New Search
Comments and Responses, September 27, 2000 Public Hearing in Springfield <br />T15 Jack Gischel, Springfield <br />Historic Commission <br />T15.1-Comment acknowledged <br />T15.2-It is the understanding of <br />the EIS preparers that the historic <br />inventory drafted in 1980 was <br />never formally adopted by the city. <br />Lacking this formal recognition, <br />the inventory is not an official city <br />document, and it would not be <br />appropriate to cite it as such in the <br />EIS. As stated on page 38 of the <br />Archaeological and Historical <br />Resources Assessment (Appendix <br />A of the draft EIS), Article 30 of <br />the Springfield City Code does not <br />identify any landmark properties in <br />the area around the Riverfront site. <br />T15.3-For clarification, Mr. <br />Gischel initially referred to page <br />39 of the Archaeological and <br />Historical Resources Assessment <br />(Appendix A of the draft EIS), and <br />subsequently to page 84 of the <br />draft EIS. <br />GSA's consultant, Historical <br />Research Associates, conducted <br />the historic inventory for the <br />project and identified the historic <br />Springfield commercial district as <br />potentially eligible for the National <br />Register of Historic Places, as <br />prescribed by section 106 of the <br />National Historic Preservation Act. <br />The historic assessment report <br />states that formal consultation with <br />th <br />TYanseript 2 <br /> a <br /> i apoak on a 11tt18 Dtt tonight is the river front alto. Antl <br /> 2 there was a few things Lhnt noods0 to bs clserod up in Lhe <br /> 3 tlraft EIS that I'll Lry to touch on ea we go along hero. <br />T76.1 4 Ons thing: Bpringfiald has a history of <br /> 5 preserving its historical situations, itc historical butldings, <br /> ti And you w111 notice that You DrobablY have even the dopot which <br /> was moved from tho old 8P sits. <br /> 8 There'e bssn several houses, several taken off <br /> 9 from the Sony Bite that have bssn orservsd and ws ors, to the <br /> ld City of SDringftold, grotty conscious of preaorvtng whet has <br /> tt Oesn or will be the future history of the atty. <br />T162 i2 TM one Lh1ng I want t+o awntion Mrs first, to <br /> 13 ~ on -- I'll qo Lhraugh thoce pace numbors here and kind of <br /> 14 follow with me. Page 3b of the draft EIS Lhat I have. Under <br /> 16 Table 2. it makes the statement says: `Unlike Lhe C1ty of <br /> 18 Eugene. Springfield has not conducted a formal inventory of <br /> 11 hletoric buildings 1n Lhe downtown area.' <br /> 1S That's not true. It was done in 1980. we now <br /> 19 have a grant from Lha claw and we w111 be updating that stutlY <br /> 20 again 1n Lhe year, I Lhink, e1tMr 2001, we'll W updating <br /> 21 Chat. 8o Lhat is realty not a true statement. <br />T1b.3 22 On Page 3B, bars with we Mrs. Agetn, tt talks <br /> 23 Dn about Lhs middle of DaragraDh down hors ifndicatingl. <br /> 24 TheY're talking about tM ootontial eligible historic <br /> 2b districts. Being in real estate, I like uclhp tM word <br />e state historic preservation officer wouia ne <br />required to obtain formal determinations of <br />eligibility. The report does not state that the city of <br />Springfield or the Springfield Historic Commission <br />have plans to declare the area as a historic district. <br />New Federal Courthouse 237 Final EIS <br />