Resort Near Yosemite Is Approved

Ending a four-year tug of war over a project that would reshape a key entryway to Yosemite National Park, Mariposa County narrowly approved an ambitious resort village and conference center over the objections of residents in the small Sierra Nevada community where it will be nestled.

In a series of split votes, the Board of Supervisors granted the various development and environmental approvals needed for the sprawling SilverTip Resort Village to move forward.

The 45-acre resort in the tiny enclave of Fish Camp, near the southern border of the park, is being heralded by local supporters as a high-quality project that will provide an economic boost to a region in need of jobs and economic development.

But residents near the planned resort along California 41, just a few miles south of Yosemite, say it represents the sort of dense, overly ambitious development that will hurt the folksy appeal of one of the national park’s key gateway communities.

“It’s a charade,” said Robert Taylor, an opponent who owns a bed and breakfast inn near the development site. “I think we all knew they were going to ramrod it through, but it ain’t over till it’s over.”

The project, long dogged by foes in Fish Camp, has been through several public hearings and has been the subject of numerous environmental studies since it was proposed in November 1999.

The board approved the development deal in seven separate votes, most of them split 3 to 2, with Supervisors Garry Parker, Doug Balmain and Janet Bibby in favor and Lee Stetson and Bob Pickard opposed. The only unanimous decision was the approval of an indemnification agreement between the county and PacificUS, the Pasadena-based developer of the project, which will protect the county in any lawsuits.

“The county made the right decision,” PacificUS Executive Vice President Ron Coleman said. “They made a strong statement of support.”

Coleman conceded, however, that he remains “reservedly happy,” noting that the project faced a likely legal test from two Los Angeles attorneys -- Robert Cooper and John Swenson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who own vacation homes beside the site.

Most of the supervisors had little to say as they cast their votes. But Bibby read from a planning document to amplify her reasons for approving the project, saying that the development would allow for “orderly expansion” of Fish Camp that would “promote the recreation and tourist industry of the community” as well as “a diversity of housing types to meet the lifestyles of present and future residents.”

Pickard, who represents the Fish Camp area, said he wanted to see the resort scaled back. “I do support a project,” Pickard said, “but the one being proposed is out of scope and out of scale.”

The project will feature a luxury hotel with 137 rooms, 10,000 square feet of commercial space for shops with apartment units to house merchants and 30 rental cabins spread across about 29 acres.

More than 100 property owners had signed a petition against the development, which foes have called the most controversial project in county history.

Critics said the project would create problems in Fish Camp with parking, traffic, nighttime light, blocked views, noise, water quality in adjacent creeks, and trampled forests, meadows and other open space.

They have also argued that traffic created by the new village would combine with additional motorists flocking to the Chukchansi Resort, an Indian casino and hotel along California 41 in Coarsegold.