Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/08/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall August 8, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Work Session: PeaceHealth Siting Options Mayor Torrey explained the process for this session to councilors. Lew Bowers of the Planning and Development Department and City Manager Jim Johnson reviewed the attachments included in the council packet. Mr. Bowers noted that copies of public comments were available in the council office. Mr. Johnson reminded the council and the audience that today's actions woudl be to determine the intent of the council, not a decision to approve the siting of the hospital. He explained that the land use procedure would need to be followed and the application process completed prior to any formal action taken by the council. Mr. Johnson reviewed the possible motions pertaining to a Willamette/Downtown Hospital Site. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to: 1) direct the City Manager to continue to work with PeaceHealth to find ways to make a Willamette hospital site work for them; 2) direct the City Manager to refine the Willamette Site proposal to include the possibility of closing Olive Street to make a larger development site for a new hospital; 3) direct the City Manager to prepare a financial incentive proposal to use the Willamette site for hospital expansion, return to the council for approval of the proposal, and then discuss it with PeaceHealth; 4) direct the City Manager to initiate the process to create a medical services zone for both a Willamette hospital site and the existing Hilyard hospital campus; 5) direct the City Manager to initiate the appropriate land use processes necessary to apply the proposed medical services zone to a Willamette hospital site and the existing Hilyard hospital campus; 6) to affirm the direction to the City Manager, given on June 27, 2001, to initiate a Willakenzie area plan amendment and a land use code amendment for the PeaceHealth-owned Crescent site. Ms. Taylor stated this issue was an opportunity to act in accordance with the Growth Management Policies adopted by the council as a result of an extended community-wide MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 participation effort. She said it was the responsibility of the council to encourage that the selected site be for the good of the future of the City, and that she believed the Willamette site would satisfy that goal. Mr. Rayor stated that, in general, he supported the motion; however, with regard to Item 5, he said that if the City was not successful in reaching an agreement with PeaceHealth regarding a downtown site, it may not be advisable to propose a medical zone for the Willamette site. With regard to Item 6, Mr. Rayor pointed out that not proceeding with the zone change would convey to PeaceHealth that the City wanted to work in concert with that body. He concluded by saying that he was in favor of a downtown site. Ms. Bettman stated it was the responsibility of the City to create a viable option in the downtown area that would compete with the other options on the table. She said that retaining the hospital in the City's center would be a defining moment for downtown. Ms. Bettman spoke of the Crescent site and pointed out that PeaceHeath had the ability to apply for a permit and it was their choice not to proceed with that process at this time. She concluded that she generally supported the motion with a few changes. Mr. Meisner stated he was confident of the good faith of PeaceHealth to provide the best possible medical care for the area. He pointed out that PeaceHealth referred to the hospital as a regional medical center and that he hoped the community understood the consequences of a regional medical center versus a community hospital. Mr. Meisner stated he generally supported items 1 through 5, and believed it was imperative to move forward for the sake of the hospital. He hoped PeaceHealth would partner with the City in an active manner so the community would have a better understanding of the issues. Mr. Meisner concluded that with regard to Item 6, he was not prepared to correct a mistake made by City staff and therefore would not vote for that initiative if brought before the council. Ms. Nathanson stated she had been urged by community members to support the downtown Willamette or Eugene Clinic site; however, she stressed that the case needed to be made to PeaceHealth rather than the council, and that the City could influence where a site may be located but could not force any property owner to build in a specific location. Ms. Nathanson concluded that a council-initiated zone change to prohibit a hospital from building in north Eugene would not bring about a result whereby the hospital would build in the downtown area. Therefore, she stated she would not support Item 6 of the motion. Mr. Fart stated he believed that if the council adopted the above motion, PeaceHealth would not build in Eugene. He said the Crescent and Springfield sites were viable options for the hospital and if the council continued to oppose their preferred selections, the community would lose the facility. Mr. Fart concluded that the Crescent site offered a less-congested traffic situation. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that PeaceHealth possessed the expertise to determine the appropriate health care facility and where it should be located. He stated he favored a downtown site; however, he remarked that the City should not exhaust resources for a plan amendment and land use code amendment as it would amount to "changing the rules in midstream" and was not good government. Mr. Pap~ concluded that if items 1 through 5 were approved by council, he hoped this action would not be moot. Mr. Kelly stated he strongly supported PeaceHealth's need for a new hospital, and at the same time, he supported the City's Growth Management Policies which were in direct opposition to a major employer moving its operations out of the city center. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its superb MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 efforts in developing the alternative options and remarked that the 12th and Willamette proposal was a viable proposal as it satisfied all of PeaceHealth's criteria, caused less displacement of homes and businesses than the six-block Hilyard proposal, and allowed the clinic to remain open during construction. Mr. Kelly regretted that PeaceHealth had declined to review that option. He concluded he was dismayed that PeaceHealth was requesting a decision from the council when a comparison of the impacts between the Crescent site and the downtown sites, as requested through a council motion, had not thus far been provided. Mayor Torrey commented that Item 6 would not allow PeaceHealth to make a choice; rather, it would mean that development on the Crescent site would be precluded. He pointed out that it was the responsibility of the elected officials to develop a vibrant downtown, and that it was the responsibility of the Board of Directors of PeaceHealth to provide the best possible medical facility. Mayor Torrey voiced his concern that the additional resources that would be needed to move forward with the above motion would be futile if PeaceHealth was not willing to consider the actions included in the motion. He suggested that items in this motion be passed subject to PeaceHealth's willingness to participate in the process. Mayor Torrey concluded that additional funds would need to be provided by the City to provide a site in the downtown area, and the facts about that must be available prior to the first council meeting in September. Additionally, he stated that if the council passed the items in the second motion to be discussed later in this meeting, the City could proceed with a informed decision and a clear direction to Peace Health. Ms. Taylor stated that the traffic issue would depend on where residents resided and that the availability of transit was the more immediate question. She referred to Item 6 and pointed out that Peace Health had zoned the Crescent site for a short-stay clinic and therefore it was that body who had revised the purpose of the site. Ms. Taylor concluded it was the responsibility of the council to prevent actions that would detract from the viability of the downtown area. Ms. Bettman said that staff should not initiate the process necessary to grant a proposed medical services zone unless PeaceHealth chose a downtown site. She then referred to Item 6 and pointed out that the citizens in the Crescent area would not be provided an opportunity to weigh in on the issue if that portion of the motion was not supported. Ms. Bettman said she would support Item 6 for that reason and pointed out that such action would not automatically result in an adopted change of zoning. In reference to Item 6, Mr. Meisner pointed out that staff erred in the language it wrote to include hospitals. He said he could not therefore support that portion of the motion. He then referred to items 1 through 5 and said it was critical that PeaceHealth partner with the City with regard to a downtown review and if the hospital was unwilling to do so, staff time and resources should be weighed. Mr. Meisner believed the executive summary provided by the traffic consultant severely underestimated the impacts and costs of remedies with regard to a site outside of the downtown area. Ms. Nathanson stated she did not believe Eugene voters would likely approve a bond measure to assist PeaceHealth in an expansion of a downtown site. She also stated she did not believe any of the fees should be waived. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the north Eugene location would be a significantly different project than what people may have assumed from looking at a refinement plan and that she favored a Coburg orientation rather than a Crescent orientation. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to amend the motion by deleting items 2, 3, and 6 as stated above. MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 Ms. Nathanson explained that she wanted to provide staff the opportunity to work with PeaceHealth to the degree that the parties were willing to negotiate; however, she did not believe a significant amount of staff time should be utilized on something that would not be worthwhile. Mr. Klein advised that Item 6 be amended to state "move to rescind direction." Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Farr voiced their acceptance to this amended language. Ms. Bettman referred to Item 3 and said that it was not the intent to put a bond before the voters; rather, to reduce the system development charges for transportation which were justified if the hospital located in the city center where there was adequate infrastructure and alternate modes of services. Ms. Bettman referred to Item 6 and reiterated the importance of community input on that issue. She pointed out there was not adequate analysis and data available, that the City should continue to develop a viable alternative for review, and that she would not support the amendment. With regard to items 2 and 3, Mr. Meisner questioned if in public discussions with PeaceHealth and the City, it should be left open for those bodies to discuss street closures and financial incentives. Mr. Johnson responded that removing items 2 and 3 would make it less specific as to what should be brought back to the council; however, he suggested that a "general direction" could include items 2 and 3. Mr. Meisner said he could support the amendment if that would be made clear. Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Farr agreed they could accept additional language of clarity as a friendly amendment. Mr. Farr stated he would support the amendment but would not support the main motion. He voiced his frustration at the process as he had not been provided the opportunity to speak to the main motion. Mr. Pap8 complimented staff on the financial analysis of the sites they provided. He said it was his understanding that there was a $35 million difference in acquiring properties at either the Hilyard or Willamette locations. In response to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Bowers replied that the market value was approximately $5 - $6 million if PeaceHealth traded or sold the Crescent property of 38 acres. He added that the site was vacant and would entail acquisition and relocation costs whereas the sites downtown had been improved. Mr. Johnson referred to Attachment K in the meeting packet and noted the key points for funding of infrastructure improvements related to new development. Mr. Pap8 concluded that aside from construction costs, there were approximately $30 million of addition costs that would be required to build downtown versus in the Coburg area. Mr. Kelly spoke to the amendment and said he could not support it as it sent a signal the City was not interested in all of the possibilities. However, he stated he could support contingent language. Mayor Torrey spoke to the downtown site versus the Coburg site and surmised the City was prepared to forgive system development charges downtown, whereas with the Coburg site, it was not. He raised the issue of the Coburg overpass and interchange and referred to the $400 million funding measure that was separated into two parts: $200 million was to be appropriated to new construction activities and the number 1 criteria for modernization was lane capacity; the number 2 criteria was interchanges on a multi-lane highway. He stressed that if PeaceHealth relocated to Coburg, he believed the City would be granted the funding to build the improvements to the interchange that would be needed. Mayor Torrey reported that the rules would be adopted in the coming week by the Oregon Transportation Commission and that action would provide the MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 opportunity for the City to request the funding to resolve the impact of the construction of a regional facility. Ms. Nathanson proceeded to substitute the language of her original amendment through the following friendly amendment: Ms. Nathanson offered a friendly amendment to her amendment, accepted by Mr. Farr, to direct the City Manager to pursue items 2 through 5 only if PeaceHealth agrees to participate in further exploration of the Willamette Downtown Site; and to revise the wording in Item 6 from "a firm direction" to "rescind." Mr. Farr stated that he would support the amendment but not support the main motion and asked Mr. Weinman to name some of the some of the businesses that would be condemned if the Willamette site was selected. Mr. Weinman proceeded and listed the following: Eugene Toy & Hobby Sweet Potato Pie Thompson's Electronics Collins Bicycle Shop Black Forest Tavern Junior League Shop Continental Deli Anastasia's Antiques Christian Science Reading Room Mr. Farr pointed out that a vibrant downtown area involved multiple uses which would attract varying individuals. He said that even though a hospital attracted many individuals into an area, it was for a sole purpose. Mr. Farr stressed that the City needed to focus on small businesses to achieve a vibrant downtown area. Ms. Taylor said she would not support the amendment. Mr. Rayor said he would support the amendment. He said the City could not force a developer to build in an area against their will; however, he stressed that he preferred to leave open a "window of opportunity" for the City Manager and the public to influence and ultimately work with PeaceHealth towards the best possible solution. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein clarified that the intent of the amendment would be to grant a medical services zone to PeaceHealth in the event, and only if, it decided to locate in the downtown area. The amendment passed 7:1, with Ms. Taylor opposed. Ms. Nathanson reiterated that with the passing of this amendment, the council had reversed direction in initiating a downzoning from the North Eugene site and provided an opportunity for willing participants to negotiate for a downtown site. Mr. Pap8 stated that with regard to Item 3, he would be opposed in any condemnation of private property by the City in order to turn that property over to a private entity. MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 Mr. Kelly pointed out there were numerous individuals throughout the community who supported a downtown location for the hospital, including members of the medical community and an organization entitled Citizens for a Hospital in the Heart of Eugene. Mr. Kelly read excepts from a motion recently passed by the Board of Trustees of the Lane County Medical Society: We encourage continued thoughtful discussion by PeaceHealth, the City Council, and the wider community with exploration and comparison of afl possible locations, including the Crescent property and the downtown site proposed by the City of Eugene. Mr. Kelly concluded that the main motion left the "door open" for PeaceHealth to come back to the table. Ms. Taylor stated she regretted much of the language taken out of the main motion but that she would support it. Ms. Bettman stated she would support the motion as a goodwill gesture. She stated that even though the City had not opposed PeaceHealth applying for a permit for the Crescent site, there was a perception that it had. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the City did not have the analysis, nor the data, to reflect what the costs would be for PeaceHealth to build in North Eugene as they had not yet applied for their permit, and therefore it would be premature for the City to intercede in that process. Mr. Meisner stated that he believed it was in the best interest of Peace Health to participate in a public discussion of hospital needs and downtown options. He pointed out that the community was deeply divided on this issue and that PeaceHealth would need the support of the community to build a new facility. Mr. Meisner acknowledge that Alan Yordy, Chief Executive Officer of PeaceHealth, was in the audience and thanked him for coming. Mr. Johnson said that if the main motion were to pass, the implication would be that he would send an appropriate letter to Mr. Yordy, followed by a response from that letter that the downtown area was not an option for further discussion. Therefore, he added that by the removal of Item 6, PeaceHealth would be able to consider the Crescent site as a viable option. Mr. Johnson stated that he did not believe that that particular site was a optimum site; rather, the Coburg site would be the optimum site. The main motion passed 7:1, with Mr. Farr opposed. Mayor Torrey stated that items 1 and 2 of the possible motion pertaining to a Coburg-Crescent Hospital Site were now moot due to the above actions of the council and proceeded to read items 3 through 6. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved: 3) to direct the City Manager to enter into discussions with PeaceHealth and School District 4J to develop a master plan for the Coburg-Crescent area to accommodate a new hospital, a new school, and new park and open space site, with an entrance to the new hospital from Coburg Road. The direction to the City Manager is to: a) discuss land sales and/or land swaps so that all three major uses have sufficient land to serve the community; and b) arrange the three uses in a manner that best serves the community into the future; 4) to direct the City Manager to initiate the process to create a medical services zone for both the MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 Coburg-Crescent site and the existing Hilyard campus site; 5) to direct the City Manager to initiate the appropriate land use processes necessary to apply the proposed medical services zone to the Coburg-Crescent site and the existing Hilyard campus site; and 6) to recommend a project to the Metropolitan Policy Committee to add the Coburg/Beltline interchange as a high priority to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists and/or new State transportation bonding program. The direction to the City Manager and the City's Metropolitan Policy Committee representatives is to aggressively seek the necessary financial assistance from the State and federal resources to fund Beltline Coburg Road improvements to accommodate land use plans for this area of our City. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion to separate the above items for discussion and action into three parts as follows: Item 3, followed by items 4 and 5, followed by Item 6. The motion passed 7:1, with Mr. Farr in opposition. Discussion and Action on Item 3 Ms. Bettman stated she would vote against this portion of the motion as the council did not have the necessary analysis, it was circumventing the public process, and would not provide any incentive to the hospital to further study the downtown options. She stressed that the project had not been put forth, the impact was not known, and action was not necessary at this time. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the motion related to Item 3. The amendment failed 2:6, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor in favor. Mr. Rayor stated he did not support this portion of the motion in its current form. He said that until a traffic impact analysis and staff recommendations were available, he could not support land swaps. Ms. Taylor stated that if the this portion of the motion was approved, it would communicate to PeaceHealth that it should go forward to build on the Coburg/Crescent site and therefore she would oppose it. Mayor Torrey stated he supported the motion and pointed out that the land use update and transportation processes would still need to be adhered to. He explained that the Coburg/Beltline interchange would need to become a high priority on the STIP list if PeaceHealth requested to build in that area and that the process should go forward. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Johnson clarified that this portion of the motion would only convey that all interested parties should discuss how the varying land uses would be arrayed on the land and that if agreement was reached, the process for a Metro Plan amendment and site review would still need to proceed. Mr. Pap8 pointed out that it would be irresponsible for the City not to begin a study of the Crescent/Coburg area as it was a potential site and complete information was necessary to achieve the best facility for the community. MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 Item 3 of the motion failed 5:3, with Ms. Bettman, Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor in opposition. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Johnson clarified that at this point his direction from the council was to only enter into discussions with PeaceHealth to build a site in the downtown area. He stressed he would need further specific direction to move forward with broader discussions. Mr. Johnson added that the staff who reviewed the proposal would not be at the table as site plans were discussed. Mr. Rayor, with acceptance by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion by striking the following language in Item 3 until such time that staff input regarding the traffic plan was received: with 2,-, ~,-,tr~,-,co to tho ,qow hospit~! Ms. Taylor commented that she did not believe staff resources should be spent on a project until such time that it was supported by council. Mayor Torrey pointed out that if the City did not offer the courtesy to PeaceHealth officials to discuss with them their preferred options, it could be interpreted that the hospital could proceed to seriously consider options outside the area. He stressed that the community may not agree on a site for the hospital but that citizens certainly would not want the hospital to leave Eugene. The amendment failed 3:5, with Ms. Bettman, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor in favor. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the ability to weigh the differences between the Coburg and Crescent sites and adding another intersection on Coburg Road would impact how the traffic moved. She said that the council would have another opportunity to act on that element at a later date. Mr. Rayor suggested that the language "adjacent property owners" be added to Item 3 as the Wildish family owned most of the frontage along Frontage Road and only one school entrance was currently possible, which was too far north. He added that flexibility should be a part of the discussion. Mayor Torrey pointed out that wherever the hospital was located, there would be some opposition. However, he stressed that allowing only one exit onto Crescent would be poor planning. Mr. Pap~ offered a friendly amendment, acceptable to Ms. Taylor, to add the following language to Item 3: "Enter into negotiations with PeaceHealth, School District 4J and adjacent property owners to develop a master plan for the Coburg-Crescent area..." The amendment passed 6:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor in opposition. Discussion and Action of Item 6 Ms. Bettman stated that if the Coburg/Beltline interchange was moved to a high priority on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP) list, the other needs of the City already identified, including the federal courthouse project, would be circumvented and therefore she could not support Item 6 of the motion. Mr. Kelly said he concurred with the concerns expressed by Ms. Bettman. He pointed out that if the hospital were to be built in the Coburg/Crescent area, it would need transportation MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001 improvements of which the details were unknown at this time and it was premature to support Item 6 of the motion. Mr. Meisner concurred that it was premature to support Item 6 of the motion as traffic studies had not yet been presented for review. He pointed out that he was not aware how improvements to the interchange would relate to other parts of the Beltline and the corridor to Interstate 5. Ms. Taylor concurred with the previous comments and did not believe the council should determine at this time if this project was a high priority. Mayor Torrey reiterated that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) stated that if PeaceHealth preferred to build a hospital in North Eugene, it would need to improve the intersection and if these improvements were not made, ODOT would weigh in and oppose the permit. Therefore, he continued, if the City was unwilling to at least put this project in the STIP for discussion, it would be a mistake. Mr. Johnson stated that depending on the design of the Interchange, condemnation would be possible. He also reminded the council that there was already a project in TransPlan and the amount of that project could not be amended. Mr. Johnson concluded that adding a project and labeling it a high priority just flagged it for further discussion when reviewing the STIP. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to substitute Item 6 of the motion with the following language: Direct the City Manager to review the results of traffic studies and recommend high priority projects in the Coburg-Beltline area. The substituted motion passed 6:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor in opposition. The motion as substituted for the original motion passed 6:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. (Recorded by Joyce Ogden ) MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001