Supervisors uphold OK of Hwy 120 ‘glamping’ project
None of the five elected Tuolumne County supervisors at an appeal hearing on Thursday said they could justify denying the development of the Yosemite Under Canvas luxury camping resort off Highway 120 about 20 miles east of Groveland despite pleas from a vocal contingent of property owners and residents in the area who are opposed to the project.
The board’s unanimous decision to uphold the county Planning Commission’s approval of the project on Nov. 18 will likely mean that further efforts to stop it will play out in court, with some of the 21 opponents who spoke during the lengthy public-comment period alluding to a lawsuit if it’s allowed to move forward.
Many of the people who urged the board to overturn the commission’s approval on Thursday have also submitted written comments and spoken at previous meetings regarding the project and another proposed resort called the Terra Vi Lodge that would be located at Sawmill Flat Road and Highway 120, about a quarter-mile from Hardin Flat Road where the so-called “glamping” campground would be developed.
Both properties are owned by the family of the late Tim Manly, a logger who purchased the land in the late 1980s with the idea of someday developing hotels on it, but would be leased and operated by separate companies.
Under Canvas bill itself as the “nation’s premier upscale camping experience provider” and currently operates seven similar luxury campgrounds throughout the United States, with two more set to open next year. They hope to begin operating the one in Tuolumne County by spring 2022.
The campground on Highway 120 is planned to feature 99 canvas tents on wooden platforms that include beds, linens and bathrooms, with each ranging from 200 to 400 square feet. There would also be a lobby and dining tent, commercial kitchen, communal bonfire pits, swimming pools and laundry facilities.
Ellison Folk, a San Francisco attorney who specializes in environmental law and was hired by the opposition group dubbed Save Sawmill Mountain, presented the case against allowing the project to move forward that largely focused on what they felt was an inadequate 1,000-page analysis of the project’s potential impacts.
Folk also said she believes an approval process that many opponents have described as being rushed for both the Under Canvas and Terra Vi proj
ects has led to errors in analyzing and mitigating impacts on wildfire risk, traffic, groundwater, and public services in the area.
County attorneys told the board that they reviewed the project’s environmental impact report and believe it adequately addressed the concerns and met the requirements of the law.
Two people spoke in favor of the project, with one of them being Ron Kopf, who has spoken in support of both the Under Canvas and Terra Vi Lodge projects at previous meetings on behalf of the Tuolumne County Business Council and Tuolumne County Association of Realtors.
Another man also spoke in favor stating that he believed the project would reduce wildfire risk by giving people and place to stay in a controlled environment as opposed to starting campfires out in the woods.
County supervisors said at the end of the fivehour meeting that they heard and read through the comments against the project, but that they couldn’t overturn the commission decision because they believed the environmental impact report did adequately address the concerns and ways to mitigate them.
Changes suggested by County Supervisor John Gray were incorporated into the project’s approval that the heating source in the tents could only be propane stoves as opposed to wood stoves, money collected through traffic mitigation fees would be directed to improvements on Hardin Flat Road, and a stop would be constructed for the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Systems, or YARTS.
Gray and other county supervisors also disputed the claims from the opponents about the process being rushed because it’s been in development for more than two years.
The board is scheduled to consider an appeal of the Terra Vi Lodge project’s approval at 1 p.m.
Dec. 29, which was pushed back from Friday after questions were raised about the validity of an original appeal filed two days after the commission approved it on Dec. 1.
Folk argued in a letter to the board that the woman who filed the original appeal did not meet the county’s definition of an “aggrieved party” because she did not file any comments against the project previously and is allegedly engaged to a relative of the landowner.
Many of the opponents have accused the county of intentionally trying to rush through the process so that appeals would be decided by three outgoing county supervisors who leave office on Jan. 4.