to their destination.

The Project itself is not a destination or regional attraction for employees or retail shoppers or food enthusiasts, and although it provides “luxury” or “resort-style” camping options, it does not provide the range of on-site activities associated with destination-oriented resort complexes. In addition, the Project’s small on-site restaurant will be open to the public and summer passes to the pool will be offered to the public. Other than guests, such amenities will primarily serve nearby residents. VMT screening is appropriate and no further VMT analysis is necessary.

The commenter’s request for notices is noted, and they have been added to the City’s list for the project.

Page 598 of 1452 ends

Project 24001838
Supplemental Response to Comments

Page 62 of 64 ends

Appendix B
Comment Letters

Page 599 of 1452 ends

1 of 3
Monday, June 23, 2025 at 8:04:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Subject: Subject: FW: COMMENTS Ofland Notice of Intent to adopt NMD Date: Monday, June 23, 2025 at 7:54:53AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
To: Nicole Criste <[email protected]>, Luke Searcy <[email protected]> CC: Vickie Bridenstine <[email protected]>, Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]> Attachments: Attachments: Attachments: MBCA Comments Ofland Hotel FINAL.pdf, MBCA Comments Ofland Hotel FINAL.pdf FYI
From: Steve Bardwell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 3:09 PM
To: Keith Gardner <[email protected]>
Cc: Jessica Cure <[email protected]>; Alexander Garcia <[email protected]>; Jim Krushat <[email protected]>; Leslie Paahana <[email protected]>; Max Walker <[email protected]>; Stone James <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Subject: COMMENTS Ofland NoXce of Intent to adopt NMD CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CLICK LINKS

OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENT IS SAFE. CAUTION
Dear Mr. Gardner,
Please find attached MBCA’s comments on the proposed adoption of the Ofland Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The lack of inclusion of our letter was brought to our attention after the release of the agenda packet for the hearing. I have copied members of the Planning Commission on this email so they may be made aware of our comments on this important project.

You will see that this letter was sent by the deadline, however the email address was incorrectly spelled! (Grrr! blame it on a foggy COVID brain which is at last beginning to clear!).

Thank you for your consideration.

Steve Bardwell
President, MBCA
www.mbconservation.org
[email protected]

Page 600 of 1452 ends

2 of 3
Begin forwarded message:

From: Steve Bardwell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: COMMENTS Ofland Notice of Internet to adopt NMD Date: June 2, 2025 at 4:35:53 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: Indian Cove <[email protected]>
Dear Mr.Gardner,
Would you please acknowledge receipt of our comments?
Thank you!
Steve
Steve Bardwell
President, MBCA
www.mbconservation.org
[email protected]
On Jun 2, 2025, at 4:29 PM, Steve Bardwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Gardner,
Please find attached our substantive comments on the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ofland development.

Thank you for your consideration.
<MBCA Comments Ofland Hotel FINAL.pdf>
Regards,
Steve
Steve Bardwell
President, MBCA
www.mbconservation.org
[email protected]

Page 601 of 1452 ends

3 of 3
Begin forwarded message:

From: Steve Bardwell <[email protected]>
Subject: COMMENTS Ofland Notice of Internet to adopt NMD Date: June 2, 2025 at 4:29:02 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: Indian Cove <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Gardner,
Please find attached our substantive comments on the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ofland development.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Steve
Steve Bardwell
President, MBCA
www.mbconservation.org
[email protected]

Page 602 of 1452 ends

1 | Page
Post Office Box 24
Joshua Tree, CA 92252
www.mbconservation.org
June 2, 2025
Keith Gardner
City of Twentynine Palms
Planning Department Email [email protected]
Re: 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 Mr. Gardner,
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.

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.

Page 603 of 1452 ends

2 | Page
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.

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 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.

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).

Page 604 of 1452 ends

3 | Page
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.

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”)

Page 605 of 1452 ends

4 | Page
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 ZOI (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.

Figure 2: Exhibit CO-3 Special Status Biological Resources

4. 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 Station

Page 606 of 1452 ends

5 | Page
China 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 offinstallation 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)

Figure 3: Mojave Desert Sentinel Landscapes
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.

Page 607 of 1452 ends

6 | Page
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.

5. 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 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.

Figure 4: Viewshed of the Proposed Ofland Hotel Project Methodology for Viewshed Calculation of the Proposed Ofland Hotel Project

Page 608 of 1452 ends

7 | Page
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.

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.

Image 5: Project Site Plan
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

Page 609 of 1452 ends

8 | Page
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.

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.

Page 610 of 1452 ends

9 | Page
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.

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.

Page 611 of 1452 ends

10 | Page
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).

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)

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.

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.

Page 612 of 1452 ends

11 | Page
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.

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.

Regards,
Pat Flanagan, board member
Steve Bardwell, President
Morongo Basin Conservation Association

Page 613 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Sent via email and FedEx
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”). 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.

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

Page 614 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 2 ends

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.

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.)

Page 615 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 3 ends

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).)

Page 616 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 4 ends

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’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[.]”].)
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

Page 617 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 5 ends

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”].) 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.)
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.)

Page 618 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 6 ends

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 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 desert-dwelling 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.”

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

Page 619 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 7 ends

plainly state that a Project can be expected to have significant impacts to biological resources if the Project has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, subd. IV(a); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(1) [when performing an initial study, agencies shall make a mandatory finding of significance where a proposed project has the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a listed species], California Fish and Game Code § 2085 [CESA candidate species treated like threatened or endangered species].) The following subsections identify deficiencies with the MND’s analysis of the many special-status species that may occur on or utilize the Project area.
a. Desert Tortoise
The Mojave Desert Tortoise is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). (55 Fed. Reg. 12178 12191, 14 CCR § 670.5.) Importantly, on June 13, 2025, shortly after the end of the review period for this Project, the California Fish and Game Commission proposed changing the regulatory language implementing CESA to uplist the Mojave Desert Tortoise from threatened to endangered. (California Fish and Game Commission, 2025.) This uplisting was based on years of public process and scientific review by the California Fish and Game Commission dating back to 2020. The tortoise has been the official State Reptile since 1972. (Assembly Bill 1089, Chapter 683, 1972.) Consequently, the Project’s impacts to the desert tortoise must be considered significant and fully evaluated and disclosed to the public. (Nelson v. Cnty. of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 284 [information before County showing that mining exploration project could significantly impact plant and animal life in the area meets the fair argument test to require preparation of an EIR].) Proper assessment and mitigation is especially crucial, considering that the population within the Western Mojave Recovery Unit (which includes the Project area) declined by approximately 50% from 2004 to 2014. (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2022.) Due to this alarming and rapid population decrease, particular effort must be taken to fully analyze and mitigate any potential impacts to this highly sensitive species.

Page 620 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 8 ends

utilized by desert tortoises.” (IS/MND at 30.) Despite this overwhelming evidence of the tortoise’s presence, as noted by CDFW, the only biological survey of the Project area over a year and a half ago failed to follow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey guidance, and tortoises could have easily moved into the Project area since that survey. (See CDFW Comment at 2.) The IS/MND assumes that any impacts will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures outlined in Bio-1, requiring additional surveys in the future. (IS/MND at 29.) This is insufficient. Courts have repeatedly found that surveys play a critical role in an agency’s baseline investigation: a crucial first step before adequately assessing a Project’s potential impacts. (See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1398 [surveys are “often the sole evidence relied on by lead agencies in evaluating a project's biological impacts”]; see also N. Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. Bd. Dir. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 644-45 [baseline upheld when supported by studies that “sample[d] various habitats, fish communities, and lifestages” near the project.].) In other words, the City cannot properly assess impacts on tortoises without knowing how many are present in the first place. Bio-1 improperly defers these crucial surveys without explaining why it would be infeasible to complete them before approving the Project in violation of CEQA’s informational disclosure requirements.

Page 621 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 9 ends

• Create a detailed raven plan that effectively discourages ravens from being drawn to the site during proposed project implementation as well as during the restoration efforts and fencing removal;
• Mitigate “take” that may occur from the nearly 900 daily car trips created by the project. • Mitigate “take” that may occur from ongoing hotel activities, such as guest interference with tortoise movement and tortoises moving underneath guests’ vehicles in the 132 proposed parking spots.
b. Burrowing Owl
i. Western Burrowing Owls are facing significant threats to their longterm survival in the Mojave desert region.

However, burrowing owls have been eliminated or nearly wiped out as a breeding species from about one-third of their former California range (DeSante & Ruhlen, 1995; Barclay, 1999; Center for Biological Diversity, et al. Listing Petition, 2024), currently remaining most abundant in the Imperial Valley and parts of the Central Valley. (DeSante & Ruhlen, 1995.) The factors affecting California’s burrowing owls today include loss of nesting and foraging habitat to urbanization; nest destruction during urban development and agricultural activities by surface disturbances such as disking, blading, grading, and over covering. (Rosenberg et al., 1998a; Desmond et al., 2000; Haug and Oliphant, 1987; Haug et al., 1993); pesticide use (Rosenberg and Haley, 2003; James et al., 1990; Baril, 1993; Hjertaas, 1997; Sheffield, 1997b); burrowing rodent elimination (Anderson et al., 2001; Gordon, 1996); attempted relocation to accommodate urban development, which rarely results in successful breeding and forces remaining owls onto smaller patches of habitat (Trulio, 1997; Delevoryas, 1997; Harris, 1987); predation of young birds by non-native species (Green and Anthony, 1989); and mortality due to vehicle collisions and other anthropogenic causes. Protecting burrowing owls and their habitat from continued destruction and habitat loss is therefore of utmost importance to the species’ persistence in California.

Page 622 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 10 ends

alarming rate as the communities surrounding the Project area, including Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree, and Yucca Valley intensify development. This proposed Project will continue to degrade and eliminate habitat for the burrowing owl in this region. ii. The analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to burrowing owls and proposed mitigation measures are wholly inadequate.

On October 10, 2024, CDFW advanced the Western Burrowing Owl to candidacy under CESA, protecting these owls from harm during the ongoing review process. (California Fish and Game Commission, 2024.) Consequently, the Project’s impacts to the Western Burrowing Owl must be considered significant and fully evaluated and disclosed to the public.

20.) In its comment to the MND, CDFW also recommended that the Project conduct a habitat assessment consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. (CDFW Comment at 5.)
Nevertheless, the IS/MND yet again fails to establish an adequate baseline by failing to complete necessary burrowing owl surveys. CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report provides that once a qualified biologist has confirmed burrowing owl habitat on the site, a qualified biologist must conduct burrowing owl surveys according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. A qualified biologist must conduct breeding season surveys for nesting burrowing owls during nesting season (February 1 to August 31) and may also conduct surveys for wintering burrowing owls if the construction starts during the wintering season (September 1 to January 31). However, nonbreeding season surveys do not substitute for breeding season surveys, as results are typically inconclusive. The habitat assessment and surveys must encompass the Project site and a sufficient buffer zone to detect owls nearby that may be impacted, up to 500 meters (1,640 feet) around the Project site.

Page 623 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 11 ends

year of Project construction, as conditions may change annually and suitable refugia for burrowing owl, such as small mammal burrows, can be created within a few hours or days.

Unfortunately, Bio-3, the MND’s proposed mitigation measure for burrowing owls, falls far short of these recommendations. (IS/MND at 33.) For example, while both the surveying biologist and CDFW recommended both pre-construction surveys and burrow searches, Bio-3 only commits the Developer to the former. Neither the IS/MND nor the biological survey make clear whether a Qualified Avian Biologist performed the biological assessment, as recommended by CDFW. (CDFW Comments at 5.) Additionally, while Bio-3 proposes pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls, Bio-3 does not require those surveys to be performed by a Qualified Avian Biologist. Bio-3 also does not require a survey during breeding season, failing to provide an adequate baseline to assess impacts to burrowing owls.
c. American Badger
The IS/MND also fails to adequately disclose, analyze, or mitigate impacts to American badgers, despite the Project’s location in suitable American badger habitat. (App. B at 14.) As with the tortoise, the last survey was conducted nearly a year and a half ago. This is inadequate:
as CDFW noted, American badgers can quickly dig new dens every night. Furthermore, as recent as December 2023, a research grade observation of an American badger was posted on iNaturalist in the Indian Cove area near the Project site. (iNaturalist 2023.) Given that suitable American badger habitat occurs in and near the Project area, a targeted survey of American badger occurrence—including unoccupied dens—must be conducted to establish an adequate baseline. Permanent destruction and alteration of suitable American badger habitat, as well as impacts to habitat connectivity (discussed in detail below) would result from the proposed Project.

Page 624 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 12 ends

d. Migratory Birds
The IS/MND also fails to adequately assess the Project’s impacts on migratory birds. The Project area provides habitat for many special status birds, and according to the eBird database, the Project area provides habitat for the golden eagle, prairie falcon, and loggerhead shrike, with photos documenting each of these species near the project area. (eBird, 2025.) Collisions with buildings are one of the primary sources of mortality for birds. (Basilio et al., 2020; Klem, 2009.) Recent studies have shown that birds are experiencing significant declines, with estimates indicating losses of up to three billion birds in the past half-century. (Rosenberg et al., 2019.) Considering that the Project area provides habitat for numerous specialstatus birds, this potential impact must be analyzed and mitigated in a full EIR. e. Other Wildlife and Flora
The IS/MND inexplicably states that only six special status wildlife species may occur within the Project area. (IS/MND at 29.) This blatantly contradicts the biological survey, which found that sixteen special status wildlife species may use the Project area. (Appendix B at 11-

14.) In fact, the IS/MND fails to even mention the monarch butterfly (may pass through the Project site); the golden eagle (may forage onsite); the prairie falcon (may forage onsite); Bendire’s thrasher (may forage onsite); pocketed free-tailed bat (moderate potential to occur); and big free-tailed bat (moderate potential to occur) (Appendix B at 11-14), let alone provide any factual basis for its conclusion that the Project will result in less than significant impacts to these species. (IS/MND at 29-31.) As a result, the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and the City must prepare a full EIR to assess and mitigate impacts to these special-status species.

3. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Assess the Project’s Impacts on Wildlife Connectivity.
a. The Project Is Located in a Wildlife Corridor.

The IS/MND recognizes that the Project lies within a wildlife corridor: the Joshua TreeTwentynine Palms Connection, which connects the Joshua Tree National Park to large tracts of undeveloped land to the north of Route 62, including the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base. (IS/MND at 32.) This corridor also connects the higher-elevation pinyon-juniper and Joshua tree ecosystems within Joshua Tree National Park to the lower elevation creosote and desert wash ecosystems (Penrod, 2008) and more broadly connects the Mojave desert to the Sonoran desert. (Ibid.) The Project area constitutes about one-third of the width of one of the habitat corridors in

Page 625 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 13 ends

the Joshua Tree-Twentynine Palms Connection, meaning that the development of the parcel could have serious ramifications for the corridor’s ability to function as a throughway for wildlife. In its General Plan, the City even made it a goal to preserve the Joshua Tree-Twentynine Palms connection by implementing eleven different policies. (General Plan CO-29-30.) This wildlife corridor is especially critical because much of the land on the northern border of Joshua Tree National Park is interrupted by the urban areas of Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms, with the Project site providing an undeveloped area for wildlife movement. The Global Human Footprint Index, which is maintained by Columbia University and uses many factors to determine how substantially habitat is impacted by humans, shows that the Project area is at the center of the least developed area between these urban areas, just half a mile from Joshua Tree National Park. (Columbia University, 2024.) Figure 1: Project area shown by the circle. The redder the area means the less human impact.

The blue area on the left is Yucca Valley and the City of Joshua Tree, whereas the blue on the right is Twentynine Palms. The orange area to the south is Joshua Tree National Park. b. Wildlife Corridors Are Critical for Species’ Survival.

Page 626 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 14 ends

2004.) Development can diminish the quality of wildlife corridors by increasing edge effects and fragmenting existing habitat, creating barriers to wildlife movement, and reducing wildlife’s resilience to climate change.

Page 627 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 15 ends

et al., 2010; Kantola et al., 2019; Loss et al., 2014), and alter pollinator behavior and degrade habitats. (Aguilar et al., 2008; Goverde et al., 2002; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000.) Third, it is widely recognized that the continuing fragmentation of habitat by humans threatens biodiversity and diminishes our (humans, plants, and animals) ability to adapt to climate change. In a report for the International Union for Conservation of Nature, worldrenowned scientists from around the world stated that “[s]cience overwhelmingly shows that interconnected protected areas and other areas for biological diversity conservation are much more effective than disconnected areas in human-dominated systems, especially in the face of climate change” and “[i]t is imperative that the world moves toward a coherent global approach for ecological connectivity conservation, and begins to measure and monitor the effectiveness of efforts to protect connectivity and thereby achieve functional ecological networks.” (Hilty et al., 2020.)
c. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Assess and Mitigate Impacts on Wildlife Connectivity.

Despite the Project site falling in this critical corridor, the IS/MND concludes that the Project’s impacts would be less than significant because some open space will surround the hotel. This conclusion utterly lacks any factual basis. Instead, the IS/MND itself reveals the importance of the Project area to wildlife: it admits that the Project area lies “within a designated wildlife linkage area”; that the limited, one-day biological assessment found a moderate potential for myriad listed species inhabiting the Project area, including the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, San Diego pocket mouse, loggerhead shrike, seven special-status bat species, and five specialstatus plant species; and that the Project lies nearly adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park. (IS/MND at 32, 44; Appendix B at 8-14.) The factors unequivocally support a fair argument that the Project area is important for habitat connectivity and cut against the MND’s unsupported conclusion that a buffer around the development within the Project area will mitigate any degradation of the parcel’s quality as a habitat corridor caused by the Project. (IS/MND at 32.) Critically, the IS/MND does not even attempt to compare the quality of the post-development habitat for migrating wildlife to the baseline condition of the pre-development habitat. (IS/MND at 32.)
In sum, the proposed Project would further fragment habitat in the Joshua TreeTwentynine Palms wildlife corridor by destroying open space and increasing traffic in an already-constrained linkage, which will fortify existing barriers to movement, and diminish connectivity. The proposed Project would result in habitat fragmentation and increased edge effects by developing a mostly intact native habitat and increasing human presence in this key wildlife corridor, necessitating a full EIR.

Page 628 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 16 ends

4. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Noise Impacts on Wildlife.

The IS/MND entirely fails to consider the effects that noise from the Project and its associated construction will have on wildlife. Many studies demonstrate that high levels of anthropogenic noise harm wildlife and plants across diverse taxa. For example, field observations and controlled laboratory experiments have shown that traffic noise can significantly degrade habitat value for migrating songbirds. (Ware et al., 2015.) Subjects exposed to 55 and 61 dBA (simulated traffic noise) exhibited decreased feeding behavior and duration, as well as increased vigilance behavior. (Ware et al. 2015.) Such behavioral shifts increase the risk of starvation, thus decreasing survival rates. Another study found a 28% decrease in bird abundance in areas when traffic noise was present compared to when there was no traffic noise. (McClure et al., 2013.)
Another study found noise pollution above 58 dBA resulted in reduced foraging efficiency in pallid bats likely because noise disrupted their hearing while they were hunting. (Bunkley & Barber, 2015.) This species, as noted in the biological survey, is moderately likely to occur in the Project area. (Appendix B at 12.) Another study found that bats that rely on hearing to forage abandon foraging efforts in noisy areas, decreasing foraging efficiency. (Luo et al., 2015.) Reduced foraging efficiency could lead to reduced fitness and survival, which could have impacts at the individual, population, and ecosystem level. This suggests that noise from the Project could have significant adverse impacts on the seven bat species that are moderately likely to use the Project site, all of which rely on auditory cues and echolocation for foraging. (Appendix B at 12-14.)
Chronic or long-term noise pollution can also impair foraging and anti-predator behavior, reproductive success, density, and community structure across diverse taxa. (Barber et al., 2010; Francis & Barber, 2013; Habib et al., 2007.) Even plants can be impacted by chronic noise pollution. In a study conducted in New Mexico, continuous noise from natural gas wells was found to reduce tree seedling recruitment and evenness, likely due to noise altering the movement and behavior of seed-dispersing and pollinating wildlife. (Phillips et al., 2021.) This indicates that the numerous special-status and sensitive plants that may be located in and near the Project area could be significantly adversely impacted by the Project.

Page 629 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 17 ends

and these guests will add noise to the area when using the swimming pool, conversing, using their cars, and spending time outside. The Project even proposes music playing outside from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m (IS/MND at 72, 80) and allows “outdoors activities” in the Open Space, leaving it ambiguous as to what those activities may be and how much noise they will produce. (IS/MND at 80.)
All this supports a fair argument that the Project could have significant adverse impacts on special-status and sensitive species in and near the Project area. The City must consider and mitigate this impact in a full EIR.

5. Light Pollution and Other Edge Effects of Development Will Negatively Impact Wildlife.

The Project also fails to adequate assess the impacts of light pollution on biological resources through overlooking interior lighting, the movie theater, traffic, and pool lights. Light pollution affects many nocturnal species, including bats, insects, and terrestrial mammals, among others. Impacts of light pollution are varied, and different species respond to artificial light at night in different ways. Individual impacts of light pollution include numerous physiological (e.g. hormone levels) and behavioral changes (e.g. shifts in activity patterns) that can impact an animal’s ability to survive and thrive in its environment. (Aulsebrook et al., 2020; Dominoni, 2015; Gaston et al., 2014; Kempenaers et al., 2010.) These individual impacts cascade into ecological changes such as phenological mismatches and shifts in predation patterns that can disrupt population and ecosystem-level dynamics, including mortality, fecundity, and community productivity, among others. (Ditmer et al., 2021; Gaston et al., 2013; Sanders et al., 2020.) The City must provide a full analysis of light pollution in an EIR and mitigate accordingly.

B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Adverse Aesthetic Impacts.

CEQA requires meaningful evaluation of whether a project may result in significant aesthetic impacts, particularly when, as here, the Project is located near a nationally significant

Page 630 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 18 ends

resource—Joshua Tree National Park—and mountain landscapes identified as scenic resources in the City’s General Plan. (IS/MND at 17.) The Project site itself is an undeveloped parcel with elevated terrain and expansive, unobstructed views of surrounding mountain ranges and desert vistas—conditions that make it uniquely visually sensitive. The IS/MND’s assessment is inadequate for several reasons.

Second, rather than providing a substantive analysis of potential adverse aesthetic impacts, the IS/MND simply asserts that views from surrounding roads “will not be impacted,” or “will remain unobstructed,” and that development “will not dominate the landscape” due to building height, setbacks, and site layout. (IS/MND at 17–18). However, the conclusions are unsubstantiated. The IS/MND does not provide any viewshed analysis or any visual modeling to evaluate actual visibility from key public viewpoints, including Joshua Tree National Park, SR62 (a scenic highway), or surrounding ridgelines and turnouts. It also fails to acknowledge that even low-profile, single-story development can significantly degrade the visual character of an undeveloped desert viewshed—particularly in flat, open terrain with minimal vertical structures.

Third, the IS/MND utterly overlooks a crucial aesthetic impact: the view from Joshua Tree National Park and its foothills, which the Project’s many buildings, swimming pools, movie theater, and more will undoubtedly impact. Instead, the IS/MND considers only the view of the desert landscape from points near the Project site. (See IS/MND at 17.) This paints only half the picture: the Joshua Tree National Park border lies just half a mile from the Project site (See Agenda Packet at 251), and the IS/MND even admits that scenic resources delineated in the General Plan include the desert landscape adjacent to the Joshua Tree National Park near the Project site. (IS/MND at 17.)
Just over one mile from the Project site, within the national park, a substantial elevation gain from the Project site’s 2600 feet to 3000 feet undoubtedly supports a fair argument that the Project may have aesthetic impacts on scenic vistas from the designated scenic Joshua Tree foothills and the national park. (See Ex. C.) The MND’s bald statement that no significant aesthetic impacts will occur simply because the Project is not located within the actual Joshua Tree buffer overlay defies logic, especially considering Morongo Basin Conservation Association’s viewshed study showing the Project site can be seen from well within Joshua Tree National Park. (See Agenda Packet at 435.)

Page 631 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 19 ends

Finally, the IS/MND similarly fails to adequately analyze and disclose the Project’s creation of new sources of substantial light or glare, which will likely have significant effects on nighttime views in the area. While the IS/MND states that outdoor light fixtures will be shielded and focused downward in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, this generalized assurance is insufficient. The Municipal Code’s general outdoor lighting ordinance contains exceptions to the outdoor lighting requirements (see City of Twentynine Palms Municipal Code §

19.78.040.C), and the IS/MND fails to account for light generated by other sources such as illuminated pool and spa, or the outdoor movie screening area. It also omits any analysis of the cumulative effects of resort-wide lighting—including signage, walkways, parking areas—on dark skies. This is a major oversight, as many commenters expressed concern, and the City “must . . . consider any fair argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant.” (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.)
This omission is especially problematic give the Project’s proximity to Joshua Tree National Park, which is recognized as an International Dark Skay Park. (NPS 2024.) The introduction of substantial new lighting into an otherwise unlit desert area raises significant concerns for nighttime sky visibility, both from nearby public roads and from within the Park itself.

In light of these deficiencies, the City’s conclusion that the project would have no or lessthan-significant impacts on aesthetics is unsupported. To comply with CEQA, the City must conduct and disclose a viewshed analysis evaluating visibility from key viewpoints, address potential light and glare impacts, and propose feasible mitigation to reduce any potentially significant adverse aesthetic effects.

C. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Adverse Air Quality Impacts.

1. This Project would add development to a region already suffering from poor air quality.

Page 632 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 20 ends

Degraded air quality from the proposed Project poses considerable environmental and public health concerns. Southern California already contains some of the nation’s most polluted counties with San Bernadino County topping the list for several pollutants. (ALA 2025.) Air pollution often impacts the most vulnerable populations in these counties, including young children, the elderly, pregnant women, and those with heart and lung disease. People living in poverty also remain more susceptible to air pollution, as they cannot easily relocate to less polluted areas, and their homes and places of work are more likely to be located near sources of pollution, such as freeways or ports. (BAAQMD 2016; ALA 2025.) In urban areas, transportation presents one of the most significant sources of pollution, where large population segments are constantly exposed to traffic. (BAAQMD 2016.) In Southern California’s urban areas, Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter pose the greatest risks. Experts have linked these air pollutants to increased risk of cancer, birth defects, low birth weights, and premature death, in addition to a variety of cardiac and lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, stroke, and heart attack. (Laurent 2016; ALA 2025.) Although invisible, ozone poses considerable health risks, prompting the EPA to strengthen its National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in 2015. (ALA 2016.) Additionally, Particulate Matter can easily escape the body’s natural defenses and enter the blood stream, impacting human health.

Specifically, the IS/MND overlooks fugitive dust, a term used to describe the fine particulate matter – PM2.5 and PM10 – that results from ground disturbance, such as construction, road-building operations, or mining. Fugitive dust can impede breathing and cause respiratory irritation, cough, airway obstruction and poor lung function. (Blodgett, 2004.) Chronic or longterm exposure can lead to lung inflammation, bronchitis and emphysema and produce a severe lung disease known as silicosis, a form of pulmonary fibrosis. (Hnizdo, 2003.) Fugitive dust emissions would result from Project operations. (IS/MND at 26.)

2. The IS/MND Underestimates the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.

Page 633 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 21 ends

First, to evaluate impacts to sensitive receptors, the IS/MND claims that because the nearest sensitive receptors are 500 feet away, the Project’s emissions will not impact them. (IS/MND at 26.) The IS/MND makes this startling claim with no evidence. It does not estimate what the pollutant concentrations will be at the sensitive receptors. It does not even estimate how the pollutant concentrations from the Project site might decrease with distance. Moreover, it does not account for the fact that, because much of the Project’s pollutants will largely come from hundreds of daily vehicle trips to and from the Project site, distance from the Project site itself means nothing if a sensitive receptor is on a driving route. As described supra, ozone and particulate matter pose substantial health risks to members of the community. Simply stating that because the Project is 500 feet from a sensitive receptor there will be no impact to sensitive receptors is a far cry from the factual basis necessary to establish that there will not be a significant impact. (Pub. Res. Code § 20164.5.)
Second, the IS/MND underestimates air quality impacts from vehicle emissions because it relies on the assumption that employees will live nearby. (IS/MND at 76 [E.g. “The local population is expected to fulfill the Project’s employee needs.”]; id. at 23 [“employees would be expected to be existing City residents or future residents.”].) Given the City’s limitations in available housing, however, it is unlikely that the entirety of generated employment opportunities would be filled by persons residing in the community and the 25 employee units onsite. Rather, it is likely that employees would be commuting from other communities, impacting air quality more than the City disclosed in the EIR.

3. The IS/MND’s Air Quality Mitigation Measure for Construction Emissions Is Unenforceable and Deferred.

Generally, mitigation measures should not be deferred, and feasibility findings should not be delegated to staff. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(1)(B), 15025(b)(2).) Specific details of a mitigation measure “may be developed after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review provided that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will [be] considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the

Page 634 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 22 ends

mitigation measure.’” (Golden Door Properties v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 518.) The IS/MND fails to meet these requirements.

D. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Adverse Traffic Impacts.

Page 635 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 23 ends

IS/MND at 2.) Trucks serving facilities also often idle on public streets and clog local roads, creating traffic congestion and hazards to local drivers who depend on these roads. As a result, the City should design the project to avoid congestion caused by vendor trucks on local roads and limit the number of trucks travelling to the Project site during normal commuting hours to avoid harm to locals who rely on nearby roads.

Third, the IS/MND relies on construction and improvement of Lear Avenue, as well as the paving of Sullivan Road in its traffic assessment. But the IS/MND fails to disclose or analyze the environmental impacts of constructing, improving, and paving these roads. This construction will undoubtedly result in habitat destruction and impaired wildlife connectivity, and an EIR must fully assess and mitigate these impacts. (Ceia-Hasse et al., 2018; Cushman, 2006; Haddad et al., 2015; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000; van der Ree et al., 2011.) Finally, as discussed supra, the City’s IS/MND fails to assess how traffic increases associated with this project will affect the species in the surrounding area. Traffic congestion degrades air quality and harms habitat through generating waste, which stormwater runoff carries into waterways. (Kim et al., 2023; Nixon & Saphores.) The City must carefully consider potential harms of increased runoff, as well as mitigation measures, in a full EIR.

E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Assess, Disclose, and Mitigate Impacts on Water Quality.

Page 636 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 24 ends

F. The City Failed to Complete a Mandatory Water Supply Assessment.

The IS/MND’s assessment of impacts on water supply is similarly inadequate and lacks a Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”). Water Code section 10910 requires that, before approving any projects as defined in Water Code section 10912, the lead agency must request a WSA from the water supplier most likely to serve the project evaluating whether the total water supplies during a 20-year period will meet a proposed project’s water demand. (Wat. Code, § 10910, subd. (b), (c)(4).) After the water supplier provides the WSA to the lead agency, the law further dictates that the lead agency shall include the WSA in any CEQA environmental documents, namely the EIR the lead agency prepares for the project. (Wat. Code, § 10911, subd. (b).) The lead agency then “shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.” (Ibid.)
None of this happened here, despite the tourism industry’s status as a large water consumer. (Cole, 2012; Gabarda-Mallorquí, 2024.) Among tourist lodging options, the hotel sector consumes the most water. (Gossling et al., 2012.) Studies estimate that, on average, each hotel guest consumes 686 liters of water per night (181 gallons) according to a study compiling data from 30 published articles from different geographical contexts. (Alhudaithi et al., 2022.) A 2021 study from Eastsound, Washington specifically found that residences with vacation rental permits used about 74% more water than those without from 2019-2021. (Riordan, 2021.) Joshua Basin Water District has also noted vast increases in water use in the district, much of which has been attributed to pools and hot tubs used by tourists in short-term rentals, similar to the Project’s amenities. (Estrada, 2023.)
The IS/MND claims that the Project requires no water supply assessment because it does not have 500 dwelling units and is thus not a “project” under Water Code section 10912. (IS/MND at 56.) But section 10912’s “project” definition still requires a water supply assessment for any project that “would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.” (Cal Wat Code § 10912(a)(7).) Here, this is undoubtedly the case, as beyond the 100 guest units (cabins) and 25 employee housing units, the Project will require water for irrigation, swimming pools, spas, splash pads, and food and beverage services, none of which the IS/MND mentions as sources of water demand let alone attempts to quantify. (IS/MND at 2, 57.)
Beyond its lacking water supply assessment, the IS/MND failed to adequate assess the Project’s water supply and demand for several reasons. First, the IS/MND only took into account water usage per room, along with irrigation. This is insufficient, considering in-room water consumption accounts for only about 37.27% of hotels’ total direct water consumption. (Rodriguez, 2025.) Nowhere does the IS/MND disclose or assess water demands of its laundry

Page 637 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 25 ends

service to provide fresh towels for guests, for example, nor its pools, spas, splash pads, and food and beverage services. (IS/MND at 2, 57.)
Second, even if the MND’s assessment could consider only guests’ water usage in their rooms, the tool used to calculate the 115 gallons/day/room water demand for the hotel rooms is 25 years old and fails to adequately inform decision makers of current conditions. (IS/MND at 58 [citing the American Water Works Association Research Foundation’s Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water created in 2000]; see also AWWARF, 2000; e.g., Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367 [EIR using ten year old “scientifically outdated information” was not a reasoned, good-faith effort to inform decisionmakers and the public].) More recent estimates for California hotel rooms indicate that typical hotel rooms use around 218 gallons/day/room: nearly double what the IS/MND estimates (See Walker, 2011) or an average of 181 gallons per guest. (Alhudaithi et al., 2022.) And for cabins, this water usage will likely be more, as cabins often have room for more guests than a single hotel room.

Third, the DEIR fails to analyze climate change’s effects on water supply in determining water supply impacts. Climate change and population growth pose unprecedented challenges to California’s efforts to allocate and conserve limited water resources. New studies predict that in the next 35 to 60 years, if GHG emissions continue unchecked, the American West’s snowpack will continuously shrink, disappearing for a decade or more at a time. (Siirila-Woodburn, 2021.) In 2022, the IPCC specifically identified the American West as vulnerable, warning that with projected warming in the western mountains, accumulated snowpack is “virtually certain to decline.” (IPCC 2022; see also Barnett, 2008.) This warning informed a recent Executive Order from Governor Newsom, declaring that California must “redouble near-, medium-, and longterm efforts to adapt its water management to a changing climate, shifting precipitation patterns, and water scarcity.” (Executive Order N-7-22 (2022).)
The California Center on Climate Change has recognized the problem climate change presents to the state’s water supply for decades and predicts that if GHG emissions continue under the business-as-usual scenario, snowpack could decline up to 70-90 percent, affecting winter recreation, water supply, and natural ecosystems. (Cayan 2007.) Climate change will affect snowpack and precipitation levels, and California will face significant impacts, as its ecosystems depend upon relatively constant precipitation levels and water resources are already under strain. (Cayan 2007.) The decrease in snowpack in the Sierra Nevada will lead to a decrease in California’s already “over-stretched” water supplies. (Cayan, 2007.) All of this means “major changes” in water management and allocation will have to be made. (Cayan, 2007.) Thus, climate change may change how the Project will utilize water, and it may also impact other activities outside the Project area.

Page 638 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 26 ends

G. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Assess, Disclose, and Mitigate the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The MND’s analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions falls short of CEQA’s requirements. The Project will inevitably result in an increase of GHG emissions during construction and operation. But the IS/MND fails to adequately assess all emissions sources, as well as require adequate mitigation.

1. Climate Change Is a Catastrophic and Pressing Threat to California.

Page 639 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 27 ends

is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

The U.S. National Research Council also concluded that “[c]limate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC 2010.) And based on observed and expected harms from climate change, in 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gas pollution endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations. (74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) [U.S. EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule].)
These authoritative climate assessments decisively recognize the dominant role of greenhouse gases in driving climate change. As stated by the Third National Climate Assessment: “observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.” (Mellilo 2014.) The Assessment makes plain that “reduc[ing] the risks of some of the worst impacts of climate change” will require “aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions” over the course of this century. (Melillo 2014 at 13, 14, & 649.) Humans and wildlife have already begun feeling climate change impacts. Humaninduced climate change has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people. (IPCC 2022.) This rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts, as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt. (IPCC 2022.) Climate change increasingly places stress on species and ecosystems—causing changes in distribution, phenology, physiology, vital rates, genetics, ecosystem structure and processes—in addition to increasing species extinction risk. (Warren 2008.) Climate-changerelated local extinctions are already widespread and have occurred in hundreds of species. (Wiens 2016.) Catastrophic levels of species extinctions are projected throughout this century if climate change continues unabated. (Thomas 2004; Maclean 2011; Urban 2015.) In California, climate change will transform our climate, resulting in increased temperatures and wildfires, as well as reduced snowpack, lower precipitation levels, and less water availability.

The United States has contributed more to climate change than any other country.

Specifically, the U.S. is responsible for 27 percent of cumulative global CO2 emissions since 1850, and it remains the world’s second highest emitter on an annual and per capita basis. (World Resources Institute 2020.) Nonetheless, U.S. climate policy is wholly inadequate to meet the international climate target to avoid the worst climate impacts by holding global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. An international team of climate policy experts and scientists have even ranked U.S. climate policy as “insufficient,” concluding

Page 640 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 28 ends

that “the US’ climate policies and action in 2030 need substantial improvements.” (Climate Action Tracker 2022.)
The IPCC’s most recent report, entitled Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, found that warming is proceeding even faster than anticipated, and the best-case scenario for climate change is slipping out of reach. (IPCC 2022.) The report now estimates that, over the next 20 years, the world will cross the global warming threshold of 1.5°C. And unless immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions occur, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C—or even 2°C—will be beyond reach. The United Nations Secretary General described the report’s forecasts as an “atlas of human suffering.” (Borenstein 2022.) Although some sources of GHG emissions may seem insignificant, climate change is a problem with cumulative impacts and effects. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 [“[T]he impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis” that agencies must conduct].) One source or one small project may not appear to significantly contribute to climate change, but the combined impacts of many sources can drastically damage California’s climate as a whole. Therefore, project-specific GHG emission disclosure, analysis, and mitigation remains vital to California meeting its climate goals and maintaining our climate.

2. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose the Project’s GHG Impacts.

Additionally, the IS/MND omits one of the key sources of the Project’s GHG construction emissions: destruction of more than forty acres of creosote bush scrub. (IS/MND at

18.) Nowhere does the IS/MND estimate anticipated loss of sequestered carbon as a result of grading the Project area. In failing to disclose this impact, the IS/MND fails to account for carbon emissions from intact habitats that would be dug up and paved over during construction

Page 641 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 29 ends

as well as the annual loss of carbon that existing habitats would have continued to sequester if the City did not approve the Project.

VI. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose and Assess the Wastewater Treatment Plant’s Impacts.

Page 642 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 30 ends

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 CI-8.2 Seek opportunities to improve street or parkway design of scenic corridors that enhances the scenic resources; Policy LU-4.1 Consider and address the potential impacts of new development on surrounding properties; 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; 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; and 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.

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.

Page 643 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 31 ends

The City must prepare and circulate an EIR for the Project prior to taking any further action on the Project application.

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]
Zeynep J. Graves
Senior Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
P.O. Box 549
Joshua Tree, CA 92252-0549
[email protected]

Page 644 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 32 ends

REFERENCES
Aguilar, R., Quesada, M., Ashworth, L., Herrerias-Diego, Y., & Lobo, J. (2008). Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in plant populations: Susceptible signals in plant traits and methodological approaches. Molecular Ecology, 17, 5177–5188.

Alhudaithi, M., Arregui, F.J., Cobacho, R., 2022. Proposal of a Water Consumption Efficiency Indicator for the Hotel Sector. Water 14, 3828.

American Lung Association (ALA), State of the Air 2025.

Amor, M., et al. (2022). Tools for evaluation and prediction of industrial noise sources.

Application to a wastewater treatment plant. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479722012981 Anderson, S. H., L. W. Ayers, J. A. Dechant, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L. Jones, D. S. Klute, D. K. Rosenberg, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmermann. 2001. Draft status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the United States. Administrative Report. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

Aulsebrook, A. E., Connelly, F., Johnsson, R. D., Jones, T. M., Mulder, R. A., Hall, M. L., Vyssotski, A. L., & Lesku, J. A. (2020). White and Amber Light at Night Disrupt Sleep Physiology in Birds. Current Biology, 30(18), 3657-3663.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.085.

BAAQMD. (2016). Planning Healthy Places.

Barber, J. R., Crooks, K. R., & Fristrup, K. M. (2010). The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(3), 180–189.

Barclay, J. and R. Cull. (1999). Northeastern California burrowing owl population estimate.

Unpublished report, 15 pp.

Baril, A. 1993. Pesticides and wildlife in the prairies: current regulatory issues. Pages 44-48 in G.

L. Holyrod, H. L. Dickson, M. Regnier, and H. C. Smith (editors). Proceedings of the third endangered species and prairie conservation workshop. Natural History Occasional Paper 19. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Barnett et al. (2008, January 31). Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States. Science. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18239088/

Page 645 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 33 ends

Basilio, Lay G., Moreno, Daniele, J., & Piratelli, Augusto J. (2020). Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 92.

Benítez-López, A., Alkemade, R., & Verweij, P. A. (2010). The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. Biological Conservation, 143, 1307–1316.

Bennett, A. F., Henein, K., & Merriam, G. (1994). Corridor use and the elements of corridor quality: Chipmunks and fencerows in a farmland mosaic. Biological Conservation, 68(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)90347-6.

Blodgett, S. (2004). Environmental Impacts of Aggregate and Stone Mining in New Mexico.

Center for Science in Public Participation, Rural Conservation Alliance.

Borenstein, S. (2022, February 28). UN climate report: ‘Atlas of human suffering’ worse, bigger.

AP News. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-europe-united-nationsweather-8d5e277660f7125ffdab7a833d9856a3 Brehme, C. S., Hathaway, S. A., & Fisher, R. N. (2018). An objective road risk assessment method for multiple species: Ranking 166 reptiles and amphibians in California.

Landscape Ecology, 33, 911–935.

Brehme, C. S., Tracey, J. A., Clenaghan, L. R. M. C., & Fisher, R. N. (2013). Permeability of roads to movement of scrubland lizards and small mammals. Conservation Biology, 27(4), 710–720.

Brooker, L., Brooker, M., & Cale, P. (1999). Animal dispersal in fragmented habitat measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use, and dispersal mortality. Conservation Ecology, 3(1).

Bunkley, J. P., & Barber, J. R. (2015). Noise Reduces Foraging Efficiency in Pallid Bats (Antrozous pallidus). Ethology, 121(11), 1116–1121.

California Fish and Game Commission. 2024. Notice of Findings, Western Burrowing Owl.

Dated October 15, 2024.

Cayan, D., A.L. Luers, M. Hanemann, G. Franco, and B. Croes. (2006). Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview, California Climate Change Center, CEC-500-2005- 186-SF.

CDFW (2012). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Available at:
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/304181-
1/attachment/qlVQskRBeoD6lL7K6oDAM_NdrgRs8NdjPbUaT99APSqfeMsDn4_xmad D7HhJBL9NXj6TNpUH4bl-7XWP0.

Page 646 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 34 ends

Ceia-Hasse, A., Navarro, L. M., Borda-de-Água, L., & Pereira, H. M. (2018). Population persistence in landscapes fragmented by roads: Disentangling isolation, mortality, and the effect of dispersal. Ecological Modelling, 375, 45–53.

Center for Biological Diversity, et al. March 2024. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission and Supporting Information for Listing the California Population of the Western Burrowing Owl as an Endangered or Threatened Species under the California Endangered Species Act. Available at:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/western_burrowing_owl/pdfs/petition.p df.

Cole, S., 2012. A political ecology of water equity and tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 39 (2), 1221– 1241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.01.003.

Columbia University (2024). Global Human Footprint Index. Available at:
https://hub.arcgis.com/maps/65518e782be04e7db31de65d53d591a9/explore?location=4. 661103%2C-157.526093%2C2.03&path=.

Crooks, K. R. (2002). Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation.

Conservation Biology, 16(2), 488–502.

Cushman, S. A. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 128, 231–240.

Cushman, S. A., McRae, B., Adriaensen, F., Beier, P., Shirley, M., & Zeller, K. (2013).

Biological corridors and connectivity. In D. W. Macdonald & K. J. Willis (Eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 (First Edit, pp. 384–403). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cushman, S. A., McRae, B., Adriaensen, F., Beier, P., Shirley, M., & Zeller, K. (2013). Biological corridors and connectivity. In D. W. Macdonald & K. J. Willis (Eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 (First Edition, pp. 384–403). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Damschen, E. I., Brudvig, L. A., Burt, M. A., Jr, R. J. F., Haddad, N. M., Levey, D. J., Orrock, J.

L., Resasco, J., & Tewksbury, J. J. (2019). Ongoing accumulation of plant diversity through habitat connectivity in an 18-year experiment. Science, 365(6460), 1478–1480.

Page 647 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 35 ends

Delaney, K. S., Busteed, G., Fisher, R. N., & Riley, S. P. D. (2021). Reptile and Amphibian Diversity and Abundance in an Urban Landscape: Impacts of Fragmentation and the Conservation Value of Small Patches. Ichthyology and Herpetology, 109(2), 424–435.

Delaney, K. S., Riley, S. P. D., & Fisher, R. N. (2010). A rapid, strong, and convergent genetic response to urban habitat fragmentation in four divergent and widespread vertebrates.

PLoS ONE, 5(9), e12767.

Delevoryas, P. 1997. Relocation of burrowing owls during courtship period. Pages 138-144 in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997. The Burrowing Owl, Its Biology and Management; Including the Proceedings of the First International Burrowing Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

DeSante, D. F. and E. Ruhlen. 1995. A census of burrowing owls in California, 1991-1993.

Institute for Bird Populations. Point Reyes Station, CA.

Desmond, M. J., J. A. Savidge, and K. M. Eskridge. 2000. Correlations between burrowing owl and prairie dog declines: a 7-year analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 1067- 1075.

Ditmer, M. A., Stoner, D. C., Francis, C. D., Barber, J. R., Forester, J. D., Choate, D. M., Ironside, K. E., Longshore, K. M., Hersey, K. R., Larsen, R. T., McMillan, B. R., Olson, D. D., Andreasen, A. M., Beckmann, J. P., Holton, P. B., Messmer, T. A., & Carter, N.

H. (2021). Artificial nightlight alters the predator–prey dynamics of an apex carnivore.

Ecography, 44(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05251 Dominoni, D. M. (2015). The effects of light pollution on biological rhythms of birds: An integrated, mechanistic perspective. Journal of Ornithology, 156(S1), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-015-1196-3
Drought.gov. (June 2025.) Drought Conditions for San Bernadino County. Available at: San Bernardino County Conditions | Drought.gov
eBird (2025). Available at: https://ebird.org/map/.

Epstein, P.R., et al. (2006). Climate change futures health, ecological, and economic dimensions.

The Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School.

Estrada, J. (2023). Locals tell of evictions, lack of housing due to short-term rentals. Available at: https://www.hidesertstar.com/deserttrail/locals-tell-of-evictions-lack-of-housing-dueto-short-term-rentals/article_d373c9a4-48f8-11ee-a640-2fe2475ad4e0.html

Page 648 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 36 ends

Francis, C. D., & Barber, J. R. (2013). A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife:

An urgent conservation priority. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(6), 305– 313.

Gabarda-Mallorqui, A., et al. (2024). Exploring research on wáter-saving measures applied to the hotel sector. A critical systemic review. International Journal of Hospitality Management 120 (2024) 103747.

Gaston, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T. W., & Hopkins, J. (2013). The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: A mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88(4), 912–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12036
Gaston, K. J., Duffy, J. P., Gaston, S., Bennie, J., & Davies, T. W. (2014). Human alteration of natural light cycles: Causes and ecological consequences. Oecologia, 176(4), 917–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3088-2
Gleick, P., et al. (2000). Water: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Water Resources of the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Available at: https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/natl_assessment_water3.pdf Gordon, B. L. 1996. Monterey Bay area: natural history and cultural imprints. 3rd edition.

Department of Geography, San Francisco State University. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, California.

Gossling, S., Peeters, P., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Lehmann, L.V., Scott, D., 2012.

Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tour.

Manag. 33, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.03.015.

Goverde, M., Schweizer, K., Baur, B., & Erhardt, A. (2002). Small-scale habitat fragmentation effects on pollinator behaviour: Experimental evidence from the bumblebee Bombus veteranus on calcareous grasslands. Biological Conservation, 104, 293–299.

Gray, M. (2017). The influence of land use and habitat fragmentation on landscape connectivity.

Green, G. A. and R. G. Anthony. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 91: 347-354.

Habib, L., Bayne, E. M., & Boutin, S. (2007). Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(1), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01234.x

Page 649 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 37 ends

Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., Lovejoy, T.

E., Sexton, J. O., Austin, M. P., Collins, C. D., Cook, W. M., Damschen, E. I., Ewers, R.

M., Foster, B. L., Jenkins, C. N., King, A. J., Laurance, W. F., Levey, D. J., Margules, C.

R., … Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(e1500052), 1–9.

Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., Lovejoy, T.

E., Sexton, J. O., Austin, M. P., Collins, C. D., Cook, W. M., Damschen, E. I., Ewers, R.

M., Foster, B. L., Jenkins, C. N., King, A. J., Laurance, W. F., Levey, D. J., Margules, C.

R., … Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(2), e1500052.

Harris, R. D. 1987. Burrowing owl relocation, Harbor Bay, Alameda, California. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc., Berkeley, California.

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. The burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia).

In Poole, A. and F. Gill (editors). The birds of North America, No. 61. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D. C. The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Haug, E. A. and L. W. Oliphant. 1987. Breeding biology of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Pp. 269- 271 In Holroyd, G. L., W. B. McGillivray, P. H. R. Stepney, D. M. Ealey, G. C.

Trottier, and K. E. Eberhart (editors). Endangered species in the Prairie Provinces.

Provincial Museum of Alberta Occasional Paper, No. 9.

Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change:

A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142, 14–32.

Hilty, J. A., & Merenlender, A. M. (2004). Use of Riparian Corridors and Vineyards by Mammalian Predators in Northern California. Conservation Biology, 18(1), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00225.x
Hilty, J. A., Worboys, G., Keeley, A., Woodley, S., Lausche, B., Locke, H., Carr, M., Pulsford, I., Pittock, J., White, W., Theobald, D., Levine, J., Reuling, M., Watson, J., Ament, R., & Tabor, G. (2020). Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Hjertaas, D. G. 1997. Recovery plan for the burrowing owl in Canada. Pages 107-111 in J. L.

Lincer and K. Steenhoff (editors). The burrowing owl: its biology and management.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Hnizdo E, Vallyathan V. (2003). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to occupational

Page 650 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 38 ends

exposure to silica dust: a review of epidemiological and pathological evidence. Occup Environ Med. Apr;60(4):237-43. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.4.237.
iNaturalist (2023). American Badger. Available at:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/192847316.
iNaturalist (2019). Mojave Desert Tortoise. Available at:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/27475901.
iNaturalist (2024). Mojave Desert Tortoise. Available at:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/212741847.

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer (eds.)], IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland (2014), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf IPCC, Hicke, J.A., S. Lucatello, L.D., Mortsch, J. Dawson, M. Domínguez Aguilar, C.A.F.

Enquist, E.A. Gilmore, D.S. Gutzler, S. Harper, K. Holsman, E.B. Jewett, T.A. Kohler, and KA. Miller. (2022). North America. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V.

James P. C., G. A. Fox, and T. J. Ethier. 1990. Is the operational use of strychnine to control ground squirrels detrimental to burrowing owls? Journal of Raptor Research 24(4): 120-

23. Janzen, H. H. (2004). Carbon cycling in earth systems—A soil science perspective. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, 399–417.

Kantola, T., Tracy, J. L., Baum, K. A., Quinn, M. A., & Coulson, R. N. (2019). Spatial risk assessment of eastern monarch butterfly road mortality during autumn migration within the southern corridor. Biological Conservation, 231, 150–160.

Kempenaers, B., Borgström, P., Loës, P., Schlicht, E., & Valcu, M. (2010). Artificial Night Lighting Affects Dawn Song, Extra-Pair Siring Success, and Lay Date in Songbirds.

Current Biology, 20(19), 1735–1739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.028 Kim, L., Kim, H., Lee, T.-Y., & An, Y.-J. (2023). Chemical toxicity screening of tire particle leachates from vehicles and their effects on organisms across three trophic levels. Marine

Page 651 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 39 ends

Pollution Bulletin, 192, 114999. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114999.

Klem, D. (2009). Avian Mortality at Windows: The Second Largest Source of Bird Mortality on Earth. Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics, 244–251.

Kociolek, A. V., Clevenger, A. P., St. Clair, C. C., & Proppe, D. S. (2011). Effects of Road Networks on Bird Populations. Conservation Biology, 25(2), 241–249.

Krosby, M., Theobald, D. M., Norheim, R., & Mcrae, B. H. (2018). Identifying riparian climate corridors to inform climate adaptation planning. PLoS ONE, 13(11).

Laurent, Oliver, et al. (2016). Low birth weight and air pollution in California: Which sources and components drive the risk? Environment International, 92-93, 471-77.

Lee, J. S., Ruell, E. W., Boydston, E. E., Lyren, L. M., Alonso, R. S., Troyer, J. L., Crooks, K.

R., & Vandewoude, S. (2012). Gene flow and pathogen transmission among bobcats (Lynx rufus) in a fragmented urban landscape. Molecular Ecology, 21(7), 1617–1631.

Lopez-Rodriguez, S. (2025). Information is not enough to boost water savings in hotel rooms. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390108548_Information_is_not_enough_to_bo ost_water_savings_in_hotel_rooms
Loss, S. R., Will, T., & Marra, P. P. (2014). Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78, 763–771.

Luo, J., Siemers, B. M., & Koselj, K. (2015). How anthropogenic noise affects foraging. Global Change Biology, 21(9), 3278–3289. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12997 Maclean, I. M. D., & Wilson, Robert. J. (2011). Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(30), 12337–12342.

Marsh, D. M., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2015). Direct effects of roads on small animal populations. In Roads and ecological infrastructure: Concepts and applications for small animals (pp. 42–56).

Page 652 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 40 ends

McClure, C. J. W., Ware, H. E., Carlisle, J., Kaltenecker, G., & Barber, J. R. (2013). An experimental investigation into the effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds:

Avoiding the phantom road. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280.

Melillo, Jerry M, Terese (T.C.) Richmond & Gary W. Yohe (eds.), Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program (2014). Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1412/ML14129A233.pdf Meyer, S. E. (2012). Restoring and managing cold desert shrublands for climate change mitigation. In D. M. Finch (Ed.), Climate Change in grasslands, shrublands, and deserts of the interior American West: A review and needs assessment. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-285 (pp. 21–34). USDA Forest Service.

Mi, N., Wang, S., Liu, J., Yu, G., Zhang, W., & Jobbágy, E. (2008). Soil inorganic carbon storage pattern in China. Global Change Biology, 14, 2380–2387.

Mitsch, W. J., & Wilson, R. F. (1996). Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications, 6(1), 16–17.

National Park Service. Joshua Tree National Park – Stargazing, National Park Service (last visited June 24, 2025). Available at: https://www.nps.gov/thingstodo/stargazing-atjoshua-tree.htm.

Nixon, H. & Saphores, J. (2007). Impacts of Motor Vehicle Operation on Water Quality in the United States - Clean-up Costs and Policies. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920907000892 Penrod, K., Cabañero, C. R., Beier, D. P., Luke, D. C., Spencer, D. W., Rubin, D. E., & Paulman, C. (2008). A Linkage Design for the Joshua Tree-Twentynine Palms Connection. SC Wildlands.

Phillips, J. N., Termondt, S. E., & Francis, C. D. (2021). Long-term noise pollution affects seedling recruitment and community composition, with negative effects persisting after removal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288, 20202906–20202906.

Poore, C. (2023). Wastewater sector emits nearly twice as much methane as previously thought.

Princeton Engineering. Available at:
https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/02/28/wastewater-sector-emits-nearlytwice-much-methane-previously-thought

Page 653 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 41 ends

Riley, S. P. D., Pollinger, J. P., Sauvajot, R. M., York, E. C., Bromley, C., Fuller, T. K., & Wayne, R. K. (2006). A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular Ecology, 15, 1733–1741.

Riodan, M. (2021). Transient vacation rental water usage. Available at:
https://www.islandssounder.com/opinion/transient-vacation-rental-water-usage-guestcolumn/ Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, H. Ober, and D. F. DeSante. 1998a. An adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl population at NAS Lemoore. The Institute for Bird Populations. Point Reyes Station, California. Publication No. 95.

Rosenberg, D. K., and K. L. Haley. 2003. The ecology of burrowing owls in the agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology.

Rosenberg, K. V., Dokter, A. M., Blancher, P. J., Sauer, J. R., Smith, A. C., Smith, P. A., Stanton, J. C., Panjabi, A., Helft, L., Parr, M., & Marra, P. P. (2019). Decline of the North American avifauna. Science, 366 (6461), 120–124.

Sanders, D., Frago, E., Kehoe, R., Patterson, C., & Gaston, K. J. (2020). A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01322-x
Sheffield, S. R. 1997b. Owls as biomonitors of environmental contamination. Pages 383-398 in J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nichols (editors). Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern Hemisphere. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-190. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Siirila-Woodburn, E. R., Rhoades, A. M., Hatchett, B. J., Huning, L. S., Szinai, J., Tague, C., Nico, P. S., Feldman, D. R., Jones, A. D., Collins, W. D., & Kaatz, L. (2021). A low-to-no snow future and its impacts on water resources in the western United States. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(11), 800–819. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021- 00219-y
Slabbekoorn, H., & Ripmeester, E. A. P. (2008). Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: Implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology, 17, 72–83.

Page 654 of 1452 ends

June 24, 2025

Page 42 ends

Smith, J. A., Suraci, J. P., Clinchy, M., Crawford, A., Roberts, D., Zanette, L. Y., & Wilmers, C.

C. (2017). Fear of the human ‘super predator’ reduces feeding time in large carnivores.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1857), 20170433.

Smith, J. A., Wang, Y., & Wilmers, C. C. (2015). Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human-induced fear. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282, 20142711.

Thomas, Chris. D. et al., Extinction risk from climate change, 427 Nature 145 (2004).

Thomey, M. L., Ford, P. L., Reeves, M. C., Finch, D. M., Litvak, M. E., & Collins, S. L. (2014).

Review of climate change impacts on future carbon stores and management of warm deserts of the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-316.

Trombulak, S. C., & Frissell, C. A. (2000). Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1), 18–30.

Trulio, L. A. 1997. Strategies for protecting western burrowing owls (Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea) from human activities. Pp. 461-465 in Duncan, J. R., D. H. Johnson, and T. H.

Nicholls (editors). Biology and conservation of owls of the northern hemisphere. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-190. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Urban, Mark C., Accelerating extinction risk from climate change, 348 Science 571 (2015).

Van der Ree, R., Jaeger, J. A. G., van der Grift, E. A., & Clevenger, A. P. (2011). Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: Road ecology is moving toward larger scales. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 48–48. Available at:
http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/974450/
Walker, A. (2011). The Green Movement in Hotels: Are College Students on Board? UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1105. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/2493080
Wang, Y., Li, Y., Ye, X., Chu, Y., & Wang, X. (2010). Profile storage of organic/inorganic carbon in soil: From forest to desert. Science of the Total Environment, 408(8), 1925– 1931.

Wang, Y., Smith, J. A., & Wilmers, C. C. (2017). Residential development alters behavior, movement, and energetics in a top carnivore. PlosOne, 12(10), e0184687.

Page 655 of 1452 ends

Twentynine Palms City CouncilJuly 22, 2025

Twentynine Palms City Council
July 22, 2025