Angry residents near Joshua Tree National Park have initiated a lawsuit to halt the development of an expansive luxury ‘glamping’ resort planned to be built just half a mile from their peaceful desert neighborhoods.

The Ofland Hotel, given the green light by Twentynine Palms city council in July, is set to cover 152 acres, featuring 100 accommodation units, pools, splash pads, a spa, a restaurant, and an outdoor cinema with surrounding music, accommodating up to 400 guests.

Developers call it eco-friendly, but critics say the city signed off without conducting the full environmental review state law requires.

Locals argue that this project poses a danger to the diverse wildlife in the vicinity, which includes endangered species such as desert tortoises, burrowing owls, and American badgers.

This Wednesday, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, the Center for Biological Diversity alongside Indian Cove Neighbors took legal action against the city, alleging that officials bypassed the California Environmental Quality Act by expediting the resort project.

‘A complete environmental impact report is necessary whenever there is substantive evidence that a project might have significant negative effects,’ expressed Meredith Stevenson, a lawyer with the Center. ‘In this situation, we have ample proof that Ofland will severely damage the environment in numerous ways.’

The suit also argues that the city neglected to evaluate the effects of increased traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and construction activities on vulnerable wildlife in a crucial wildlife corridor that connects the national park to untouched lands.

‘This corridor is critical — it’s how species move between Joshua Tree National Park and open land to the north,’ Stevenson explained. ‘We’re talking about desert tortoises, burrowing owls, American badgers, bobcats, even potentially mountain lions. Vehicle strikes, habitat loss, light and noise pollution — all of it would affect the species that rely on this passage.’ 

It also alleges the city provided only 20 days for public comment instead of the legally required 30. 

‘Public participation is what makes CEQA so important,’ Stevenson said. ‘By cutting the comment period from 30 days to 20, the city took away the community’s voice in this process.’ 

Residents who live near the project site say they aren’t opposed to growth, just to ‘reckless’ development.

‘We moved to Twentynine Palms because it borders one of the most beautiful national parks in the country,’ said John Talley-Jones.

‘I know I’m not the only one who values the open space and daily visits by wildlife – even the rattlesnakes, tarantulas and scorpions. I welcome growth, but it has to respect what makes this place special. When projects touch the park’s buffer zone or wildlife corridors, we need strict review.’

His neighbor Tonya Jones added: ‘This is about more than opposing a single development. It is about honoring the natural harmony of this desert community, where people and the environment are deeply connected.’

Cindy Bernard, who has personally seen tortoises emerge from burrows on her property, told the LA Times that the council failed to protect the very creatures the desert is known for. 

‘The same noise and light issues that might disrupt our ability to see the night sky or enjoy the quiet will also affect the wildlife here. We’re not against this project. We’re against it here.’ 

Local bakery owner Travis Poston said his Indian Cove home has been a rare sanctuary from the grind of running a small business. He now fears that peace is under threat. 

He warned that allowing a commercial resort in a residential neighborhood could open the floodgates to more development.

‘If this goes in, what’s next?’ Poston told the LA Times. ‘The whole area is on the chopping block at this point.’

But City manager Stone James, who also lives in Indian Cove, insisted the project will bring jobs and badly needed revenue to an area with a higher poverty rate than the state average. 

He dismissed the legal challenge, describing complaints about the lack of a full environmental impact report as ‘a ruse’ to the LA Times.

‘We have a project that’s consistent with the core identity of our community, a conservation-based project that would allow people to come in[to] our community in a respectful manner and enjoy the beauty of Twentynine Palms, enjoy the beauty of the national park, visit the artists and people who are starting businesses in our downtown, and we’re going to say no to that?’ he said.

But residents pushed back. ‘There are no wealthy elites in the Morongo Basin,’ Bernard told the LA Times, adding that most members of the community rely on a fixed income.

Ofland Hotels, the Las Vegas-based firm behind the proposal, says it was drawn to the desert for its ‘natural beauty’ and ‘unique culture’.

‘The hotel buildings will be single-story to protect views and located at least 500 feet from neighboring properties to mitigate noise,’ Luke Searcy, head of development, told the LA Times.

He added the resort will pursue a Dark Sky International certificate to curb light pollution. But the lawsuit argues that even with those promises, the project will spill light across the desert, undermining stargazing in Joshua Tree National Park – an official International Dark Sky Park. 

The Ofland Hotel would be the company’s biggest project yet. Las Vegas-based Ofland Hotels already operates an outdoor boutique resort in Escalante, Utah, and has another planned near the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee.

Developers say they intend to break ground in early 2027, with 42 acres built out for cabins and amenities and the remaining 110 acres reserved as ‘open space.’ 

But conservationists argue that label is misleading, since the land would still hold internal roads and a wastewater treatment plant – both of which, they warn, could expose wildlife to pollution and increase the risk of animals being struck by vehicles.

City officials signed off last month using what’s known as a ‘mitigated negative declaration,’ a streamlined approval process under California law that avoids a full environmental review if impacts are deemed minor or easily reduced. 

Critics insist the harms here are anything but minor.

The lawsuit goes further, alleging the rezoning that allowed the resort also broke state housing law by slashing the potential for 61 residential units on the site. 

The lawsuit goes further, alleging the rezoning that allowed the resort also broke state housing law by slashing the potential for 61 residential units on the site.

‘Under California’s Housing Crisis Act, the city can’t just wipe out residential capacity without replacing it,’ Stevenson said. ‘Rezoning the site to commercial and open space eliminated 61 units — really almost 200 when you factor in accessory dwelling units — and the city failed to rezone another parcel at the same time to make up for that loss. That’s a violation of state law.’

‘We’re asking the court to rescind the city’s approvals,’ she added. ‘A good outcome would be forcing a full environmental impact report, because that requires much more thorough analysis and mitigation. But we’re also open to changes that could reduce the impacts on wildlife and the community.’

Daily Mail has contacted the city and Ofland Developments for comment.