There is another entrance to Hazel Green, that is on the other side of the property that must be several miles back to the Bower Cave area that would have to be brought up to today's road width standards. What a great day trip though. Leave  in the morning from Coulterville, stop at Bower Cave and a few other interesting spots along the way, stop at the development at Hazel Green for lunch then into Yosemite through the Merced Grove. After spending a few hours in the valley head out the 140 into Mariposa for dinner then back over to the Jeffery Hotel in Coulterville for the night. There might even be a chance for Ag-Tourism on this route.

Also there is one more road to Hazel Green but it is not the old Coulterville-Yosemite Road according to the above report. It originally went from Hazel Green to Crane Flat, a distance of six miles according to Mr. James Hutchings in the 1800's. Maybe the county own this road too!

One final entrance is 11 miles though Forest Service land that would end on the 120. This road also would more than likely have to be brought up to today's road standards with an environmental report probably.

Update 2-28-08 2:10PM
We mentioned that this is probably going to court.
We were wrong! This already is in court.
Much more to come!

Update: 2-29-08

Hazel Green is back on the Board of Supervisors Agenda for March 4, 2008 under closed session.

From the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting for February 19, 2008  in closed session and then coming out of closed session sometime in the late afternoon hours as the last public item discussed ended at around 4:30 PM in a day that began at 9:00AM. No notice was given that a decision might be reached at this closed session and for the public to stay and wait for the announcement.
Chair Turpin announced that direction was received from counsel relative to the closed session matter concerning anticipated litigation; and he asked County Counsel to report the actions as a result of the closed session for the Hazel Green Ranch, LLC v. United States Department of the Interior; and Thomas P. Guarino advised that the following actions were taken in closed session: 1) adopt a position consistent with the defense of the Old Coulterville Road/Old Yosemite Turnpike as being a County road; and 2) authorization to execute the standard legal services agreement to retain the law firm of Abbott & Kindermann to defend the County in the action. The Clerk of the Board announced that the vote on each of these actions was four ayes, with Supervisor Bibby voting no.

Who is Mr. Geyser?
He is but one of the principals with Hazel Green LLC a corporation registered in Delaware.

Dorothy Korber
Sacramento Bee Staff Writer
(Published July 28, 2000)

Geyser, a seasoned Santa Barbara developer who opens a new resort in Bermuda...

Developer Lewis Geyser of Destination Villages LLC envisions a new kind of stage stop for Hazel Green. He proposes a rustic but posh resort, nestled in the woods near the meadow, where visitors will enjoy a nostalgic night in a log cottage for $300 or rough it in a tent cabin for $150.

He reckons the project will cost roughly $25 million and take about 15 months to construct--if he gets the approvals he needs from the park service and Mariposa County.
Read more here:
The Timeshare Beat: Yosemite National Park Officials Tempted by Proposal for Posh Resort

 

Additional info:

Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume II, Appendix H
Agency Name: Mariposa County

Project Name: Hazel Green Ranch

Description: Hazel Green Ranch is a privately owned piece of land abutting the western boundary of the park. The owner of Hazel Green Ranch has proposed to develop an eco-tourism project including approximately 250 guest rooms as single, double, and quad hard-sided cabins as well as 50 summer tent cabins. Food service, merchandise sales, and a University of California research station (see Sierra Nevada Research Institute) are also under consideration. Meadow preservation would be a focus for the property. Circulation and access in the resort area would be designed to emphasize a pedestrian environment with raised walkway providing much of the circulation. Facilities and activities would be provided for year-round recreation. Parking would be provided along the perimeter of the resort, adjacent to the area proposed for use as a transit center, parking area, and visitor contact facility (see Out-of Valley Transit Facilities, under Alternative 2)

Because of the potential development of a 200-meter public access road (see Alternative 2) across park lands to a transit center, parking area, and visitor contact station located on Hazel Green Ranch, the National Park Service is concerned about the potential for uncontrolled growth on this property and along the park boundary. To remedy these concerns, the landowner has agreed to put a deed restriction on the Hazel Green property, limiting development to 300 lodging units should the road, parking, and transit elements of the project move forward.

Yosemite Association -

Animals that could be affected by this ranch:
Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume IB, Chapter 4: Alternative 2_3

NPS Complaint from Merg use the find button!

See it from the air!
Hazel Green using Google Earth

 

Where is the fire department in case there is a fire?
 

Project Name: Hazel Green Ranch

Description: Hazel Green Ranch is a privately owned piece of land abutting the western boundary of the park. The owner of Hazel Green Ranch has proposed to develop an eco-tourism project including approximately 250 guest rooms as single, double, and quad hard-sided cabins as well as 50 summer tent cabins. Food service, merchandise sales, and a University of California research station are also under consideration. Meadow preservation would be a focus for the property. Circulation and access in the resort area would be designed to emphasize a pedestrian environment with raised walkway providing much of the circulation. Facilities and activities would be provided for year-round recreation. Parking would be provided along the perimeter of the resort, adjacent to the area proposed for use as a transit center, parking area, and visitor contact facility. Because of the potential development of a 200-meter public access road across park lands to a transit center, parking area, and visitor contact station located on Hazel Green Ranch, the National Park Service is concerned about the potential for uncontrolled growth on this property and along the park boundary. To remedy these concerns, the landowner has agreed to put a deed restriction on the Hazel Green property, limiting development to 300 lodging units should the road, parking, and transit elements of the project move forward. The county is concerned about having adequate fire protection access.Fire Management Plan - Yosemite National Park

 

The 1921 park map show the Old Coulterville Yosemite Road already out of disuse as the road turns into a trail somewhere in the Merced Grove. The other road (County owned road or Park Service?) that was listed on the old maps as the Coulterville Trail heads over to Crane Flat where it joins with the Big Oak Flat Road. This seems to contrast with Mr. Geysers interpretation on where the roads come together. The Old Coulterville - Yosemite Road never curved up as it headed out of Hazel Green, it went into the Merced Grove and continued down out of the grove as the trail shows (dotted lines).

By the way if you hear the name David A. Mihalic, this is when he started in Yosemite, contrary to what some others may say:
National Park Service Director Robert Stanton today announced the appointment of David A. Mihalic as superintendent of Yosemite National Park in California, to be effective October 25, 1999.
7 Oct 1999 -Mihalic Named Superintendent of Yosemite National Park

Food for thought: What would happen if Hazel Green LLC decided to go bankrupt and left the county all alone suing the park service?
Does Mariposa County have the resources? Do you possibly want to see your tax dollars fight the park service over a decision that three supervisors made?

I want to reiterate that I have nothing to gain in this. I am on no one's "Side". This started as I watched the smiles last Tuesday at the BOS meeting and how willingly the board (Except for Supervisor Bibby) went along with Mr. Geyser. So everything listed here is just information for the tax paying residents of Mariposa County on what the BOS is doing. One more thing, why are there gates on this road and who has the keys to the locked gates? A county road that can only be used by the few? A county road that the Public Works Director has never been on and does not know much about? Do not lose track of what this is about. The suit is about: Does the county own the road or not. And if they do, then Mr. Geyser is going to want to put in a road as the board has already issued an encroachment permit without an Environmental Report. But remember the road is the Old Coulterville-Yosemite Road that actually went through the Merced Grove as the old maps all show, not the purple dots on Mr. Geyser's Map.
But really Mr. Geyser is probably hoping that he can eventually get that 500 foot section of land.


Update: 3-18-08

At the BOS meeting today on Hazel Green the board announced after a closed session that they will have an item on the county website about the issue. Here are the links:

MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STATEMENT REGARDING HAZEL GREEN LITIGATION

MARIPOSA COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 07-414 DECLARING THE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN THE COULTERVILLE ROAD

We still wonder that if as the county maintains that it owns the road
(And we hope the county does own the road as what a great tourist road it will be!)  why are their multiple locked gates on a county road which is against the law! Why does the county not maintain the road in Foresta where it joins the Foresta Road? Why let the park service do maintenance on the road down in the Foresta area?
Why has Dana Hertfelder, Director of Public Works never been on this road? Why has the elected Board of Supervisors gone against the will of the voters to side with someone who is not a resident of the county?
Are not the Supervisors supposed to serve us? At the only open meeting on Hazel Green, multiple residents stood up to say, in essence why sue the park service? Were they listened to? Apparently the wheels were already in motion and the meeting was a farce!
The BOS states that they are saving the taxpayers money in this litigation. Okay we are going to keep a scorecard on this website and we will see.

 So far in a new letter dated March 13, 2008 from the park that once Mariposa County formally joins in the suit that the $280,000 for the Foresta Bridge replacement that the park service was going to donate to the county is out the window, gone, bye bye!!

This is funny: From Page Three of the MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STATEMENT REGARDING HAZEL GREEN LITIGATION "If Hazel Green is successful there is no expense to the County. If Hazel Green is unsuccessful, there is no expense to the County."
What if Hazel Green LLC goes bankrupt as what happened in Bermuda?  $6.1M

or in California:
 Lewis P. Geyser and Jerome Snyderfile for Chapter 11
Total mortgage debt on the complex (including first and second loans) was over $300 million when the owners filed bankruptcy in January.

Also in this paragraph: From the same Statement stated above:

"The Deputy Superintendent appeared at the public session of the Board of Supervisors meeting, where the Indemnity Agreement was to be considered. He reiterated the economic threats and other comments in an extensive statement. At no time prior to the Board's action to accept the Indemnity Agreement and issue the encroachment permit has the Park Service provided any verifiable information that the road is not a County road."

At the bottom of this form Mr. Pickard has his signature. He was not at this meeting so how can he sign on to a form agreeing that was said?

At no time during the public meeting did Kevin Cann make any threats as stated, he was just stating facts!

And remember the bottom line in all this.
The road never joined Highway 120.
The road went into the Merced Grove and headed down not up to meet where today the 120 is.
The other road to Crane Flat we have yet to see evidence that was a road and not a trail as the building of the road was stopped when the road was decided to go down to the Merced Grove.
But really Mr. Geyser is probably hoping that he can eventually get that 500 foot section of land.
One more item but not confirmed:
Hazel Green LLC is thinking about suing Tuolumne County!

Updated 3-24-08

The Coulterville Road Monument photo in the right hand column states that in 1956 the road was still a county road! But the California - Yosemite Highway Association had $50k in funds and they fixed the road all the way from the monument to the park boundary (14.7 miles).
Why did they stop at the park boundary? Was that the end of  the county owned road?
Also we traveled about 11 miles of the road, that someone is apparently maintaining (Mariposa County or Forest Service) until we were just South of Pilot Peak and drove upon a heavily rutted road along with snow that stopped our forward progress. Could this road be widened enough up to today's road standards? Anything is possible with enough money!
Also we have heard the park performs some sheriff department duties for Mariposa County. If this agreement ends (So the park can pay it's lawyers to defend itself from Mariposa County and Hazel Green LLC.), does Mariposa County have the money and resources to protect Mariposa County residents that the park is doing now?
Also the county seems to be doing something that we have not seen before, they are actually talking about Hazel Green as they are still involved in litigation. Since the county is opening up why not release all the documents between the park service and the county relating to Hazel Green.
Some people say why not just give them the 500 feet of land?
They do not have to! Just as the rest of Mariposa County, as long as there is another entrance to the property (Hazel Green has at least two others entrances to the property) the landowner does not have to grant an easement. Land Rights very near and dear to a lot of Mariposa County residents.

http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/handbook_of_yosemite_national_park
/images/map_of_yosemite_national_park_1921.jpg




Scoreboard:
Mariposa County, Represented by  Brad Aborn, Dianne Fritz, Lyle Turpin
Versus
 Yosemite National Park

From County Counsel:
The expense in either case could easily exceed $50,000-$100,000. Even to defend an action to bring the County into the case now would cost $10,000-$20,000 with no guarantee of success in keeping the County out of the case.

Okay, action in the case according to County Counsel $20,000 versus the $280,000 lost, leaves the county $260,000.00 in the Red!
One or more fire trucks could have been bought with this money!!
Watch as more highlights are added!!