What is a Scoping Meeting?

​

There are several steps involved, including a public meeting to gather input on the scope of the environmental review (i.e., the scoping meeting). This meeting allows TRPA staff to identify the issues that concern the community. In our opinion, TRPA is not planning to impose strict standards or requirements on Barton and this project. Instead, they leave it up to the public to influence the scope of the assessment, which is why this meeting is so important. 

 

Details about an EA and EIS Info Pulled From the FEMA Website

​

TRPA is failing our area and we must hold them accountable!

​

• TRPA only required Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) for Latitude 39 Project (95 feet tall, 230,145 sq ft)

  • The project includes the construction of 40 new residential units, rooftop access, two levels of parking, entry-level amenities, and a 3,688 square-foot public commercial restaurant and bar space. The structure will be 95 feet tall, including 7 levels plus rooftop amenities. The building footprint will be 41,523 square feet, and the total floor area is approximately 230,145 square feet.

    • ​TRPA - Environmental Review: The Applicant has prepared an Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) to analyze potential environmental impacts caused by the project. Based on this IEC and conditions in the draft  permit, TRPA staff recommends that a Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effects be made for the proposed project.

      • At a minimum, TRPA should have required an EA and probably an EIS.​​

      • ​Latitude 39 project 71 page IEC  Barton November 2023 IEC is only 19 pages so far

• TRPA planned to only require an environmental checklist for the Barton Hospital leading up to the fast track area amendment plan approvals in August 2024.  We started asking common sense questions TRPA failed to ask themselves and eventually they decided to require an environmental assessment.​​

• TRPA has already accepted and repeated information from Barton's traffic study suggesting VMTs in the area will go down with the new hospital in Stateline, NV.

• Tahoe Event Center (EA)   This project clearly needed an (EIS) but TRPA only required an Environmental Assessment.

•  TRPA fails to regulate VMT mitigation plan for the Tahoe Event Center  (link to article)

  • Retiring TRPA legal counsel John Marshall said the plan was to implement vehicle counters using Bluetooth at several locations before the center opened in September 2023.

  • However, the Tahoe Douglas Visitors Authority, which owns the center, never installed the devices.

 

​TRPA Incompetence is outlined in this Tahoe Mountain News article  Vol. 31 No. 7, January 2025 Pg 8

 

This article outlines some of the issues with the TRPA.

• It’s not good when it takes a formal letter from a Nevada legislative committee chair to pry loose a required environmental update from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 

• This letter, sent Oct. 16, followed months of public testimony at the state capitol and TRPA headquarters in Stateline, Nevada. Just days later, California’s Attorney General’s office also sent a letter advising TRPA’s Governing Board that the agency failed, again, to meet a reduction in one of its key environmental milestones: Vehicle Miles Traveled. The correspondence referenced several previous warning letters. California’s Department of Justice further noted TRPA’s latest environmental threshold pivot was a “confusing mix of apples and oranges.”  - Click for link to article

• ​​Since favoring development and tourism the Lake has succinctly been described as “sick.” Today, the agency relies on a simplistic “Initial Environmental Checklist” for substantial projects with no mention of threshold attainment. (Waldorf Astoria Crystal Bay’s troubled developer merely checked “no impact.”)  - Click for link to article 

 

We firmly believe that this Barton Hospital project warrants a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement. At this point, however, TRPA has determined that only an Environmental Assessment is necessary.​

​

​If we do not voice our thoughts and concerns, TRPA will proceed with a very limited environmental checklist.  We were able to push TRPA into requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA). However, if we continue to raise valid concerns, TRPA would be compelled to require a much more thorough Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR). It is critical o share any and all concerns about this project and its potential environmental impact to help TRPA do their job to protect our area.

​

 

 

Here is a review of the 1/16/25 Scoping Meeting

TRPA and Barton held a scoping meeting last night for the public to comment on environmental matters that should be addressed in Barton's proposal to build an 85 foot tall hospital at Kahle Drive and Hwy 50.

 

In my estimation, about 60 - 80 people attended the meeting.  The room at the TRPA was packed full.

 

TRPA had planned to structure the meeting so that people went to different stations highlighting different aspects of the project (as was done with the USFS meeting on the proposed expansion of Zephyr Cove Resort) and NDOT's and TRPA's efforts to reduce Hwy 50 to two travel lanes instead of four lanes.  In my opinion, governmental entities do this to try to avoid being accountable to a large crowd of people and to diffuse the commentary so they can control the narrative.

 

However, last night this effort failed.  People started asking questions in the entire group setting after a short presentation and this continued for over an hour and a half as people did not want to stop the group setting.

 

In my opinion, well over 90% of the questions expressed concerns that TRPA and Barton are trying to dismiss environmental concerns by issuing a very limited environmental review.

 

Below is a representation of the main questions asked by those present (TRPA did not really give answers to the questions as they said they were there to receive input):

 

1.  Why is TRPA proceeding with an environmental review before Barton has submitted a final application with final renderings for the proposed hospital? 

 

2.  Why is the South Shore Area Plan being amended to allow Barton to build an 85 foot hospital before any hospital project was submitted?  

 

3.  The existing Area Plan allows buildings on the site up to 56 feet.  Why can't Barton build the hospital at this height?  And if it cannot, isn't this evidence that the former Lakeside Inn site is too small for a hospital?

 

4.  The proposed site is bounded by Hwy 50, Kahle Drive, Laura Drive and the 4H easement road (a private road).  Kahle Drive is a small two lane road.  Laura Drive is a much smaller road.  4H Road is a one lane road that is private.  Does it make sense to build a hospital under such a road setup?

 

5.  Barton says road trips to and from the hospital will DECREASE by 50% by moving the hospital from the Y in South Lake Tahoe to Kahle Drive in Stateline.  How is that possible when the vast majority of Barton's patients come from the 30,000 population communities of South Lake Tahoe, Meyers and Christmas Valley and the East Shore only has a population of about 4,000?  Plus, Barton says over 2/3 of its patient base is from residents and not tourists?

 

6.  How is the need to evacuate the hospital in a wildfire being analyzed?  This was a major issue in the Paradise, CA fire?

 

7.  Does TRPA agree that adding a hospital at that site greatly increases the need to keep Hwy 50 four lanes and will TRPA commit to keeping Hwy 50 four lanes?

 

8.  The site does not appear to be large enough to allow for proper parking for hospital employees and visitors?  Where will the parking be?

 

9.  What will Barton do to help with employee housing in the area?  The vacancy rate in the area is almost zero.

 

10.  The water table on the Barton site is very high?  How is that being analyzed in the environmental analysis and how will water runoff be prevented from entering the Oilver Park Neighborhood lakeside of the Barton site?  

 

11.  Barton says it needs to move because of California seismic retrofit standards for hospitals coming into play in the next few years, but only one of its four buildings is subject to the new retrofit standards as the other buildings (including the main hospital) already surpass the standards?  The one building that doesn't pass is a one story building that mainly houses offices and labs?  So why doesn't the hospital just re-build that one building which would be a lot cheaper than a $300+ million building at Stateline? 

 

12.  How is TRPA going to analyze a helicopter and heliport landing when it has no noise standards for helicopters in that area?  What are the backup plans if there end up being problems with the helicopter?   How will you evaluate how the wildlife calling Rabe Meadows at Kahle Drive (bald eagles, ducks, etc) will be impacted by helicopter and ambulance noise?  What happens if there is a bird strike with the helicopter in a small and congested area?

 

 

Again, TESA realizes that members of this group have a wide range of opinions on the Barton re-location and some members are adamantly in favor of the move.

 

However, hopefully we can all agree that an 85ft hospital being built at Kahle Drive outside the casino corridor will forever change the Stateline area (especially if it is used to allow for more 85 ft buildings in Stateline) and that we ought to thoroughly evaluate the project before it is greenlighted?  Isn't this what we are about?

​​​​​​​

​​​​​​

​

 

​