Record of Decision New Federal Courthouse

New Search

Record of Decision .Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses 1.15--Page 59, paragraph 5, of the final EIS states that the storm drains from the Chiquita site discharge directly into the Willamette River. The difference between the two altemative sites is that the Riverfront site is located within 25 feet of a side channel slough, while the Chiquita site is 350 feet away. Given the proximity of the slough to the Riverfront site, surface flows of stormwater during construction are of greater concern. Also, the Chiquita site is bordered by the railroad track, which would reduce the potential for surface flows of stormwater. 1.16-The final EIS states on pages 126 and 127 state that the proposed courthouse would be permitted at both the Riverfront and Chiquita sites. The final EIS addresses land use policies on pages 119 and 120. The document states that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan provides broad public policy direction for the entire metropolitan area." The document also states on page 119 that "the primary tool for guiding development in the city of Springfield is the land use code in conjunction with a number of refinement plans: ' Additionally, the document states that "the primary tool for guiding development within E th land use code " l.ta I downtown area for another pail ofthe FEIS:and finally, haw trot site also ba coasideced as pact of the campus oonmmnilyto jctsfdjr maotl>er porpon of the F'EIS: $iolosica112esources ' , Botbisites haw stoimwster drains that dise6argQ directly iota the w Ritiee: l.ls I~Iovaeot , the FSL9 chareebRi?rs this as only oceiai~$ at the SpiingSeld sirte (g, 59). Tbka leads tfia iceader to assume tbatdraina¢e couditioffi aro better ffi A}6ernatina 2, which is tacortece. Nom or conditlmmi use pe[ma WOUId be requaedto size the oourtl+ouse ontl~ Dovmtowa Springfield Rivecfirottt a$e. IE is aitowtid otariEht ender tha cutroot zotaog. The Pgl3 icfiss to a ooaoept plan prepared by the8psiugfield Reese Derelopmeat s.ls Corporation. ThiacaoceptploaLevmtheeaadopfedssaiefalememtoftLe~uge~ SpringtieldMetro P1aa, tad thenfore. ss not a grading lard rae docmneau. Tlw sprin~frew nowotowaxe Plan is Hie Lma,>,sa aocu~ that governs zoning in aowawwnsp The FS[S does nor adogaattty addraa tba loss o£5.17 netts of HI zoned hard at Ahemativa 2; and tLe cam to e5a lnnWabla imreutocy oPHI land. Iagf~d. the analysis IS basodona iitWio agiontharma~ onror- razoniag the Chigaita site to l.v miffed-ass Lmdusttiaii ao»m8 does not geoerelly permit "govcrnmwd" o; `~r°frss'°°sz office" use.. Tt is our ~ that the t'~lquda stbe would needto go through a Metro L'hm auxndmeat and tx tezaned to roiocad use m orderto accommodate a fidcrai cotsrthcuse. .Page 14~of states tLat ifAltanative 1 were cuosmas rho lscferrod site.. detaiooes would rind tc be transported a stems distencx. tOl~ additional distance l.le wonlam~resaltina~;Sca~i~Ct.onPu6rias~R° Wasg[e~oncoyou'vekttrhe Federal CoUttltot>se fa~itywith aprisoner, satiety is an issues whetter you are traasportciglhatp:imoea~5bbcksorQsamles: Yat,GSAhaspubliclys?eaed(Bi7l Dutuay coAiveitsatioawitL Sateh mt K[I(iNonD~ocaaober 18, 2000) that om ofthe reasons Atteraatioa 2 was clwsa-is ba~°se tLe]~is bcatedac LngeuG Another reason stated byGSA Socnamigg the CYaluim.sitcthe pm>erred ennirornoental altanaliwincbrdedthe'~octatio&asttsciurd'aher~dYinplaeemdowntowuEu$e>m, m random saoipkt ofthe2UDt) doolcet at thcU S.1)Is4iU t^.oradc0use [386 crier, cvacy 8 . was sampled. fora95'Y. conttatey reveslsthat only 14petnprt of~im 1:19 attomryspreseotia~cxsnstvaeflnmdowrdownBuga~ehcwTmns. Tblrq~sigLtperce:a ~ccrortlenaleh•fa>us;.>zpex«atwaesetau7avrsmq, iop«~atwet+cwan law Srnuand5peruatwaeEbgeuelawfams,loeatedoutsidedowmWwnEugenc..The remaicimgattorn~yspgmm~ameofaomlawfemsiocatai;aottercitirsoroutof . states if"social.ioErasRaatme"'lsgoingto honsodaasni>afavorofAltamatlw 2, option A, 4SA slmuldprovide a defsdc~n ofwLae the social ~. a ugene 1s a city The final EIS addresses the Springfield Renaissance Development Corporation concept plan and the work of the Eugene "visioning" committee in a section titled Conceptual Development Plans. 1.17=The land use analysis for the project did not conclude that there is a shortage of industrial land in the city of Eugene or that the project would result in a shortage of industrial land. The issue was not raised during scoping or during the draft EIS comment period. The nonresidential vacancy rate in the city of Eugene was approximately 8 percent when the land use analysis was conducted, and there were no indications of a shortage of industrial land. The document states that the city of Eugene may rezone the property as part of its "greater downtown visioning process." The document states that the project is permittable under current zoning as well as the expected rezone. 1.18-The comment is correct. The final EIS states that if the Springfield site is selected, the additional transport distance would not result in a significant impact on public safety. The increased distance would, however, increase the time during which federal detainees are being transported, which would increase risks and result in a minor decrease in public safety and security. Although this impact is not significant, it was a factor in the GSA's decision to select the Chiquita site as the preferred alternative. 1.19-Although "social infrastructure" is not an element of the environment considered in the environmental document, it may be a non- environmental factor in GSA's decision to site the facility in Eugene. Interestingly, the information presented in the city of Springfield letter indicates that 675 cases (14% of 4,825) were tried by lawyers working out of downtown Eugene ,and no cases (0% of 4,825) were tried by lawyers from Springfield. If the facility were sited in Springfield, the lawyers for