New Search
Comments and Responses-Letter 91 <br />11.8-The draft EIS does not <br />address the unique nature of the <br />AutoCraft shop but rather <br />addresses the project's potential <br />impact on the local economy and <br />society. If the AutoCraft owners <br />believe that their property has <br />unique characteristics, this <br />assertion would be appropriately <br />raised during property purchase <br />negotiations, and the value of these <br />characteristics could be negotiated <br />as a component of the total <br />property value, for which the <br />owners would be fairly <br />compensated by the GSA. In this <br />event, the GSA also would be <br />responsible for the cost of <br />removing AutoCraft from the site. <br />Studies conducted for the draft EIS <br />found an adequate supply of <br />commercial space within the city of <br />Eugene to relocate all 15 of the <br />properties that would have been <br />displaced under Alternative 5. The <br />commerciaUindustrial vacancy rate <br />in Eugene was 8 percent at the time <br />the draft EIS was prepared. <br />The GSA is also obligated to fend <br />alternative sites suitable for <br />displaced businesses, including <br />displaced enterprises that may have <br />special requirements (such as <br />acceptable zoning for the business <br />activity). Finding viable <br />alternative sites for the AutoCraft <br />business would be appropriately <br />addressed during property <br />acquisition ne otiations and not in <br />(Letter 11) <br />Mr. John L. Mwscheid[ <br />t]ctobtr 18, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br />11,7 in the relocation of existing busitxsses on the alu. On page 147 it provides: <br />eontl. <br />'Approxitnately 13 twsmessea would ix relocated as a tewk of ukaing itds <br />ilternative. Given the vacancy sate in Eugroe, altermtive :pax is h'kety ro be <br />aviltabk for nloatittg those busiressea diaphuxxl by the project, ^ <br />11.8 We lxlleve tbu the dotatmeat'a analysis regetdiag the Alternative S site is ittoomplete wad does <br />not sufficiently comider evidence existing in the public record regarding the tutique ttanns of <br />AutoCaft's bmioess and the value of borh its pnopaty attd its business, we abw believe tint the <br />docu[ornt does rot txmtain ao adtxluase analysis on the impact or cost of removing AutoCraft from <br />the site or the viability of relocation as a mitigation ttteastm. we Ialce this opportunity ro provide <br />the GSA with itffomtation riot we believe retden a different txwcluaioa regardmg impact Hart <br />ttmt provided in the dro~~ <br />11.9 <br />A decision selecting the Alternative S site will result in the eliminadon of Autol:raft's bnsineu <br />from its present lncatitw on that site ~ oordt of that site across Eau 8th Avemte. while only <br />a ponion of iu property and business is toped oo the Alurnarive i site tsouth of East 8th <br />Avenue?, rtmOVing oc "relocating" that }anion will critically impact the business wad newlt in <br />its elimimtion }tom ila kxauion mrth of East 8th Averwe as well. <br />In addition rohouting its aiigt®eot shop, dtxail shop and wash area, Autos:raft's property on the <br />Alurnativc 5 tin serves as its primary parking att:a for cuatoaer vehicles. Autot:raft'e property <br />north of Ent 8th Avt:me is almost ettt6ely covered by its st:rvix stntemre a~ rnetairo rto room <br />for the storage or perking of velticka. Oa-atrxt parking atljsxm to ttte busioesa it limited by the <br />city to 30•miaute ptrtdeg, 7Le rcgwiaderof on~sueet parking oa East 8dt Avrrwe is not intended <br />[or wmmerciil »se and it typiatily tailized by city etttpdoyeas and is full by 7:00 a.m. each day. <br />AuwCrafta paritiag area on the Aheroaave S site eonuma betwvxn So and 8o cnatancr vehleks <br />at a[ty patticWu time during the tauitteas day. Vehicles alternate between the servke stntaure <br />and the Puking lot throughout the txwrse oe their repair. without the Alternative S rite for the <br />parking of vehicles Autos:raft cannot operaee its btuitaxs. A decisiea that remove AutoCraft's <br />properly oa the Altttmtive5 site wiU xquire 16e reatovai oeAutoCnft's butiau tram both sites. <br />11.10 The elimination of Aurotraft's bttsiass from qs prwettt kieafictt is not a simple matter of <br />tebxation at is repraemed by the docomeM. lontruy ro the docuroeot's coociusion, ahrroetive <br />space that teplipus the vaWe of Antos:raft's arte[n Itxxtion is not readily available. For <br />AutoCYaR to replicate its carfare 6ttaiaeas elaewbere, the Dew lotauion must be muted between <br />major auwmobtk farad Demers and is a ttattsportatioa corridor that eomaias 75.000 vehicles <br />daily. withoutcbee proximity ro the refill antes which cortstiaue ragjorcuttomers a~ without <br />access ro a similar number of the traveling pubtie as poawial eustatners, AutoCaft tumor <br />g <br />an environmental document. Under this scenario, <br />there would be no significant impact to the society or <br />economy of the project area and the owners of <br />AutoCraft would be compensated for their loss. <br />11.9---Comment acknowledged. <br />11.10-If Alternative 2 is selected as the preferred <br />alternative, requiring acquisition of the AutoCraft <br />property for the proposed federal courthouse, the <br />GSA will resolve these compensation and relocation <br />issues with the owners of AutoCraft, in compliance <br />with the Uniform Relocation Act and GSA policy. <br />New Federal Courthouse 189 Final EIS <br />