New Search
Comments and Responses-Letter 11 <br />11.3-See the response to <br />comment 11.1 above. In the event <br />that one of the Alternative 2 <br />options is developed for the federal <br />courthouse, the GSA would be <br />obligated to compensate John and <br />Brent Woodrich under the terms of <br />the Uniform Relocation Act of <br />1970 and GSA policy. As <br />compensation, the GSA is <br />obligated to purchase the affected <br />property at fair market value and to <br />provide relocation assistance to the <br />displaced business. <br />Under the National Environmental <br />Policy Act (NEPA), socioeconomic <br />analyses conducted for <br />environmental documents are <br />required to assess the level of <br />., potential impacts on the society <br />and economy of the surrounding <br />community, not the degree of <br />impact on particular individuals or <br />businesses. In this regard, a <br />significant impact on one <br />individual or business is not likely <br />to result in a significant impact on <br />the surrounding community. <br />11.4-If the Chiquita (formerly <br />Agripac) site is developed for the <br />courthouse, the GSA must <br />I negotiate with the current owner of <br />the property for purchase of the <br />property. Because the city of <br />'! Eugene has plans to develop the <br />~._~!; site, the city may be unable to <br />relinquish a portion of the site that <br />- meets the size and shape <br />j . !, requirements for the GSA facility Th <br />Mr. John L. Meerscheidt (Latter 11) <br />Ocmber 18.2[700 <br />Paso 2 <br />11.3 We believe tttattMedoeumaitaignifuartlYntdetesmaatestheitnpa~xoaAnMCtaftt~eauttingfmm <br />stttng the fakral courthoutc on the Alternative S site. We believe that me ittrpatx is signffanrtt, <br />unavoidebk and adverse m AtttnCraft. We also believe thu mitigation measures wm be required <br />if the Atteroarive S site is aelerxed for the caurdtottse facility. <br />e~~us <br />11.4 We believe that GSA's decision to eschtde AntoG~aft's property from the Alterm6ve 2 sise is a <br />kgitimau and rpaonabk decision forreatata that sre provided ltebw in the discussan regarding <br />the Alternative 3 aiu. We also believe that the dxision to exclude AtttaCraft's property from the <br />Aitettative 2 site should Ot based ups the fact that the Alterrntive 2 sim catYaias more acreage <br />thin is needM by the coutthouae developraaa std, therefore, the AtrtoCtaR property is ttatteeded <br />for that developrneat and should not 6e hnlttded in the site. <br />Ana7,atlve s <br />11.5 we believe War the documeta sigtificataly mderestirmtea ax impact on AtnoCraft rrsultiog from <br />a decision to site the federal courdrouae on the Altermtive S site. The docurodrt provides no <br />analycir or sratetnem regarding the ~t oa AumCraft but provides that: <br />"No aigoifieaot demographic impacts Gave ban identifxd for arty of the proposed <br />stta and ro mitigation nteaatres rrouw be regnired.• (pose 131) <br />In addition, the ttoeumem provides in the Soeioecorrorrties aecSon that: <br />"Cwtaaaction and operation of the proposed facility would have m significant <br />rtuavoidable sdverae impacts ~ employment or iaconte in flugerte a the <br />surtotudiag ara.' {pegs lSJ) <br />11.6 We submit thu siting the courthouse on the Ahernative 5 site ttrould have signtfkaat adverse <br />itnpocts oa AutoC~aft std its employees. The dowmertt, in essettoe, tttiaimixea the read[ of <br />setecthtg the Aherm6ve S aide. On page 148 of the Sacioecotttotnice stxxwn n provides; <br />'These areas trre wrrmny treed for ctmnoercial and industrial activities, end <br />devdopiag the ootrabonse o0 one of rheas anal would mealX ctnrtge the existing <br />aarvititx for govermuereal activities. • (Etaphasia added) <br />11.7 i '~ .s amly:is of scleUing the Attertmtive S site cotr]udes that h would simply result <br />P f:ca anr) the me project coca i , m is case et er ugene or <br />city must reach a mutually acceptable agreement that <br />meets the space needs and planning goals of both <br />parties. Therefore, given the constraints on <br />development entailed by the triangular shape of the <br />site and the need to coordinate the plans of the two <br />agencies, it cannot be concluded that the site contains <br />more acreage than is needed. <br />11.5-As stated above, although Alternative 5 has <br />been eliminated from consideration, Alternative 2 as <br />revised includes the AutoCraft property located north <br />of East 8~` Avenue. <br />As required by NEPA, the draft EIS socioeconomic <br />analysis addresses the degree of potential impacts on <br />the society and economy (including population, <br />housing, demographics, employment, and income) of <br />sprltignetu, and not the individual property owner. <br />The socioeconomic analysis concludes that none of <br />the alternatives would displace a sufficient number of <br />businesses to significantly affect the society or <br />economy of either Eugene or Springfield. <br />While the draft EIS is not required to assess the <br />specific economic impacts on individual property <br />owners, the GSA is obligated to purchase all <br />properties required for the project at fair market value <br />and to provide relocation assistance to displaced <br />owners and qualified tenants, as compensation for <br />social or economic impacts on individual property <br />owners. The draft EIS states that displaced <br />businesses would be relocated with GSA assistance, <br />and that vacant commercial space is available in the <br />azea to provide adequate alternative sites for <br />New Federal Courthouse 187 Final EIS <br />