Tuolumne County released a proposed plan last year for a large new lodge complex to be located just a few miles from Yosemite Park. The Terra Vi Lodge would have 140 guest rooms, 25 four-bedroom cabins, a market, event space, and support buildings—all on a forested site with no public water and no sewer service. The site burned intensely during the 2013 Rim Fire – a point that CSERC raised early in the planning process since the devastation of Paradise by the Camp Fire last year had just taken a record number of lives. Putting 600 to 700 visitors each day at risk in such a high-fire threat location is just one of many reasons why the leapfrog development proposal isn’t appropriate at the proposed site.
Soon after the Terra Vi Lodge project was made public, a separate Yosemite Under Canvas “glamping” proposal was released for public review. That Under Canvas project would create 99 tent camping units along with associated kitchen and bathroom facilities on a vacant forested parcel directly across the road from the Terra Vi Lodge site. Customers of the “glamping” project would occupy canvas tents, each with its own woodstove, and most with private bathrooms. Similar to the larger Terra Vi project, the Under Canvas development would rely entirely on unproven wells that could easily fail in a drought period, and on an engineered septic system that could also easily fail and contaminate the wells of nearby cabin owners.
Both of these projects would result in “leapfrog” commercial development because they would be built at vacant property many miles from any community. There is no nearby law enforcement, medical care or ambulance service, and the nearest fire crew is over 20 minutes away.
At a County-facilitated planning meeting in Groveland to discuss the Terra Vi project, CSERC staff and many area residents stated strong concerns about that project and the cumulative effects when combined with the Under Canvas project across the street. The concerns and legal issues raised about the two projects by nearby cabin owners apparently convinced the Under Canvas applicants to temporarily withdraw their project from a Planning Commission meeting scheduled to approve their development. No publicity was shared as to next steps, and both projects appear to still be moving ahead.