Hazel Green Ranch is an 83-acre undeveloped property that lies just outside the western boundary of Yosemite National Park. In the early days of Yosemite tourism, it was a key stop along the historic Coulterville Road, the first wagon route completed into Yosemite Valley in the 1870s.

Now, it’s at the center of a national controversy with ties to Tahoe.

The owner of the ranch, who purchased the property in 2024, wants to build a private road on National Park Service land from his proposed development into the park. This would require a land exchange, which is normally only granted when there is a clear public or conservation benefit. Despite the absence of either, and even after bipartisan uproar erupted over giving a slice of one of the country’s most treasured national parks to corporate interests, the Trump administration and developer have been pursuing the land exchange.

The developer name might sound familiar to those following projects on the North Shore — it’s Kingsbarn Realty Capital. Its subsidiary Kingsbarn Capital & Development, the real estate development arm of KRC, has been working on the 39° North project in Kings Beach since 2022. Although KRC is not involved in the Tahoe project, critics say the company is doing in Yosemite what it’s been attempting to do in Tahoe for four years — getting an exception to the rules. Kingsbarn argues that redevelopment will reenergize Kings Beach.

Yosemite

Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a real estate private equity firm based in Las Vegas led by CEO Jeff Pori, is proposing a luxury development called The Sanctuary at Yosemite that would include a 150-room upscale hotel, 80 private cabins, as well as a 5,000-square-foot spa, restaurant, and a gourmet market on the edge of Yosemite National Park.

If approved, The Sanctuary would be one of the largest developments in the area, according to Mark Rose, senior Sierra Nevada program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, and it all hinges on the land exchange. Currently, the only road that exists from and to Hazel Green Ranch is the old wagon-wheel road that is impassable most of the year and requires four-wheel drive. To access the park entrance now requires a circuitous 45-minute drive. That’s why Pori wants to build a more direct route via a 700-foot road from his property into the park, which would all be built on park land and would connect to Big Oak Flat Road, also known as Route 120.

“[The National Park Service has] to give away a portion of Yosemite to make this viable for [Kingsbarn],” Rose said. “The road is really critical for this to make any sense for them. If they do get this road, it gives them a private driveway right into Yosemite where they can basically be in Yosemite Valley before anyone else staying outside of the park.”

The previous owner of Hazel Green Ranch, Lewis Geyser, had a similar development proposal and also sought to build such a road. He sued both the National Park Service and Mariposa County for an easement but a court rejected his request in 2010, a decision upheld on appeal in 2012. Neither the Obama nor Biden administrations supported the plan.

But Pori has found a more amenable federal government under Trump, which has signaled its willingness to give away or sell public lands (such as the administration’s proposal to end the Roadless Rule and its boundary reduction of Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, among many other examples). Pori is also a Trump supporter, albeit monetarily small; he gave $4,000 to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

Lanny Davis, the attorney representing Kingsbarn Realty Capital and spokesperson, said that the company is actively looking for land it could exchange with Yosemite National Park, which spans nearly 750,000 acres. The requirements for a land exchange are that the two parcels are of equal value and that the land be in the same state.

“This has taken us all this time, almost a year, to look at an inventory of land that Yosemite officials told us they were interested in that would be valuable to them,” he said. “And if we’re willing to buy one of those parcels and it’s of equal value to the 700 feet we’re asking for, we could do a land exchange if and only if appraisers came in and appraised the value of both parcels.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the National Park Service has signed a preliminary agreement for a land swap with Kingsbarn whereby the federal government would give about an acre on the western boundary of Yosemite National Park in exchange for land of equal value.

The National Park Service would only comment that the proposed land exchange is in the inception phase and not a done deal:

“Preliminary, nonbinding documents are sometimes used at the beginning of the process to identify a proposal and establish responsibilities for items such as appraisals, surveys, and environmental review,” wrote the Yosemite National Park Public Affairs in an email to Moonshine Ink. “They do not approve an exchange, commit either party to completing it or predetermine the outcome. The Yosemite proposal remains at a very early stage, and NPS and DOI have not approved or agreed to complete an exchange.”

Rose said it does not reflect well on Kingsbarn that it’s continuing to pursue the Yosemite land exchange despite widespread opposition across the political spectrum. Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley, who currently represents Tahoe/Truckee, presented a bipartisan letter to Department of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum urging him to oppose the deal. The letter was signed by 157 federal lawmakers; another letter was signed by 61 California state legislators. A petition initiated by the Yosemite Rivers Alliance at the beginning of September called Yosemite Is Not for Sale received over 26,000 signatures in less than two months.

“You’ve seen the public outrage and the level of concern that the general public has over this development and this campaign to give away a piece of one of the most beloved places in the entire world,” Rose said. “The company’s willingness to continue after this public outrage shows a lack of respect for our public lands. And I think it shows a lack of respect for our laws. This exchange would be unlawful. You’re not allowed to give away a piece of the national park purely to benefit a private equity firm. Where these exchanges have occurred in the past, it’s always been to help conserve parks, to help manage parks. It’s not to help benefit a private interest.”

Tahoe

Kingsbarn Capital & Development is based in Menlo Park and headed by president Phil Mader. Despite the fact that it has no role in The Sanctuary at Yosemite, members of Strong North Tahoe, a grassroots organization founded in 2024 to advocate for small-scale redevelopment, have found parallels between both Kingsbarn projects. Namely, they say, that the company attempts to bend the rules. In Yosemite, it’s about trying to get a piece of national parkland to make a development feasible, while in Tahoe it’s about asking for exceptions to the rules about building scale.

The proposed 39° North project is a mixed-use development that covers 9 acres split across three different sites in Kings Beach. It includes a 132-room hotel and 27,262-square-feet of commercial space, 51 deed-restricted workforce housing units, and 38 market-rate townhomes.

“In Yosemite, Kingsbarn is seeking a land exchange for a private access road, while here in Kings Beach, Kingsbarn is seeking a variance from the Tahoe Basin Area Plan’s building-length standard for a hotel,” Patricia Orr wrote in an email to Moonshine Ink. Orr is part of Strong North Tahoe, which has been critical of the project. “The circumstances are different, but both raise an interesting question: when should exceptions to established public planning standards be granted, and how do we weigh private benefits against the public interest?”

The TBAP permits building lengths of up to 250 feet in town centers. However, Kingsbarn is asking for 445 feet for the mixed-use hotel building, almost twice the allowable amount. The developer says it is necessary because of the unique nature of the parcel.

“The hotel building length variance is needed to accommodate the hotel on the constrained triangular parcel, which is harder to develop than a traditional rectangular parcel,” Mader wrote. “The hotel has been substantially reduced in height, bulk, and massing from 179 hotel rooms and six stories to 132 rooms and four stories. This represents a 26% reduction in hotel rooms and a 25% reduction in height. The commercial space will include restaurants and retail for visitors and the community, and the community has requested commercial space.”

The project went before the Tahoe Basin Design Review Committee on Sept. 22.

“Kingsbarn recognizes the concerns raised regarding the proposed hotel’s length and is actively evaluating design refinements in response to feedback from the design review committee,” Mader stated in an email to Moonshine Ink. “This includes exploring ways to further enhance its architectural design and incorporate the committee’s requested visual break in the building’s length.”

Currently, the development proposal is in the environmental questionnaire phase of the planning process, and the request for a variance, which is part of the project’s entitlements, won’t be decided until it goes to the planning commission, which at the earliest will be sometime next summer, according to county officials.

Placer County Senior Planner Heather Beckman, who is working on the 39° North project, said that it’s not unusual for developers to ask for variances, but there need to be special circumstances that necessitate them.

“It’s not out of the ordinary. I mean, it’s not a daily occurrence, but it’s not uncommon,” she said. “Again, just to contextualize, we get variances for garages all the time on a residence. It’s just sometimes the circumstances of the property warrant it.”

Orr’s concern is that if the variance is granted, it best serves the developer, but not necessarily the community, a critique similar to that of Kingsbarn’s request for the Yosemite road.

“What this tells me is that Kingsbarn has no thought about public land and public return, they’re focused on their developer piece and have yet to date not been able to quantify public return and value beyond what their program is delivering,” she said. “When exceptions or public resources are involved, there should be more than just what helps the development move forward, but also what those decisions mean for the place and the public over time. And that’s really what it comes down to: How are they [Placer County] going to make that decision and at what point is someone going to look out for us here in Kings Beach?”

Kingsbarn has made changes to the project in the past in response to community feedback. It shortened the deed-restricted apartment building length from 247 feet to 192 feet, scaled down the hotel and commercial building from six to four floors, and relocated vehicle access to the hotel from North Lake Boulevard to Salmon Avenue to reduce traffic impacts.

In addition to workforce housing, the project includes community benefits such as a dog park, tot lot, community gathering spaces, and new public parking spaces on Salmon Avenue.

Mader said 39° North is intended to breathe new life into Kings Beach.

“39° North is envisioned as an opportunity to revitalize the Kings Beach town center while delivering meaningful benefits for residents, local businesses, and visitors,” he wrote. “The development will introduce much-needed lodging, new restaurants and retail offerings, and a rooftop bar, along with 51 deed-restricted workforce housing apartments to help address the area’s housing challenges. Kingsbarn’s goal is to create a sustainable, welcoming destination that supports the local economy, enhances the community, and contributes to the long-term vitality of Kings Beach and North Lake Tahoe.”