CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly believed the council had done a good job in expressing its interest in having McKenzie- Willamette/Triad in the community and had set aside funding for incentives as well as modified the Land Use Code to permit a hospital to locate in more zones than any other uses he could think of. He said the welcome mat had been rolled out. He hoped that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad would respond to the City, and he believed it would be useful if the hospital could be clearer about what it wanted. Mr. Kelly noted the letter from Mr. Orr did not indicate why the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site would not work as a hospital location. Mr. Coyle said that the hospital's criteria were the size of property, timing to market, and access. Mr. Kelly maintained the 2nd and Chambers site met those criteria. He believed it was sufficiently large, could come to market relatively quickly, and had excellent access. Mr. Kelly asked if the City had continued to use the consultant it hired to assist in the hospital siting process since the production of his final report. Mr. Coyle said no. He noted that the consultant had identified three sites, one outside the preferred area. He believed the sites that had been identified all had barriers associated with them. Mr. Meisner thanked City Manager Taylor and staff for the letter of December 18 to McKenzie- Willamette/Triad regarding the City's willingness to help McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. He too believed the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site met the criteria cited by Mr. Coyle to a much greater degree than the site preferred by McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Mr. Meisner said he understood anecdotally that doctors were not interested in the 2nd and Chambers site, but that did not match what he heard from doctors and medical groups. Those parties indicated the site worked for them. Mr. Meisner suggested the potential that a tax increment district could be formed at the 2nd and Chambers site, offering redevelopment potential for doctors and medical groups. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's concerns, Mr. Meisner suggested that if the hospital was not looking for a site that met the council's criteria, the consultant had no role, which he found unfortunate. He wanted a new hospital to locate in Eugene but did not know how that would happen. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad might want assistance with its preferred site, but it was outside the scope of the resolution. City Manager Taylor reported that he had spoken to Roy Orr of McKenzie-Willamette/Triad about the City's support for the 2nd and Chambers site and had clarified the range of incentives available to McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Subsequent conversations with Mr. Orr indicated that McKenzie- Willamette/Triad preferred a site not in the area preferred by the council. City Manager Taylor asked the council if it wanted to confine hospital siting to the incentive area, or would staff be exceeding council direction to talk with McKenzie-Willamette/Triad about incentives for other sites. Mr. Meisner reiterated that if the site was outside the preferred area, it was outside the scope of council's resolution offering incentives. Mr. Pap6 asked the council to keep in mind that there was no longer a McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. It was no longer a nonprofit community hospital, but rather a for-profit hospital. Mr. Pap6 asked if the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of Springfield's PeaceHealth decision affected hospital siting in Eugene, and if so, how. Mr. Klein said he reviewed the decision in question, and did not think it affected the City's ordinance. It might affect how, at a later stage, LUBA could consider an appeal of a specific land use action. Once the hospital decided where it wanted to locate, it must demonstrate consistency with the transportation planning rule. He said that many factors were involved, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 5 Work Session