Laserfiche WebLink
She asked if the code was developed without any understanding of what the hospitals need or <br />without input from the hospitals. Mr. Coyle said no. He said that the process had been an <br />iterative one. The hospitals had commented publicly on several of their needs, such as facility <br />size and adjoining land uses, and staff had met several times with both providers to discuss their <br />concerns. Ms. Nathanson thought the City had addressed Mr. Kelly's concerns, and indicated <br />she did not find those arguments persuasive. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly said he was only able to respond to the <br />information provided to him. The only input he had received from the providers was their <br />testimony at the public hearings. If there was other information from the providers or other <br />experts to staff that was not shared with the council, that made it difficult for him to understand to <br />what extent their needs were taken into account. He said that he was bothered a bit by the <br />situation. He understood that out of necessity staff needed to have conversations with the <br />providers about particular sites or about technical issues without council involvement. However, <br />to gauge whether the ordinance met the providers' needs, he needed to hear from them. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Meisner's comments about the fact the motion merely gave staff <br />direction, but said he reiterated that the council did not know if the ordinance was responsive to <br />the hospitals' needs, and further, it went against the recommendation of the City's Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the ordinance removed existing standards and provisions that protected <br />existing development. She acknowledged that might be appropriate in some cases. She recalled <br />that the council had embarked on the Zoning Code changes to secure a new hospital because <br />PeaceHealth was moving to Springfield. The council had been focused on attracting a major <br />medical facility to Eugene. Ms. Bettman said that fairness to both hospitals was an afterthought <br />that was introduced later in the process. She recalled the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital <br />representatives had indicated to the council that it had not developed its siting policies, so she did <br />not think the council had heard from the hospital about what it needed. She reiterated her concern <br />that the ordinance would complicate the process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman. She was concerned about the <br />needs of the providers as well as the needs of the neighborhoods. She wanted to exempt R-l, R- <br />1.5, and R-2 zones from the ordinance, but given that some R-2 property might be appropriate in <br />some cases, she preferred a site-by-site approach. She added that she never assumed that staff <br />had not talked to experts on hospitals; she assumed that they had. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson indicated that the council would not have all members available for final action until <br />October 20. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman <br /> voted no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution <br /> 4778, a resolution supporting the siting of a hospital within the <br /> City of Eugene. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />