CC Minutes - 10/22/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

expand unless it was consistent with the refinement plan. Ms. Bettman opined that a CUP was not onerous enough to deter a developer from building a large surgery center that provided elective surgery on land zoned R-l, R-1.5, and R-2. She called the definition too broad. Mr. Klein said the definition now in the ordinance was the same definition in the State statute regarding certificates of need. He related that, based on a question from the council after the last session, staff had talked to the providers and removed the language about the certificate of need. He stated that the definition only differed from the State statute in that it placed a limit of 45 on the amount of beds a small clinic could have, whereas the State statute placed no such limit. He stressed that the definition would not allow an elective surgery center in that part of the definition dictated that the facility had to provide surgical treatment primarily for, though not exclusively for, acutely ill patients, accident victims, or treatment for mentally ill patients. Mr. Meisner indicated his support for the ordinance. Noting Mr. Kelly's question regarding the timing of the ordinance, he called the ordinance a way of encouraging and welcoming such development. He felt that once a provider had come forward to develop, amendments could be made to prevent other unwanted elements of clinic development. Mr. Meisner asked when staff and the Planning Commission would be addressing code issues regarding clinics independent of hospitals, especially in industrial zones. Mr. Coyle said the item would be queued in with the annual review of code, which would put it on a 12- month timeline. He noted it could be expedited if the council so desired. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly that there was no urgency to pass the ordinance at the present session. She felt it would not be right to ~throw open so many possibilities" without carefully considering the consequences. Ms. Taylor stressed the importance of citizen involvement when planning for a possible hospital siting in a residential neighborhood, as per Land Use planning Goal 2. She cited Land Use Planning Goal 6, stating a hospital could lower air quality in a residential area because of an increase in traffic. She cited Land Use Planning Goal 7 having to do with disaster preparedness, calling it the big reason hospitals should be sited on both sides of the river. She cited Goal 9, and stated that a hospital would promote economic activity wherever it was sited. Continuing, Ms. Taylor declared that no one was opposed to a hospital. She felt it very important to consider where the hospital should be located and the resulting impact of the location to its environs. Mr. Pap~ disclosed that he was a member of the board of the McKenzie-Willamette Health Foundation. He related that he had conferred with legal counsel and had determined that it did not represent a conflict of interest. Mr. Pap~ agreed it would be beneficial to locate a hospital on the southern side of the river, but reiterated that the facility would be privately owned and, as such, the City did not truly have the right to dictate to the provider where it could locate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 5 Work Session