Squaw-Alpine Base to Base

[LightRanger]

BTW J, I love in that comment section how the landscape architect from SE Group doesn't know which lifts still exist... #facepalm

[TahoeJ]

BTW J, I love in that comment section how the landscape architect from SE Group doesn't know which lifts still exist... #facepalm

It certainly doesn't convey a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of the map when Cornice II is still on there, that's for sure.

I asked my wife about the view thing (she's a specialist in NEPA / CEQA) and while she didn't dig into it in depth, she doesn't think they'll have too much of a problem. Maybe a few hoops to jump through but it's probably do-able. I know you're in that field too and more familiar with the specific terrain in this case than she is, though.

[itsnowjoke]

Some interesting comments here. I've spent a ton of time in wilderness areas. In concept, it would be great if while in them, man made structures were not visible. I hate seeing man-made stuff from wilderness areas, but also realize the realistic inevitability of seeing Bishop from the top of Mount Humpheys, for instance.

Having grown up in Oregon, then spending a large chunk of time in the Sierra and Montana, I found in most places in most wilderness areas you can't see man made objects. That's perfect.

In Utahrdia, however, three wilderness areas were designated in the Wasatch, in extremely close proximity to Salt Lake City and adjoining ski areas. Predictably, you can see man-made stuff from most places in these "Wilderness Areas".

Though environmentalists meant well in pushing for the Wasatch wilderness areas, a really bad precedent was set: Obviously, Wilderness view shed is not inviolate. If a gondola tower at an established ski area is going to "ruin" a wilderness area, that wilderness area was probably misplaced to begin with imho.

While Itsnowjoke has never met a gondola he didn't like, he's somewhat torn on this one. If it opens up Whitewolf, it's awesome! Otherwise it's just meh, since it connects similar terrain with no shredding involved.

[meter-man]

UnofficialAlpine tracked down the legal justification Squaw's attorneys put together on the wilderness designation on Caldwell's property. http://unofficialalpine.com/?p=8447 Basically, the attorneys recognize that the wilderness designation included Caldwell's land, but the lawyers argue that neither the federal Wilderness Act nor the California Wilderness Act apply to privately owned land. I'm surprised they found no case law precedent on this question, but there is none cited here. Time to fire up Westlaw...

[old goat]

UnofficialAlpine tracked down the legal justification Squaw's attorneys put together on the wilderness designation on Caldwell's property. http://unofficialalpine.com/?p=8447 Basically, the attorneys recognize that the wilderness designation included Caldwell's land, but the lawyers argue that neither the federal Wilderness Act nor the California Wilderness Act apply to privately owned land. I'm surprised they found no case law precedent on this question, but there is none cited here. Time to fire up Westlaw...

Most likely the Wilderness map was drawn up by someone sitting in an office who had no idea where the private property was (SP's at the time) and what the lay of the land is and who just scribbled some lines on a piece of paper. To the best of my recollection, where the Wilderness sign is now is pretty much where the wilderness starts, and is well beyond where even Squaw's map shows the boundary. There have been some important battles about preserving undeveloped land from ski development in California--Coldstream, Independence Lake, Mineral King. This is not one of them. And I wonder how many of those who are raising the environmental flag now--at least those who are old enough--opposed Granite Chief and Silverado. Probably best if we all save our righteous indignation for an environmental battle that counts, of which I am sure there are plenty to come. How about a Castle Peak Wilderness to start with. Best summer patch skiing in the northern sierra.

[PB]

....... Best summer patch skiing in the northern sierra.

A little excessive hyperbole, but I totally agree with the rest.

[irul&ublo]

UnofficialAlpine tracked down the legal justification Squaw's attorneys put together on the wilderness designation on Caldwell's property. http://unofficialalpine.com/?p=8447 Basically, the attorneys recognize that the wilderness designation included Caldwell's land, but the lawyers argue that neither the federal Wilderness Act nor the California Wilderness Act apply to privately owned land. I'm surprised they found no case law precedent on this question, but there is none cited here. Time to fire up Westlaw...

Both the Feds and the State might well be subject to a taking claim if a wilderness designation applied to privately owned property.

[LightRanger]

There have been some important battles about preserving undeveloped land from ski development in California--Coldstream, Independence Lake, Mineral King. This is not one of them. And I wonder how many of those who are raising the environmental flag now--at least those who are old enough--opposed Granite Chief and Silverado.

Agreed.

Probably best if we all save our righteous indignation for an environmental battle that counts, of which I am sure there are plenty to come. How about a Castle Peak Wilderness to start with. Best summer patch skiing in the northern sierra.

No. But a National Recreation Area or National Conservation Area that did not exclude mountain bikes might work. Problem is there's a hell of a lot of SPI checkerboard land out there.

Both the Feds and the State might well be subject to a taking claim if a wilderness designation applied to privately owned property.

I made the same point to a buddy on Facebook. Seems like a slamdunk takings claim.

[plugboots]

When we had our house on Upper Bench we hiked/skied the Five Lakes trail all the time. It looks like this will go right over the lakes. Well that would kinda suck. Also I could see where if this thing was there when we had the house there, we might have used the thing a bit, but if I have to drive up the road to use the tram, why not just drive around the corner, and park at Squaw and vice-versa? It ain't far, even with hienous holiday traffic.

[TahoeJ]

I made the same point to a buddy on Facebook. Seems like a slamdunk takings claim.

If they were so inclined. But would they be? I'm guessing not.

[LightRanger]

By "they" you mean Caldwell because it's his land from which he would be deprived economic value. I dunno. Maybe. Worth seven figures.

[LightRanger]

This was passed on to me.

BASE TO BASE GONDOLA UPDATE
Granite Chief Wilderness Area

Members of the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Team: Good morning- I trust you are all well.

As it related to our recent announcement of initiating the planning process associated with the Alpine Meadows| Squaw Valley base to base gondola, Tom Mooers at Sierra Watch recently issued a press statement specifically alleging that our contemplated plans included going through the Granite Chief Wilderness Area, as designated by the California Wilderness Act of 1984. Tom’s assertions and in the press, aspersions, are materially and factually incorrect. Had Tom called or done any level of thorough diligence, we could have saved him the public embarrassment associated with his organization’s completely invalid claims.

As we all seek to work with facts and not hyperbole or the propagation of headline seeking myths, I’ve attached a detailed white paper on this matter. I hope you will please take a moment to review this document. It’s an important if not critical summary of the facts and truths around Mr. Caldwell’s land ownership as it relates to this proposal and provides for an objective, chronological overview of what’s relevant on this topic (inclusive of citations).

Personally, it may be relevant for you to know that my grandfather Conrad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_L._Wirth) actually participated in the drafting of the original enabling federal legislation, The Wilderness Act of 1963; moreover, I was a wilderness ranger in the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area in the Santa Fe National Forest. It’s with that background, coupled with a deep sense of conviction and obligation that I let you know that I would never, never contemplate pushing these contemplated plans through a wilderness area. I don’t take Tom Mooers’ inability to do research as an affront, however the aspersions he’s casted in a few instances are not just embarrassing for him/his organization, more importantly, they are embarrassing to those of us who have been and remain true environmentalists as expressed through our work and actions. Our position has been affirmed by the United States Forest Service and once contacted by the USFS, the LA Times even redacted a map and certain elements of Mr. Mooers’ inaccurate claims.

Again, please take a moment to review this document and let’s get recalibrated on the process and what’s important…but most importantly, what are facts and truth.

On behalf of a very grateful executive team, thank you for making the very most and best of the 2014-2015 season. You are all truly world class and it remains an honor to work with you. I look forward to seeing you on the trails around the Sierras, on the lake and around Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley this summer; or on the mountain when we get into what I am certain will be a great 2015-2016 season.



Warm regards,



Andy




Andy Wirth

President & Chief Executive Officer

Squaw Valley Ski Holdings

Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows

[old goat]

When we had our house on Upper Bench we hiked/skied the Five Lakes trail all the time. It looks like this will go right over the lakes.

Close but not over, at least according to this map. http://unofficialalpine.com/wp-conte...la-Map_web.jpg

[TahoeJ]

By "they" you mean Caldwell because it's his land from which he would be deprived economic value. I dunno. Maybe. Worth seven figures.

Yeah, I read that backwards (that's what happens when your kids wake you up all night). I figure he would be inclined.

I agree that this isn't the environmental cause to take up and it's kind of a phony stance IMO considering the infrastructure that already exists. Now, if they try to connect Alpine Meadows to Homewood and put lifts along Blackwood Canyon and a restaurant on top of Twin Peaks I might have a different reaction. :-)

[mattyj]

LightRanger, did the attached white paper also get passed on to you? Can you post it up somewhere?

[meter-man]

This is the one I've seen: http://unofficialalpine.com/wp-conte...ief-Status.pdf

[LightRanger]

It wasn't attached. I asked the sender if it was the same one as posted at unofficialalpine above. Will let you know.

[The Dad]

I spoke to the dude there about the various lift upgrades and I remember him saying that lift upgrades were contingent on mountain ops--e.g. that they wouldn't happen during the drought when they were presumably bringing in less revenue from the mountain.

That's consistent with Scott Sweitanski's statements regarding the Hot Wheels replacement at the Alpine Meadows All-Valley Meeting last Labor Day weekend.

You don't post much so let me explain--we don't call people stupid around here. It's just taken for granted.

I chuckled. And resemble that remark.

here's the thing, Squaw fucking sucks for intermediates who I think make up the bulk of the $$$ for daily ops. Alpine is quite good for intermediates, but has no services, so there could be some back and forth movement of groups of varying ability and desires (families) which is always good for business.

I know that this is conventional wisdom, but it's kind of bullshit IMHO. When my family was intermediates, we skied Squaw all the time. The lower mountain, in particular, was great, because I could ski with them on the groomers for a bit, duck off to the ungroomed, and rejoin them. I don't know how anyone could think that Alpine Bowl and the like is more intermediate friendly than the Resort Run.

KSL wants the advertising cachet that comes with a "single" ski area with X,XXX thousand acres of skiable terrain.

Good analysis generally, especially this. It had more value before Vail proposed to combine Canyons and PCMR, when Squalpine could've been marketed as the largest resort in the US, but it's still a key marketing point for the potential destination travel folks whose dollars propel valuation.

[TahoeJ]

Good analysis generally, especially this. It had more value before Vail proposed to combine Canyons and PCMR, when Squalpine could've been marketed as the largest resort in the US, but it's still a key marketing point for the potential destination travel folks whose dollars propel valuation.

Yeah, it still has tons of value from a marketing perspective. Andy Wirth has been very diplomatic when asked about this but you can tell he basically wants to say that Canyons / PCMR have shit terrain compared to Squaw / Alpine so it's not even a real comparison. I'm sure Big Sky / Moonlight feels the same way.

[donaldsoolar]

Nice

[dvlr]

number 6 of your list seems the core of the matter. Claiming to plan capital improvements on the operations side would diminish resistance to the village expansion by people who's focus is the Squaw skiing experience. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that this plan is a total fabrication, put out there to ease objections to their real goal, the big village at Squaw. Also, numbers of skier visits to Alpine recorded on a drought year are not typical of the pattern of a Squaw skier.

I doubt he would lie about that. And it's easy enough to track because they use RFID scanners. I suspect that number stems from a couple of things: (1) there actually are people who are from out of the area and haven't skied both places and want to check out Alpine (e.g. KSL's ideal market for this); (2) it seems that a lot of the race teams shuttle back and forth and their numbers will add up over time. Other factors I can't think of?

Rationale behind this as I see it:
1. Skiable acreage numbers for marketing (a shuttle shouldn't count, and I think a lot of people discount their numbers because of the shuttle). That's a big factor. Lots of folks want to vacation at Mt. Jumbo. At least, lots of folks that KSL would like paying to stay at Squaw.
2. No base area lodging at Alpine and planned additional base area lodging at Squaw.
3. Planned base area lodging may/will result in a decrease in parking spots, making Alpine (and White Wolf's) parking more valuable to the combined resort. (This will fucking suck.)
4. Novelty factor (like the Peak-to-Peak, but not as spectacular because of the different engineering involved).
5. Uphill capacity management for KT (J's point).
6. Mollify critics of the Village project and show that they're making on-mountain improvements (though with no terrain expansion this is a big MEH to me).
7. Long-rumored potential project that some people have wanted for a long time (or at least that's the perception).

Related note: anybody remember JMA's rumored plan to build a gondy from Alpine to Homewood? That was interesting.

BTW, Andy's comment about the uphill capacity reduction, while technically true in terms of installed lift capacity, is quite obviously BS to folks who know how often various chairs run.

[JAREDS]

I am always wary of new development; I vehemently oppose SkiLink/One Wasatch in Utah, etc.
I'm fairly new to Tahoe (First time actually getting a season pass/ski lease this year).
I'm not totally sure I understand the concerns behind this project:

PROS:

• makes the resorts more marketable on paper
• may possibly help utilize Alpine's parking(it's pretty full already as it is)
• may possibly make Alpine more utilized as it makes an easy connection to hotels etc.

I don't totally understand the CONS - here's what I see:

• Terrain: no actual terrain opens up, including this dude's private land + wilderness area
• Eyesore: the towers are already in, I just hiked around up there last week and there's not much more impact that would occur IMO
• Environmental Impact: Same as above - the towers are in already, looks like they've been in for a couple years

The 5 Lakes area looks accessible from the resort; we hiked up the ridge and hit the resort boundary and saw the lifts right there - I assume the 5-lakes terrain is all accessible currently anyway.

I'd love a TL;DR version.

[LightRanger]

The towers are not in. The towers you saw are/were for a separate pet chairlift project of Troy Caldwell's that has not been completed. This project is entirely different and would entail new towers.

Also, the three pros are you list are not pros from a skier-experience perspective.

[Shred Baron]

number 6 of your list seems the core of the matter. Claiming to plan capital improvements on the operations side would diminish resistance to the village expansion by people who's focus is the Squaw skiing experience. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that this plan is a total fabrication, put out there to ease objections to their real goal, the big village at Squaw. Also, numbers of skier visits to Alpine recorded on a drought year are not typical of the pattern of a Squaw skier.

Through working at Squaw, and a lift manufacturer, I have heard plenty about this for almost 5 years now. It wouldn't surprise me if they have already spent a considerable amount of money getting to the point they are. They probably only announced it now that they feel confident enough that they have a clear plan, that they can make happen.

[bodywhomper]

5 years is not surprising. In the world of environmental planning (and sometimes public relations), the conceptual design, often considered "10% design", is often completed before a project gets too far into public relations.