We were not particularly surprised when hearing this week that the owners of the proposed AutoCamp site had pulled their application for building a large glamping complex to the northwest of Sedona. “Glamping” is a portmanteau of “glamorous” and “camping,” which is just as paradoxical as it sounds.
The proposed high-end camping area would be located southwest of Fay Canyon on Boynton Canyon Road off Dry Creek Road and feature around 100 firepits, 85 Airstream travel trailers for nightly rental, a possible restaurant for guests and a clubhouse.
It appears from statements by representatives of the Santa Barbara, Calif.-based company, Yavapai County and numerous long-time activists in the Verde Valley that concerns about land use, traffic and fire risk may not have been sufficiently addressed by the developer.
Last Friday, Feb. 12, long-time local leader Dr. Serge Wright penned a Guest Perspective in our newspaper addressing fears related to wildfire, overuse of roads and trails in the area and potential damage to archaeological sites, concluding with, “We ask Yavapai County officials to reject this ill-considered project before the Brins Fire is repeated — perhaps this time with more tragic results. Rezoning this parcel should not be an option.”
[Read Dr. Serge Wright’s Guest Perspective below]
However, like most projects in the Verde Valley, a withdrawal by property owners is not a victory despite some neighbors short-sightedly claiming permanent victory on social media.
AutoCamp developers stated instead, “AutoCamp looks forward to resubmitting their application and to participating in the traditional county review process. As part of the resubmittal process, AutoCamp looks forward to continuing its community outreach.” I.e., AutoCamp is on pause, not dead.
Baring some major upheaval with the company, it will return on a county docket.
Long-time readers know that we have strongly argued against bad developments that negatively affect the Verde Valley, communities and immediate neighbors. El Rojo Grande was the most egregious in recent memory. In addition to publishing stories and letters to the editor, we wrote five editorials against this ([“Rojo Grande Ranch housing project only increases Sedona’s woes,” Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2018], [“Yavapai County’s approval of El Rojo Grande rezoning will only benefit Illinois,” Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2019], [“Ex-mayor Rob Adams tells falsehood at Sedona XYZ meeting about El Rojo Grande to play the victim,” Friday, Jan. 18, 2019], [“Community prompts P&Z to reject rezone,” Friday, Feb. 1, 2019] and [“After hullabaloo, El Rojo Grande remains a threat,” Friday, July 12, 2019]) — one of the worst development proposals to approach our area — urging county officials at the commission and board level to reject the proposal.
Fortunately, residents who spoke out publicly and through our newspaper pressured El Rojo Grande enough that the parent company withdrew.
Though different, AutoCamp at that location isn’t much better. Quite simply, the area is historically rural, zoned for single-family residential and it should remain so. That particular parcel is a former homestead, much like other homestead properties converted to rural residential parcels, and should not be a commercial site.
There are simply not enough roadways in and out of the area to facilitate the use of the developed commercial properties in the area. The nearby Seven Canyons subdivision and Enchantment Resort are accessed by paved roads. There have been several fires at Enchantment over the years caused by electrical problems and once by a lightning strike, yet none have sparked a wildfire in Boynton Canyon.
Should a fire break out at AutoCamp — and there will be a fire; the kind of urban millennials who go “glamping” while Instagramming vacations aren’t really stewards who research fire mitigation before choosing a trendy campsite — there’s effectively only one paved road out to the northwest, which fire crews will need to use to battle the blaze.
The southern route is a relatively rough dirt road, but wholly insufficient for a large number of vehicles fleeing a wildfire.
We strongly recommend the planning and zoning commissioners — within their power — and the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors consider fire mitigation paramount and reject a commercial glamping proposal accessed only by dirt roads, surrounded by wildland interface and filled with firepits destined to one day start a wildfire.
This is not the first glamping project to come to the Verde Valley [“Sedona P&Z looks into ‘glamping,’” Sept. 20, 2020]. A proposed project in 2019 on Bill Grey Road north of Cottonwood was pulled by Under Canvas after its rural neighbors strongly objected [“‘Glamping’ site cancels plans after opposition from neighbors,” Nov. 20, 2019].
If a glamping site opened on another site in the Verde Valley with paved road access and better access to water to fight fires, it could sap the small niche market, making other sites less financially tempting.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
“Parcel rezoning would pose fire danger”
Friday, Feb. 12, 2021
The blaze, Brins Fire, made national news. It began with an illegal, abandoned campfire which quickly swept across the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness. The wildfire fed on dry brush, juniper and ponderosa pine, and strong winds pushed a wall of flame that grew to seven stories tall.
In the nearly 50 years we’ve lived here, I’ve never seen anything like the way the entire cliffside exploded that June evening in 2006. My wife Kathy and I were among hundreds evacuated in the face of the 4,500- acre fire; it’s a minor miracle that nobody was killed.
In the years since, continued drought has only made the Coconino National Forest surrounding Sedona more vulnerable to dangerous fires. It’s why the U.S. Forest Service bans camping and campfires year-round in the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness and adjacent National Forest.
Yet, a California-based company — AutoCamp — wants to exploit a loophole in the rules to allow not only camping, but also 100 fire pits at the base of Bear Mountain. This is just wrong.
I know the area well — I used to ride horses and hike near the 18- acre property eyed by AutoCamp. It’s a hilly piece of land, dotted by piñon pine and juniper and crisscrossed by arroyos that back to an 800-foot chimney rock formation. AutoCamp says its guests staying in $300 per night AirStream trailers, cabins and tents will be able to operate the individual and communal fire pits safely. Common sense and experience tell us otherwise.
What will the out-of-state tourists staying at AutoCamp know about the fire danger in our forest? Will they understand that a single windblown spark or cigarette butt carelessly tossed is all it takes? How will AutoCamp supervise these fires, especially after dark and when alcohol is involved?
AutoCamp offers “glamping” experiences — glamorous camping, for the uninitiated — in places like California wine country, Yosemite National Park and Cape Cod — all locations significantly wetter and cooler than Sedona. It’s arrogant to think that what works in Cape Cod, for example, would be a good fit for our high desert landscape.
Fire danger isn’t the only problem with what AutoCamp proposes, however. The Bear Mountain area is already at risk of being loved to death; dust, illegal camping and off-trail ATV use are among major problems. An additional 15,000 to 20,000 guests each year at AutoCamp will only further degrade a stressed ecosystem.
I’m particularly concerned about ancient petroglyphs, pictographs and other tribal artifacts that can be found in the canyons and rock formations within walking distance of the AutoCamp site. It won’t be long before throngs of hikers make their way to these sensitive relics, which can be easily damaged forever.
Since moving to Sedona in 1973, my wife and I have spent the better part of our adult lives in Sedona. This is where we’ve raised a family, grown a business and invested deeply in the community we love.
It’s this same love that leads us to oppose AutoCamp. We ask Yavapai County officials to reject this ill-considered project before the Brins Fire is repeated — perhaps this time with more tragic results. Rezoning this parcel should not be an option.
