Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/12/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon March 12, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Potential Hospital Sites City Manager pro tem Angel Jones noted that representatives from the hospital were in attendance. She stated that the purpose of the work session was to address potential hospital sites in line with the City Council goal of locating a full service hospital in Eugene. She related that the council had identified this need as one of the top seven priorities in both 2006 and 2007. She said McKenzie-Willamette Hospital was in a decision-making process for a new site, after the Delta Ridge site had not come to fruition. She recapped the Delta Ridge proposal, which had been for construction of a 148-bed hospital that would ultimately be expanded to 198 beds, with a 24-hour full service level 3 trauma center emergency department. She related that the estimated cost of the facility was $224 million. She stated that the City’s dedicated parties, along with the hospital and the University of Oregon, had been working with staff to explore potential sites to ensure the hospital would be located in the best place in order to serve the entire community. Susan Muir, Executive Director of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), provided a PowerPoint presentation on Potential Hospital Sites, hard copies of which were provided to all who were present. She stressed that time was of the essence. She reviewed the three sites that were under consideration, noting that all three would face a 12- to 13-month timeline for zone changes. She highlighted the Council Options as recommended by the City Manager: ? Return with a project work plan and timeline on a preferred site or sites, ? Continue conversations with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center on a preferred site or sites, ? Look for other alternative sites, ? Recommend the hospital move forward on potential sites without support from the City. She provided two suggested council motions, one to direct the City Manager to return after council break with a project work plan and timeline that included initiation of any required plan amendments and zone changes to support the Riverfront Research Park site or to move to direct the City Manager to continue conversations with the hospital on the other two sites. Mayor Piercy appreciated the discussion and the opportunity to locate a hospital in Eugene. Ms. Ortiz declared a potential conflict of interest as she worked for Sacred Heart Hospital. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 1 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Muir confirmed that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) had included that the hospital would have a level 3 trauma center. Ms. Ortiz indicated her support for McKenzie-Willamette Hospital’s move to the community, adding that she would prefer the hospital be sited south of the river. She would not support providing the hospital with incentives for a site that was north of the river. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that once the motion was on the table it would become clear whether Ms. Ortiz would need to recuse herself, though he was relatively certain she would be able to participate in the conversation. Ms. Taylor hoped the hospital would be sited south of the river. She did not approve of providing incentives to the hospital for the Coburg Road site. She was also strongly opposed to construction of the hospital north of the railroad tracks. Ms. Taylor asked if the Sacred Heart Hospital area had been considered. Ms. Muir replied that the sites before the council were the three sites upon which McKenzie-Willamette would consider building. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about both hospitals being north of the river. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Muir stated that the streamlined timeline for zone and plan changes could apply to any of the three sites. Mr. Poling asked if the Stryker Field property was listed as surplus property by School District 4J. Ms. Muir responded that it was on the list for future development. Mr. Poling recalled a recent article in the Register Guard which indicated that the paper had plans for the property McKenzie-Willamette was considering as one of the three potential sites. Ms. Muir replied that those were discussions happening between private parties. Mr. Poling also understood that the University was “looking at multiple years” before being willing to give up its property. Ms. Muir replied that things could happen regardless of the timeline. Mr. Poling acknowledged that the hospital was the entity that made the final decision. He said it would be nice to see a hospital located within the city zone, but if the hospital decided not to build south of the river the City should still do what it could to ensure the hospital built within city limits. He noted that he had lived in the city for 30 years and always had to cross a river to get to a hospital. He averred that it was important that all three options remain on the table. Mr. Clark asked if the PeaceHealth campus site would remain open. Ms. Muir confirmed that it would. Mr. Clark said a hospital north of the river was needed and he was glad to see it. He remarked that north Eugene was still waiting on a police facility. He supported having another hospital south of the river but it was McKenzie-Willamette Hospital’s choice. He wanted to support whatever choice the hospital made. He underscored that the hospital could bring in $3 to $5 million in property tax revenues to Eugene. He declared that the City needed to work with what the hospital needed rather than try to direct the process. Mr. Pryor appreciated that the hospital was the body that was making the choice. He stressed that the council was determining what it would do to provide incentives. He averred that the one thing the hospital did not have was time and it would be looking for certainty. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked what the issues were regarding the certificate of need for the sites. Ms. Muir said she would get a written response from the hospital for the council. Ms. Bettman opined that incentives were only appropriate in the riverfront site. She believed the provision of health care was an appropriate use of Urban Renewal funds. She noted that there was already some opposition to siting the hospital north of the river from area neighborhoods. Mr. Zelenka was generally supportive of the proposed motion. He felt it would be good to have a hospital in Eugene, especially if it would locate south of the river. He pointed out that the PeaceHealth campus site was reducing its level of service. He stated that the Riverfront Research Park faced big issues, which included the moving of University buildings, controversial building north of the railroad tracks, use of urban renewal funds, and parking - among others. He had asked the Fairmount Neighborhood Association Board to take up the issue at its board meeting. He handed out copies of their unanimously approved statement of support. Mr. Poling acknowledged the incentive zone south of the river, noting that he did not recall anyone saying there would be incentives for development of a hospital north of the river. He had not heard anything from staff to indicate that McKenzie-Willamette Hospital had asked for incentives at the other site. He also had not heard anyone living in north Eugene opposed to siting a hospital there. Ms. Muir noted that in addition to financial incentives for the one site the truncated timeline for land use changes was a potential incentive for all three sites. Mayor Piercy asked if the school district had indicated that its property would be set aside for a new school. Ms. Jones replied that recent conversations with school district administration indicated that they were still exploring options for that site. She said the school district was open to building a school in other areas as long as it was in north Eugene. Mr. Poling understood that School District 4J did not need the full acreage of that property. Ms. Bettman advised the councilors and staff to keep in mind that the timeline for land use changes could be prolonged by community objections. She felt there were other pieces of property in the Riverfront Research Park area, such as the properties around the courthouse that the City owned and properties owned by the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), which could be used for medical office buildings and other medical uses. She preferred to have a hospital south of the tracks and supported providing incentives for it. Ms. Ortiz stated that there would be a hospital in downtown Eugene as the PeaceHealth campus site planned to retain a level 3 trauma center. She wanted to support whatever McKenzie-Willamette Hospital identified as nd their preferred property. She added that there was a lot of property in the Chambers Street/2 Avenue area and the west side of the City that the City would do its best to have “shovel ready” for the hospital. Mr. Zelenka observed that one issue the riverfront property faced was where to locate the University of Oregon buildings that were there. He remarked that the campus was already very full. Ms. Taylor said she was not willing to support provision of an accelerated timeline for land use actions for sites other than the Riverfront Research Park site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 3 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Muir explained that a number of different entities were located in the research park. Ms. Taylor was interested in knowing how much of the Riverfront Research Park was occupied by the University. Ms. Solomon wanted a hospital to be located in the city of Eugene. She supported treating the three sites equally and being willing to provide support for whatever choice the hospital would make in an effort to keep a hospital in Eugene. Mr. Pryor concurred. He said the discussion was focused on what the City was prepared to do in an effort to gain the hospital. He averred that it may be a goal to have a hospital south of the river but it was a larger goal to have a hospital located in Eugene. He stressed that putting effort into it supported that goal. He did not want to create a situation in which the City would say if the hospital picked one site it would work hard to help it get established there, but if it picked another site the City would not work so hard. He declared that the City needed to say it wanted the hospital. He would support a motion that indicated an equal effort for all three sites. Mr. Poling echoed Mr. Pryor’s concerns. He supported making a motion that would support the hospital developing at any of the three sites. He did not want to give the impression that the City had a preferred site as it was the hospital’s decision where to locate. Ms. Taylor agreed that the City could not choose the site for the hospital, but the City could choose whether to provide incentives for a site. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to return as soon as possible after break with a proposed work plan with timelines and cost impacts for all three of the potential hospital sites with the hope that McKenzie-Willamette Hospital would indicate its preferred site as soon as possible. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion so that it directed the City Manager to return as soon as possible after break with a proposed work plan with timelines and cost impacts for the Riverfront Research Park site. This work plan would include initia- tion of any required plan amendments and zone changes and incentives to support this site and would also direct staff to continue conversations with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center on the sites owned by School District 4J and the Register Guard. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the assertion that there was no preferred site. She believed the council preferred locating the hospital on the riverfront site, which had incentives attached to it. She felt that locating a hospital in the downtown area was appropriate given the intensity of use it would entail. Mr. Poling underscored that his motion made no mention of incentives. He said support for his motion would not entail coming back to the council for another action, thereby speeding up the process. He would not support the amendment. Mr. Clark also would not support the amendment. He reiterated that what was most important was that the hospital locate within the city of Eugene. He was not interested in telling the hospital where it should be located; he was interested in offering the hospital help in whatever site it chose. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman felt the amendment indicated that the hospital could locate anywhere but if it chose to locate on the Riverfront Research Park site, the City would make efforts and provide incentives because of that. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor of the amendment and Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposi- tion. The Mayor voted in favor of the amendment and it passed. Mr. Poling said he would support the amended motion though he thought it was a bad motion. He hoped that the City would not drag its feet if the hospital decided not to build on the Riverfront Research Park site. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy indicated that Mr. Zelenka had a motion he wished to place on the table. Mr. Zelenka stated that the motion had to do with infill compatibility and the proposed construction project called Alder Commons. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to: 1. Prepare and send a letter from the City Council asking the Alder Commons developer to work with the South University Neighborhood Association; thth 2. Use the area between 18 and 20 Avenues and Hilyard and Agate Streets as a test case as the Infill Compatibility Study worked through infill compatibility issues; and 3. Have the Infill Compatibility Study investigate alternative methods for determining parking requirements, such as people per acre and bedrooms per acre for new R-4 and R-3 development. Mr. Pryor asked what kind of impact the motion would have on the level of staff work. Planning Director for the Planning Division, Lisa Gardner, responded that staff’s assessment was that it could fold into the Infill Compatibility Study (ICS) work. Ms. Bettman asked if the South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) had indicated what elements of the building project would make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Gardner replied that most had been brought up at the March 10 council meeting. She cited building height as a prominent concern. She said the developer was willing to hear what could be accommodated within the math equation he was trying to work out from a business perspective. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to change the wording “as a test case” to “as one of the test cases.” Mr. Zelenka accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Clark asked what the purpose of the letter was. Mr. Zelenka replied that it would show the willingness of the City Council to ask him to sit down and talk with the neighbors. Mr. Clark remarked that he heard it said that this proposal was for a building that would be out of proportion with the rest of the area it would be sited in and that the parking situation would be “horrendous.” He wanted to know how the City had gotten into this situation in the first place. He said if this was what the code allowed, the City might have to change its requirements every time an actual impact on the ground was looked upon unfavorably. Ms. Gardner affirmed that the code that was in place currently was the code that was MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 5 Work Session applicable. She said any changes which were an outcome of this action would not be likely to have an impact on the current development. Mr. Zelenka wished there was more the council could do to modify the project so it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. He had counseled the neighborhood to work with the developer to the greatest extent possible given that once the proposal was submitted it would be evaluated based on the existing criteria. He noted that the proposal called for five bedrooms per unit, but the code only called for one parking space per unit which would not work in an area that had such high density. He thought the issues resolved in this case would help to define things for other plans. Ms. Taylor said there were places all over town in which the development standards needed to be changed. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned to an Executive Session at 1:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 2:16 p.m. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, made a motion to state that the council had reviewed the materials and reached the conclusion that the Police Auditor did nothing wrong, the Police Auditor did her job, and that the complaint was found to be “unfounded” meaning the com- plaint was unsubstantiated and that the council found the Police Auditor did not engage in the behavior as alleged by the complainant. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute a motion to direct the Human Re- sources Division to hire an independent investigator to further review the allegations. Ms. Bettman opposed the substitute motion. She felt the council had received and reviewed a substantial amount of materials and this review indicated that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Mr. Zelenka concurred. Mr. Clark said what was before the council was a “he said /she said” and the materials were insufficient to make that finding. He declared that the council needed to investigate it further. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting in favor. The main motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 2:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 6 Work Session