Jump to main content.

Record of Decision, U.S. Courthouse Annex, Savannah, Georgia

 

Record of Decision, U.S. Courthouse Annex, Savannah, Georgia



[Federal Register: August 9, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 155)]
[Notices]               

[Page 41630-41633]

>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]








GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

 


Record of Decision, U.S. Courthouse Annex, Savannah, Georgia



Action



    This is the Record of Decision (ROD) for the construction of a 
Courthouse Annex (Annex) in Savannah, Georgia. The proposed Annex will 
contain between 165,000 and 180,000 occupiable square feet (osf) of 
space including office space, courtrooms, storage space, and special 
space. The project may also include 40 secured inside parking spaces. 
The proposed Annex is intended to meet 10-year requirements and the 30-
year expansion needs of the U.S. Courts and related agencies in 
conjunction with the continued use of the existing Federal Building 
Courthouse (FB-CT).

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR Part 1500-1508), General Services Administration (GSA) Order 
PBS R 1095.4B, GSA conducted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
for this proposed action. The purpose of the EIS was to identify the 
potential impacts resulting from this project. The EIS examined the 
alternatives to the proposed action and the impacts of the alternatives 
considered. The EIS also addressed mitigation of the adverse impacts. 
GSA has made every effort to identify and take into account all of the 
concerns expressed about undertaking this proposed action.
    The Draft EIS was released for 45 days of public comment February 
28. The Final EIS was released for 30 days of public comment ending on 
May 28. In addition, notice was provided in the Federal Register, the 
Savannah News Press, and through direct mail. Approximately 150 copies 
of the Draft and the Final EIS were distributed for comment using a 
mailing list of interested parties accumulated through the two years 
this project has been in the planning stage.
    Public participation was accomplished through notices in the 
Savannah News Press, the Federal Register, direct mail, public 
meetings, and through regular meetings with stakeholders beginning in 
April 1994. GSA recognized early the potential for negative impacts 
from this project, and maintaining an ongoing dialogue with the local 
community to take their concerns into account.
    In April 1994, GSA began the preparation of an EIS and a Cultural 
Resource Assessment (CRA). At the same time, as required by Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), GSA initiated 
consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as well as local 
preservation interests.

    GSA implemented the Section 106 Review process for the proposed 
Annex concurrently with the implementation of NEPA. In order to 
determine how this proposed action could affect historic properties, 
the CRA documented potentially impacted cultural resources. The CRA 
provided an in-depth evaluation of seven potential sites under initial 
consideration for the Annex. An architectural history survey was 
completed for each of the potential sites. A larger Area of Potential 
Effect (APE) surrounding each of the sites was also examined. An 
archeological assessment was accomplished through compilation and 
review of existing archaeological historic documentation and previously 
conducted fieldwork and reports on Savannah.
    The CRA reviewed the documentation for each of the seven sites and 
identified preservation concerns. This document provided a 
comprehensive review of historic resources located on and around each 
site. This became the basis for analysis of impacts to historic 
resources in the EIS.

    GSA solicited comments at five public meetings conducted from 
August 1994 through March 1996. In addition, eleven meetings were held 
with local organizations and stakeholders to solicit comments and 
address concerns. These participating organizations included the City 
of Savannah, Historic Savannah Foundation, the Savannah Development and 
Renewal Authority, the SHPO, the Georgia Trust for Historic 
Preservation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the 
ACHP.

    The Delineated Area (DA) for the Annex was located within the 
Central Business Area (CBA) and defined as the area surrounded by Bay 
Street on the North, Liberty Street on the South, Martin Luther King 
Boulevard on the West, and East Broad on the East.
    From April through November 1994, GSA actively solicited alternate 
sites through a series of advertisements in the Savannah News Press, 
meetings with local stakeholders, and an ``open house'' to receive site 
offers on June 28, 1994. No sites were offered. GSA also conducted a 
windshield survey and identified additional sites for consideration 
that appeared feasible. At a public meeting on December 6, 1994, GSA 
identified a total of nine sites within the DA for initial 
consideration as potential locations for the Annex. Five of the sites 
were adjacent to the existing FB-CT and four were non-adjacent sites.
    In developing a site selection criteria for ranking prospective 
sites, GSA developed technical and operational criteria. The courts 
expressed strong preference for an adjacent site for security and 
operational reasons, but this did not preclude the consideration of 
non-adjacent sites. This criteria was developed at the beginning of the 
site selection process in April 1994 and used throughout the process to 
rank and screen potential sites.



[[Page 41631]]



    Utilizing this site selection criteria, two of the four nonadjacent 
sites were screened from consideration for technical reasons 
on October 25, 1994 and February 16, 1995, respectively.
    On August 8, 1994, GSA announced in the Commerce Business Daily a 
solicitation for an architect-engineer to provide professional services 
to GSA in support of site selection for the proposed Annex. On March 1, 
1995, GSA selected Robert Stern as the lead project architect. The team 
of design consultants included the project architect, a courts 
consultant, a cost consultant, the principal architect-engineer, and a 
local Savannah architect.

    The initial scope of work tasked the design consultants to focus 
its analysis on the seven sites that had been identified by GSA: Five 
sites adjacent to the FB-CT and two non-adjacent sites. The consultants 
were also tasked to analyze the technical and operational feasibility 
of each site and provide recommendations to GSA to assist with site 
selection.

    The Scope of Work was accomplished by the Design Consultants 
beginning in July and concluding November 8, 1995. The task consisted 
of four phases:

    Phase 1 Data Collection: The Design Consultants collected and 
reviewed existing information, local guidelines, regulations, and 
standards. Information developed by GSA's EIS and CRA was provided 
along with transcripts from the public meetings and all correspondence 
received during the scoping process. A public meeting to solicit input 
was conducted on July 12, 1995 by the architect.
    Phase 2: Program Verification and Site Analysis: This analyzed each 
remaining alternative site based on the 10-year needs and 30-year 
expansion requirements of the Courts. Tenant agencies were interviewed 
to verify requirements. Sites were analyzed based on the site selection 
criteria. Analysis of the feasibility of the reuse of the existing 
Juliette Gordon Low (JGL) Federal Buildings was completed.
    Phase 3: Programmatic Master Planning: The Consultants tabulated 
the program elements and allocated functions between the FB-CT and the 
Annex. The program fit and space requirements were identified. Required 
adjacencies and duplications of functions were outlined for each 
potential site

    Phase 4 Conceptual Pre-design Analysis: The pre-design analysis 
examined and development options for all of the remaining sites. 
Volumetric analysis was conducted for each site based on interior 
layouts and interior ceiling height requirements. Block and stack 
concepts were developed showing mass, scale and contextual fit. Three 
successive stages of analysis were performed and 29 initial concepts 
were screened to 13 and finally to six concepts. On November 8, 1996, 
the relative merits of each of the six concepts, along with final 
recommendations, were presented to GSA by the design consultants.
    On November 20, 1995, based on analyses provided by the Design 
Consultants, GSA's site selection team ranked and screened the 
remaining concepts. Four concepts and three siting options were 
identified as most feasible options for further study. These four 
concepts became the alternatives considered for full analysis in the 
EIS.



Alternatives Considered



    GSA received authorization to begin the site selection process on 
March 15, 1994. At that time the GSA preferred alternative site was the 
City block surrounded by Bull, Broughton, State and Whitaker Streets, 
also known as site 1A. GSA met with local representatives on April 5, 
1994. Local concerns were expressed about the GSA preferred site 
because it would adversely impact historic buildings, the City plan 
designed by General James Oglethorpe in 1733, and Savannah's nomination 
as a World Heritage Site.

    From the initial nine potential sites within the DA that were 
identified from April through December 1994, two were screened for 
technical reasons. The remaining seven sites were analyzed by the 
Design Consultants. After the siting feasibility study was completed, 
GSA screened the two non-adjacent sites for technical and operational 
reasons. This left three sites and four concept options remaining as 
the Alternatives considered in the EIS.
    In addition to these, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed 
in the EIS.

    No-Action: Under this alternative, agencies slated for relocation 
into the Annex would remain in their current locations and additional 
space requirements would be satisfied by leasing action. No 
construction would occur to address the Courts' expansion requirements. 
Additional courtrooms would be provided in nearby leased buildings and 
the judiciary would accomplish its expansion needs through a series of 
ad hoc lease acquisitions. The courts and related agencies would become 
fragmented and over time, and they would face serious problems with 
efficiency and security.

    Alternative 1--Site 1E--Construction of One Building (GSA Preferred 
Alternative): Under this siting alternative, GSA would construct a 
single building of 165,000 osf, on the two trust lots currently 
occupied by the JGL Buildings A & B. The existing buildings would be 
demolished and the Annex footprint would cover both of the trust lots 
and President Street between Buildings A & B. The mass and scale of 
this Annex would be of similar proportions to the existing FB-CT, and a 
tunnel connection between the Annex and the FB-CT would be constructed 
under Whitaker Street. Forty secure parking spaces would be provided 
either in the basement, or in JGL Building C with a tunnel connection 
under York Street.

    Alternative 2--Site 1E--Construction of Two Buildings: Under this 
option, two larger and less efficient buildings approximately of 
180,000 osf would be constructed on the trust two lots. President 
Street would be retained for pedestrian traffic. Because of the 
required duplication and inefficiency of constructing two buildings, 
each building would be approximately 60 feet taller than the existing 
FB-CT. Secured parking would be provided either in the basement, or in 
JGL Building C with a tunnel connection under York Street.
    Alternative 3--Site 1D--Construction of One Building: Under this 
option, GSA would construct a single building on the site of the JGL 
Building C currently housing the Corps of Engineers. This alternative 
would require the demolition of the existing JGL Building C with the 
exception of the underground parking, part of existing structural 
support, and the elevator core. This alternative would provide 173,000 
osf on three floors reaching 58 feet high, or ten feet higher than the 
existing FB-CT.

    Alternative 4--Site 1A--Construction of One Building: Under this 
alternative the Annex would be constructed on the City block surrounded 
by Broughton, Bull, State and Whitaker Streets. The building would have 
166,000 osf above grade and connect with the existing FB-CT through a 
tunnel constructed under State Street with secure parking below grade. 
It would require the demolition of 14 buildings that contribute to the 
NHLD. The two historic buildings facing Bull Street would be retained. 
Broughton Lane would be closed retaining only that portion between the 
two historic buildings remaining on Bull Street. The building would be 
four stories tall facing Broughton Street and six stories tall facing 
State Street.

    Issues of Concern: The concerns expressed about this project were 
the potential adverse effects to Savannah's



[[Page 41632]]



National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Savannah's NHLD is 
currently listed as Endangered Priority 2 by the National Park Service. 
This Endangered status has been caused by the cumulative addition of 
incompatible buildings, the cumulative demolition of historic 
buildings, and cumulative alterations to the Oglethorpe Plan. Concerns 
were also expressed about the potential impact to Savannah's nomination 
as a World Heritage Site.

    Specific requests were also expressed that GSA should: not demolish 
any historic or contributing buildings, should not alter the Oglethorpe 
Plan, and the Annex should be compatible with the surrounding 
neighborhood in terms of mass, scale, materials, context, fit, and 
design. Concerns were expressed that the Annex could create a ``dead 
zone'' around Telfair Square during non-business hours. Additional 
concerns were the project's negative impact on the current parking 
shortages downtown, the potential relocation of the U.S. Post Office 
outside downtown, the potential loss of Federal employees downtown 
displaced by this project, and potential negative impacts to the City's 
efforts to revitalize the Broughton Street retail corridor.
    The NHLD is a critical designation for the City of Savannah and 
contributes to both the tourist economy of the City, and to the quality 
of life within the City itself. Concerns focused on the potential 
negative impact that this proposed action could have on the sensitive 
and fragile nature of the NHLD and neighborhoods if local concerns are 
not taken into account during the planning and design of the Annex.



Environmental Consequences and Mitigation



    No Action Alternative: While the No Action alternative would have 
no impact on the natural environment, it would result in the continued 
inefficient housing of Federal Courts and would have long-term impacts 
as the Courts outgrow their current space. Security and efficiency 
would be compromised as the Courts 10-year requirements and 30-year 
expansion needs would not be met in a single facility. As the Courts 
requirements for space increases over time, housing the Court's 
functions in non-adjacent buildings would occur in the vicinity of the 
FB-CT. This leasing of space could ultimately impact other historic 
buildings as leasehold alterations are made to accommodate Court needs. 
The No Action Alternative could ultimately cause the U.S. Courts to 
look outside the CBA for their space needs. The loss of the Federal 
Courts downtown would have a negative impact to Savannah's NHLD.
    Summary of Construction Alternatives: Considering the four 
alternatives that involve the construction of an Annex, all of the 
alternatives would have little or no long-term impact on the natural 
environment. There would be minimal or no impact to the following 
categories: Housing, Open Space and Recreation Facilities, Utilities 
and City Services, Subsurface and Geological Conditions, Vegetation and 
Wildlife, Natural Hazards, Ambient Air Quality, Ambient Noise, Natural 
or Depletable Resources, and Hazardous Substances or Contamination. All 
of the construction alternatives are in substantial compliance with 
City zoning requirements. Potential archaeological disturbance is not 
likely except for Site 1-A, and all appropriate regulations and 
procedures would be followed if archaeological resources are found 
during construction. Sites 1-C and 1-D have been previously disturbed.
    All of the construction alternatives will produce temporary 
negative impacts during construction. These impacts would be short term 
and would include disruptions due to increased noise levels, increased 
dust and emissions, disruptions due to temporary street closures, 
construction related traffic, and temporary loss of utility services. 
These impacts would be minimized through proper construction mitigation 
techniques and with good advance planning. By working closely with the 
City, unavoidable disruptions during the two year construction phase 
could be minimized but not totally avoided.
    Alternative 1--Site 1E--Construction of One Building (GSA Preferred 
Alternative): This alternative would involve the demolition of the JGL 
Buildings A & B and constructing an Annex of 165,000 osf on the entire 
site including President Street. This would remove that portion of 
President Street which is part of the Oglethorpe Plan. This loss would 
be unavoidable and only partially mitigated through design 
considerations. This alternative replaces two smaller buildings which 
are in proportion with surrounding buildings, with a larger Annex of 
similar mass to the current FB-CT. This additional mass and the loss of 
that section of President Street will cause some negative visual 
impacts. These cumulative impacts could affect the status of the NHLD. 
This alternative would demolish two 27,000 osf government-owned 
buildings that would have remaining economic life. This alternative 
would also require the relocation of 145 employees currently housed in 
buildings A and B.

    Alternative 2--Site 1E--Construction of Two Buildings: Under this 
alternative an Annex of 180,000 osf would be constructed on two trust 
lots leaving President Street open to pedestrian traffic. These 
buildings would be substantially taller than the current FB-CT and 
would be out of context on that site in terms of the mass and scale. 
This alternative would demolish two government-owned buildings that 
have remaining economic life. This would have the same negative impacts 
as Alternative 1 and potentially affect the status of the NHLD. This 
alternative would also require the relocation of 145 employees 
currently housed in buildings A and B.

    Alternative 3--Site 1D--Construction of One Building: Under this 
alternative, GSA would demolish all of the JGL Building C except the 
elevator core, the basement parking, and part of the structural 
support. No historic buildings would be demolished and no alterations 
to the Oglethorpe Plan would occur. This alternative would demolish a 
145,000 osf government-owned building that has remaining economic life. 
This alternative may have positive impacts on the NHLD if the new Annex 
is more visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than the 
current JGL Building C.

    This alternative would require the relocation of 714 Corps of 
Engineer employees. This action itself would cause additional impacts. 
If these employees were relocated within the NHLD, adverse impacts are 
likely depending on the location selected and whether leasing or new 
construction was the selected acquisition. If this action caused these 
employees to relocate outside Savannah's NHLD, or to relocate outside 
Savannah altogether, adverse economic impacts to the NHLD would occur 
due to the loss of employment within the City. These future potential 
impacts cannot be accurately measured until alternative courses of 
action are identified and considered.

    Alternative 4--Site 1A--Construction of One Building: Under this 
alternative, a single building Annex would be constructed on Broughton 
Street. Broughton Lane would be permanently lost and 14 contributing 
buildings would be demolished. The Broughton Street Revitalization 
program would be severely impacted by removing a block of commercial 
buildings creating a retail ``dead zone''. Two historic buildings would 
be preserved on Bull Street between Broughton Street and State Street, 
and that portion of Broughton



[[Page 41633]]



Lane between the buildings would be retained. This alternative would 
cause adverse effects to Savannah's historic resources and could have 
negative impacts to the status of the NHLD.
    Mitigation of Cultural and Historic Resources. In order to mitigate 
and minimize the impacts that have been identified, GSA will continue 
to consult with the local community, the SHPO, the ACHP, the NPS, as 
well as other preservation groups that have been identified. This 
consultation will lead to the development and ultimate signing of a 
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between GSA and the consulted parties 
including the SHPO, the ACHP, the NPS, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(e) and 
800.10, which are the implementing regulations of the National Historic 
Preservation Act. The stipulations of the MOA will identify elements of 
the mitigation plan which GSA will implement.
    The mitigation plan will identify the elements that GSA will 
implement to mitigate impacts to historic resources. It will address 
the stages of design review and will identify elements of new 
construction that are compatible with the historic and architectural 
qualities of the NHLD. It will address the issues of scale, massing, 
and materials, and will be responsive to the Secretary of Interior's 
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic 
Buildings. GSA recognizes that concerns have been expressed by the NPS 
and others about the mass and scale of the proposed Annex. GSA is 
committed to reduce the mass above grade of the Annex to the greatest 
extent practical.

    The City of Savannah has established a committee to work closely 
with GSA to identify issues and maintain a climate of cooperation 
throughout this project. GSA has committed to work with this committee 
and to participate in regular meetings to address issues and to keep 
the lines of communication open.

    The City has identified three additional issues of concern about 
this project: exacerbation of parking shortages, the potential loss of 
the U.S. Post Office downtown, and the potential loss of federal 
employment downtown due to relocation caused by this proposed Annex.
    As mitigation, GSA has committed to cooperate with the City's 
effort to development of a perimeter parking and shuttle system. GSA 
committed to assist the City in their efforts to find a suitable 
downtown location for the U.S. Post Office. GSA has committed to keep 
federal agencies that are relocated as a result of this project within 
the CBA of Savannah.



Rationale for Decision



    The proposed project will meet the 10-year requirements and 30-year 
expansion needs of the U.S Courts in Savannah, Georgia. The proposed 
construction will result in a one-time consumption of non-renewable 
resources including land, energy and materials. Certain negative 
environmental impacts will occur regardless of the alternative 
selected.

    The technically and operationally preferred alternative, which is 
also the GSA preferred alternative, is the construction of a single 
building on site 1-E. This technically preferred alternative best meets 
the projects objectives and criteria as recommended by the design 
consultants.

    The alternative with the greatest adverse impact to the NHLD is 
Alternative 5, site 1-A, because it would demolish 14 historic 
buildings and permanently close Broughton Lane. It would also impact 
the City's efforts to revitalize the Broughton Street retail corridor. 
The alternative with the least environmental impact would be 
Alternative 4; a single building on site 1-D. This alternative would 
require no loss of historic resources, however it would cause a major 
agency relocation within the NHLD as 714 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer 
employees would be displaced. Additionally, JGL Building C, with 
145,000 osf of government-owned space, would be mostly demolished with 
useful economic life remaining.

    Therefore, giving consideration to all of the factors discovered 
during the two year environmental process, it is the decision to 
proceed with the GSA preferred alternative, which is the demolition of 
JGL Buildings A & B, and the construction of a single Courthouse Annex 
of 165,000 osf on site 1-E, adjacent to the FB-CT in Savannah, Georgia.



    Approved: July 16, 1996.

Carole Dortch,

Regional Administrator (4A).



    Dated: July 24, 1996.

Phil Youngberg,

Regional Environmental Officer (4PT).

[FR Doc. 96-20176 Filed 8-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.