You can read all the details of the paln at placer.ca.gov. Here are some highlights including the project description and an overview of the new lift drive equipment.

Project Description: In order to improve the recreational experience for intermediate skiers and snowboarders, provide enhanced lift access to the weather-protected slopes on Snow King Mountain, and quicken access to the Resort at Squaw Creek, the applicant is proposing to upgrade the Red Dog Chairlift to a high-speed, detachable chairlift. Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the removal and replacement of the Red Dog Lift.

The existing Red Dog chairlift is a fixed-grip triple chairlift that operates at an hourly capacity of 1,800 skiers per hour. The lift is approximately 3,700 feet long and there are 16 towers along the line. The existing tower placement results in a line profile that includes spans of significant length and height, which compromises rider comfort.

The applicant is proposing to replace the existing Red Dog triple chairlift with a new detachable 6-place chairlift operating at an hourly capacity of 2,400 skiers per hour. The new lift would be on the same alignment as the existing lift. As a detachable lift, the new Red Dog would be more appealing to all skiers and snowboarders and would improve utilization of Snow King Mountain terrain.

In order to improve the lift line profile and rider comfort by reducing the length and height of spans, the tower placement for the new Red Dog lift would be different than the existing lift. As a result, none of the existing towers and footings would be reused for the new lift. The top and bottom terminals of the new lift would be located in the same general area as the existing terminals, with potential for minor adjustments to improve skier circulation and milling areas.

According to information supplied by the applicant, the total disturbance area of previously-disturbed ground will be 0.76 acres, and the amount of previously undisturbed ground which will be disturbed by the project will be 1.19 acres. A comprehensive revegetation and restoration plan will be developed for the project, and will be supplied in conjunction with the Improvement Plans. Some BMP and revegetation notes and details, including the composition of the “Squaw Valley Seed Mix” to be used, were provided with the Initial Project Application.

New Lift Drive Equipment: The new Red Dog lift would be driven by an electric motor for primary operations and a diesel auxiliary motor for operation in the event of a power failure. The lift would also be equipped with a diesel evacuation motor that would be used in the event of a mechanical failure. All proposed new diesel motors would meet California Air Resources Board standards and the lowest emissions standards set forth by EPA for diesel motors. The hours of operation for the diesel motors would not exceed 30 hours per year, including operation for maintenance and occasional interruptions of electrical power.

PUBLIC NOTICE

The comment period for this document closes on February 7, 2013. A copy of the Negative Declaration is available for public review at the County’s web site http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/EnvCoordSvcs/NegDec.aspx, Community Development Resource Agency public counter, and at the Tahoe City Public Library. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject site shall be notified by mail of the upcoming hearing before the Planning Commission. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the Environmental Coordination Services, at (530)745-3132 between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm at 3091 County Center Drive, Auburn, CA 95603. For Tahoe projects, please visit our Tahoe Office, 565 West Lake Blvd., Tahoe City, CA 96145.

If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, address your written comments to our finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: (1) identify the environmental effect(s), why they would occur, and why they would be significant, and (2) suggest any mitigation measures which you believe would eliminate or reduce the effect to an acceptable level. Regarding item (1) above, explain the basis for your comments and submit any supporting data or references. Refer to Section 18.32 of the Placer County Code for important information regarding the timely filing of appeals.


Sign up for news and our top posts


53 Comments

  1. Art Vandelay says:

    And granite?

    Reply
    • Trulio says:

      To those who think upgrading granite to a high speed six pack have no love for the mountain….

      Reply
      • Andy H says:

        Red Dog
        Squaw Creek
        Siberia
        Squaw One

        All lifts that should be replaced before granite.

        Not even mentioning how many trees they would have to cut down to upgrade Granite.

        Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      If Granite was replaced with a high speed chair, on powder days (when they get it open) would get skied up faster than it already does. Same with Silverado.

      Reply
  2. Lust for Powder says:

    As much as this would be a major improvement the math is a bit weird.
    The current lift speed is limited due to a lawsuit regarding the upper lift terminal. They operate at 1,800 skiers per hour for a 3 pack which means 600 chairs per hour. The proposed lift is 2,400 skiers per hour for a 6 pack which means chairs per hour will drop to 400. I’ve heard from lift operations that they want to speed up the time to the top so this document somewhat confirms that but it means they will accomplish that by less chairs and/or greater spacing between the chairs.

    Probably a better result as opposed to saturating the hill with too many skiers.

    Reply
    • BayBUFF says:

      I am not sure what the engineering safety factor is for detachable lifts but I am sure that it requires greater spacing between chairs for detachable lifts opposed to fixed grips just in case the timing mechanism broke or something like that.

      Reply
  3. Sqwhiners says:

    bout time

    Reply
  4. Carlo Bontempi says:

    @Art : Granite doesnt serve the new target market – intermediates. (see Big Blue lift)’

    Reply
  5. Ski Both says:

    so the new lift is going to stop lower than the current lift? and where is Snow King Mountain Terrain, never heard of that area and I’ve been skiing Squaw for over 25+ years. Are they renaming things like Alpine did years ago. Never did get those straight. and why not use the old towers? makes no sense to me.

    Reply
    • Art Vandelay says:

      so in those 25 have you ever looked at the mountain map or a topo of Squaw? What is know by the lift that accesses it, “red dog” is really called Snow King mountain and has been since the beginning, like before the Olympics.

      Reply
    • Powder hound says:

      No it doesn’t say that the new lift will stop lower. It says the new lift will start and stop in the same general place.

      Reply
  6. Squaw rider says:

    This improvement is sorely needed during storm days when the upper mountain is closed and lines get really long (like we had around Christmas). It will take some of the pressure off of KT-22, plus there is advanced terrain off of RD like Poulsen’s Gulley.

    Reply
  7. snowmonster says:

    That should help the line on storm days, but we still need something that can utilize broken arrow and tower 16 on storm days. Realign Squaw 1!

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      Will C2 ever run again?

      Reply
      • F#@K KSL, ALEX was the GENIUS says:

        Of all the comments this is EXTRAORDINARILY painful.

        CII, if upgraded to even a quad, (perhaps even move the soon to be replaced RD), would access far superior “Squaw” style terrain than anything else the idiots have in mind for their totally douchey, way homo, mega-resort plans.

        CII can run in big winds and on storm days and will spread the crowd away from the base area which is often so clustered that the joke has become,
        ” 2 Big Mountains, 1 Huge lift line”

        F#@K KSL!!!!, do something right by us Squaw skiers for a change will ya dipshits?? This ain’t no freakin N* and it never will be no matter how much you think it can.

        We don’t need side country access to uphill traverse gates to Alpine Meadows either and quit claiming EXTRAORDINARY. Show me don’t tell me!!!

        Who the f#@K in their right mind wants to ski Snow king when there is so much better terrain to be accessed at CII instead??

        ‘Mike LicksWirths’ balls get a freakin’ a clue….you haven’t done shit for us. You have proven time and time again to just be an extreme corporate brown noser Extraordinaire.

        Reply
        • Ski Bum says:

          Did you miss your meds today?

          Reply
          • Wash yourself,,, says:

            obviously, Ski bum never had an expensive pass @ Squally and never knew how some things were actually quite better,,,,

          • Ski Bum says:

            Hey wash yourself…
            You don’t know what you are talking about at all! I have had MANY expensive passes at Squaw Valley. As much as $1300 buying prior to July 1st. I like it WAY better now than before. No comparison. My first pass was probably before you were born. Death to purple!

  8. joe says:

    hopefully they will dynamite all the cliffs and chutes in the gulley and fill it with concrete so the ride is less scary

    Reply
  9. Rebellin says:

    I’ve often said that Red Dog is the only lift that freaks me out due to height. I’m not afraid of heights, but that chair always seems to stop while I’m at the highest part, and it makes my stomach drop every time!

    Reply
  10. Anonymous says:

    How accurate is the boundary map? It seems as though Squaw owns the land on the north side of Broken Arrow down to Shirley Canyon, the meadow behind Mainline Pocket and a good chunk behind Silvy. Not that it’s great skiing just curious as to the actual boundaries of Squaw’s property and where USFS land begins.

    Reply
    • C 'mon says:

      Broken Arrow down to Shirley and behind Silvy has some amazing terrain! Squaw has thought about doing some backcountry gates to access it, but there are a lot of terrain traps and people would venture out onto tram face. One day maybe we can shred that area! And if they put a lift back there even better!

      Reply
  11. Agent P says:

    If I ever down loaded Red Dog lift I think I would white knuckle the safety bar.

    Reply
  12. Ski Bum says:

    This will be a huge improvement! Needed for a long time. Hope they get it. As usual, some UO readers still find a reason to complain or question rather than to be happy about a much needed improvement for many reasons. The first comment is “And Granite?” That’s like saying to a beautiful blonde that brought you a free beer, “and what about the brunette with the free wine?” Get a life!!!

    Reply
  13. Original content please...... says:

    Sick.

    Reply
  14. Hey Ski Bum says:

    I like Blondes and Brunettes especially with free wine, and at the same time.
    So how about granite?

    Reply
    • Ski Bum says:

      White or red? Both lifts will end up getting replaced but one at a time. If it was Granite first, then many would say why not Red Dog first? I’m just happy one of them “might” get done. Good point, but it’s the right path and another step in the right direction. Red Dog is too slow on a powder day when the upper mountain is closed. Granite Chief doesn’t do much if the upper mountain is closed, agreed? For now, a blond with a free beer.

      Reply
  15. Anonymous says:

    Since a new lift for GC was supposedly going in last summer with the “$70 million renaissance”, yes, how about Granite?

    Reply
  16. powfiend says:

    Im against it 100%!!! last thing we need is more skier traffic in our powder stashes. Squaw should build lifts to access new terrain, perhaps shirley canyon to the top of broken arrow/tramface ridge instead of wasting money on existing terrain

    Reply
  17. BoGnar says:

    Hike!

    Reply
  18. K eep S tanding in L ine says:

    Visualize Six-pack Silvy

    Reply
  19. Anonymous says:

    Id like to know how any of that makes sense because A) the current alignment will not support a 6 pack lift, it will have to be completely re-engineered, B) Squaw doesnt own the land whatsoever, as far as the top of snow king is concerned, the only land allocated for use is where the lift currently sits, and C) Good luck with the land use permit to re-grade the top of snow king to make room for the top terminal.

    KEEP DREAMING MR WIRTH. LISTEN TO THE LOCALS

    Reply
    • Powder hound says:

      Why won’t the proposal support a six pack? All the towers will be new so how do you come to that conclusion?

      Reply
  20. Wahhhh says:

    This is great news! Happy with KSL’s decision on this one. It will really help on storm days. Stop crying everyone.

    Reply
  21. Dave J. says:

    6-pack or 4-pack, get it done. Squaw need modern, uphill capacity on the lower mountain. Now. The resort is prone to high wind and the upper mountain closes every big Pacific storm.

    Reply
  22. So tired,,,, says:

    of seeing people whine about Squally whiners whining on this site all the time

    $.02

    Reply
  23. This just in, says:

    rumor on the mtn w/certain lift maint peeps,

    no RD upgrades,,,,, !!!

    Reply
  24. Squaw Rocks says:

    Red Dog Six Pack Approved – http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/PC/2013/March28/SrF%20%20%203%2028%2013%20pch%20Red%20Dog%20Chair%20Lift.ashx

    Now its a question of implementation timing. I would guess that we see the Hot Wheels HSQ and the Red Dog HSS go in this summer. Possibly Granite Cheif HSQ but i doubt it. Anyone know for sure?

    Reply

Trackbacks for this post

  1. Squaw Valley’s plan for a new Red Dog Chairlift | HOMES FOR SALE IN SQUAW VALLEY, TRUCKEE & NORTH LAKE TAHOE

Leave a Comment