CC Minutes - 06/27/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mayor Torrey announced that he intended to cease discussions on this motion at 1:10 p.m. to allow discussion of land use issues, as agreed by the council on Monday night. Mr. Meisner said that he too was not certain how he would vote on this motion. He did not think the six block option was an option to consider. Perhaps two blocks might be considered, but he would seek additional information on that aspect. He said that if the referendum was on this plan, he would vote against it. He said that a proposal for expansion similar to the hospital's development in the west University area was not acceptable. He said that great efficiencies can be made in building higher. He said that at most, the facility would be a 8-10 story building, not a 30-story building, but added that he felt that the City could do better. Mr. Kelly said that in the land use discussion, the Willamette area block would have approximately 100 residences. To the motion, Mr. Kelly said that he had a concern from a negotiating standpoint. As a negotiating tool, to remove all items from the table will make it very difficult for negotiations to continue. He said that the clear agreement of the council was that the proposal of the six blocks "would not fly." However, before negotiations are concluded, this motion would cause PeaceHealth to walk and end negotiations. He urged that the motion be defeated, not because the six-block proposal was acceptable, but because ceasing negotiations would not be productive. Ms. Bettman asked if the motion was intended to cease negotiations on the six blocks or to cease all negotiations, and if it gave the manager the option of negotiating four blocks and the Willamette site, or two blocks and the Willamette site, or some other configuration. Mr. Farr said that the intent of the motion was to cease negotiations on the six blocks as a unit. Ms. Bettman commented that during the negotiations, information had changed and it was desirable to look for a more urban campus. She noted that the site will include structured parking, as well as square footage for both hospital use and for medical office use. Mr. Fart said that if there were portions of the six blocks that make sense for the hospital to acquire, then that would be acceptable, although he preferred that not occur. He said he was reluctant to allow any further destruction of that neighborhood. He said that if there was interest in keeping the hospital in the downtown core, then a portion of the six blocks appears to be part of the negotiations. Ms. Nathanson said that there had been discussion of no further destruction of the neighborhood, but contended that she had urged upgrading and rehabilitating the neighborhood for some time. In response to Mr. Rayor's comments, Ms. Nathanson said that the City was reacting, not planning. She said that the City should be in a planning mode, not a reactive mode. She said she was not willing to put this proposal, with its accompanying price tag, before the voters. She said an alternative may be possible. Ms. Nathanson said that she would like to see a list or chad to demonstrate the net difference between the proposals. (Included in discussion would be transportation issues, commuting and bus, the pros and cons of the residential and professional office displacement, and finally, the character of the university neighborhood.) She said that she needed help with discerning these issues. Ms. Taylor said that she wished the motion said the entire six blocks was non-negotiable. She added that if there was an election, it should be in November, not September. She said that the only reason to have a September election was to provide more certainty for the residents in the six-block neighborhood. She said it was wrong to destroy any part of the neighborhood. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 6 Work Session