Letter to the Editor: Why Have a Planning Commission?
The Twentynine Palms Planning Commission abdicated its role in the planning process on the Ofland Hotel
At the January 14, 2025, City Council meeting, Community Development Director Keith Gardner relayed to Council that Planning staff wished to recall an item referred to Council for a hearing, which Council did with a 5-0 vote. We believe that Planning Commission staff should make a similar request on the Ofland Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)/Project package due to misleading information conveyed by one of the Commissioners during the discussion of the resort project on June 25. (The Desert Trumpet reported on the Ofland Hotel’s MND and the Planning Commission meeting here. There’s more about the MND here.)
On June 25, 2025, Commissioner Max Walker led other Planning Commission members to believe that there was a forthcoming separate design review by the Planning Commission. Community Development Director (CDD) Keith Gardner confirmed via email on Monday, June 30, “The Council will ultimately decide the project, including its design.” To proceed without a design review means that the Planning Commission did not uphold their duty of care to the City of Twentynine Palms prior to sending the Ofland Hotel MND/Project package to City Council.
The relevant discussion took place after lengthy public comment and more than 2-1/2 hours into what became a three hour meeting. That no one countered Walker with the correct information during the meeting could have been due to exhaustion. Chair Jessica Cure attempted to continue the discussion to the next meeting to enable a proper review of all project components. Because Walker's misstatement stood uncorrected by Gardner or by Commissioners Krushat or Paahana, the Commissioners voted the project to Council with little actual review.
Chair Cure was stopped from examining the Ofland Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)/Project package as she wanted to do. This left a complex development proposed for the middle of a quiet, residential neighborhood, which is also in a wildlife corridor impacting Joshua Tree National Park, with little serious public consideration of how it is sited on the parcel, the number of cabins and the location of entrances and exits among other site plan elements.
There was also little to no discussion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) versus a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).1 We heard from many residents at the Commission meeting and as well as organizations via formal MND comments that Ofland’s MND is flawed and contains errors that potentially open the City up to legal challenges. That discussion was shut down fairly quickly by the City's CEQA advisor, Nicole Criste of Terra Nova. Criste is also Ofland's CEQA advisor, and the probable author of the Initial Study for the MND and rebuttals to comments. Criste’s overlapping role here is oddly legal since City ordinance doesn’t ban it, but is it ethical?2
As with any project changing zoning and development codes, of course CDD Gardner is correct, City Council is the final say. But isn't it the Planning Commission’s role to examine the project in some depth, then advise Council? Otherwise, what function does a Planning Commission truly serve?
While Planning Commission clearly abdicated its responsibilities on June 25, it’s not too late for the five Commissioners to reclaim their leadership role on development. At the July 22 City Council meeting, in order to retain the respect of our community, the Planning Commission must request that Council return the Ofland Hotel MND/Project package to them for a thorough review.
Let's do the right thing for our City and for the residents of Indian Cove by slowing this process down and giving the Ofland Hotel Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)/Project package a thorough Planning Commission review before it is considered by City Council. More than an hour is needed because once Ofland is built, it’s there forever.
Signed,
Beth Anderson
Stephanie Ballard
Cindy Bernard
Mara Moon Cohn
G. DaPonte
Pat Flanagan
Jeannine Gonzales
Rich Good
Chuck and Heidi Heard
Tonya Jones
Brian Longuevan
Dana Longuevan
Leann Longuevan
Herb and Michelle Mark
Jerry Moscato
Tracey Moscato
Jason Phillips
Travis Poston and Nancy Tran
Ian Raikow
Mary Kay Sherry
P. Steib
NJ Sundquist
John Talley-Jones
Kat Talley-Jones
Lori Thomas
Chris Tiffany
Debby Zietz
Mark Zietz
Zach Zietz
Desert tortoise heading east from Shoshone Valley Rd., 2021 (Video: Cindy Bernard)
Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Feel free to share this article!
Are you subscribed?
Help us reach our 2025 goal of $10,000 in subscriptions! Upgrade to a paid subscription for just $5.00 per month or $50 per year.
The Desert Trumpet is published by Morongo Basin Projects, a 501c3 charitable organization. Note that donations in excess of $100 are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law and your subscription/donation will be listed as Morongo Basin Projects on your statement.
The City does ban this duel role on projects with hazardous waste facilities.
10.01.030 - Procedures.
The following procedures shall apply to all applications for a land use decision regarding hazardous waste facility projects:
(c) Specified Hazardous Waste Facility Projects. All applications for specified hazardous waste facility projects must follow the procedures set forth in Health & Safety Code Sections 25199 et seq., Public Resources Code Sections 21000—21177, and Government Code Sections 65920 et seq.
(1) The person, or entity, preparing the documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act shall not be the same person, or entity, which acts as a consultant to the Local Assessment Committee.
How things went down at the Planning Commission begs some question and what exactly is City Council supposed to do when a project shows up on their agenda in this state?
The Planning Commission's purpose is to work with staff to sort through the details and put forward a solid recommendation. When that process holds, Council can focus on the final consideration, yes/no and/or minor tweaks. When it doesn't? That whole review burden shifts to the council, which is a significant cost of staff resources, council time, and public trust.
From my viewpoint, Council has a few directions they could go:
Go through the entire packet, sift through public comment, have everyone show up again with fresh letters in hand like it's Groundhog Day, and deny the project.
Approve it, and tack on conditions whether that’s changes to size, location, access, environmental concerns, butterfly farm... whatever. But this puts a heavy burden on staff, on the spot, (so to speak) to guide what’s actually possible within those revisions. And would the applicant be there too?
Or, as they’ve done before when things needed more work, send it back to Planning Commission for a full review and complete recommendation.
That third option might be the cleanest. Because forwarding projects that aren't really ready is, frankly, a waste of time for Council, for staff, and for the public. That’s not just inefficient, it’s avoidable.
I don’t think anyone’s trying to get it wrong. Planning Commission is a tough, often thankless job, and I have a lot of respect for all the individuals serving. Each one brings something different to discussion. But if we want to improve how this system works, we’ve got to make sure all parts of it are functioning together. Sometimes that means the commission needs to take the time to wrestle with the tough parts. We see it all the time with multiple meetings (just not this one).
In the end, Council should be handed something that’s fully baked and ready to go, not something that still needs figuring out.
Apologies folks! The comment button was broken when the article was emailed. It’s fixed now.