[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2602-2605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-480]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Public Buildings Service; Record of Decision; New United States 
Courthouse-Federal Building in Santa Ana, California

    The United States General Services Administration (GSA) announces 
its decision, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the Regulations issued by the 
Council on Environmental Quality, November 29, 1978, to construct a new 
Federal Building-United States Courthouse (FB-CT) in Santa Ana, 
California. The site is bordered by 5th Street to the north, 4th Street 
to the south, Ross Street to the west, and Broadway to the east.
    The purposes for the new FB-CT are to consolidate courts and court 
related agencies space in one location, to relieve substandard and 
overcrowded conditions at the existing federal court facilities in the 
City of Santa Ana, and to provide space for anticipated future growth. 
The proposed project is anticipated to be ready for occupancy in 1997.
    The existing court activities are currently dispersed between three 
separate buildings. The three locations are the Federal Building at 34 
Civic Center Drive, leased office space at 600 West Santa Ana 
Boulevard, and a leased modular structure in the Civic Center Plaza. 
The courts and related agencies need to be consolidated in one location 
for the efficiency of their operations.
    In use since 1987, the modular building is a prefabricated 
temporary structure which is approaching the end of its useful life. 
Its conditions are substandard for high-volume Federal Court 
activities. Problems associated with the leased modular facility such 
as inadequate parking, lack of loading dock or delivery facilities, 
poor building circulation, and poor acoustics currently hinder courts 
day to day activities. Additionally, the modular building is located on 
a site leased by the Government from the County of Orange. The ground 
lease will expire in 1997 and is nonrenewable.
    The existing Federal Building, as well as the modular building, do 
not meet guidelines for court facilities set forth in the ``U.S. Courts 
Design Guide'' (February 1993). Structural restrictions such as 
obstructing columns and inadequate ceiling heights are prevalent in 
these facilities.
    In addition to the substandard facilities, overcrowding hinders 
courts day to day activities. The Central District Court of California, 
of which Santa Ana is a division, is the largest district in the Ninth 
Circuit. Between 1986 and 1991, the entire Central District Court of 
California experienced an average increase in case load filings of 
approximately 9.6 percent per year. During 1991 and 1992, the Santa Ana 
Divisional Office experienced an approximately 24.6 percent increase in 
case load filings. The federal court system located in Santa Ana 
currently requires approximately 25,000 additional occupiable square 
feet for its [[Page 2603]] operations due to the existing number of 
appointed judges and substantial increases in caseloads.
    Not only are the courts currently operating at a deficit of 
approximately 25,000 occupiable square feet, additional square footage 
will be required to satisfy the projected courts' expansion. This 
increased need is attributed to the appointment of additional judges 
and continued burgeoning case loads. The courts growth will also 
increase the need for administrative support spaces and space for court 
related agencies such as the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Trustee, and U.S. 
Marshal. The courts are expected to need approximately 185,000 
additional occupiable square feet by 1997, and approximately 260,000 
additional occupiable square feet by 2005.

I. Alternatives Considered

    In accordance with the NEPA, GSA has considered a range of 
alternatives to the proposed action that could satisfy the basic 
objectives of the planned project. The three other alternatives: 
construction at another location, leasing, and no action have been 
analyzed within the EIS and are representative of a reasonable range of 
alternatives. Although the leasing alternative is environmentally 
preferable, other considerations, which will be discussed later in this 
document, have led to our selection of the proposed construction 
alternative.

A. Proposed Alternative

    The proposed alternative site, which has been donated by the City 
of Santa Ana to the Government, encompasses approximately four acres. 
The site is bounded by 5th Street to the north, 4th Street to the 
south, Ross Street to the west and Broadway to the east, within the 
Central Business Area (CBA) and adjacent to the Civic Center of the 
city of Santa Ana. The site is large enough to provide the space 
required to meet both current and projected court facility needs 
through the year 2021.
    The proposed site is also located within the boundaries of the 
Santa Ana's Downtown Redevelopment Area. This alternative is consistent 
with the City's redevelopment plans and will provide a catalyst for 
downtown revitalization. The site's proximity to the Orange County 
Transit terminal will promote use of transportation means that are 
environmentally superior to single occupancy vehicles. Its close 
proximity to the existing Federal Building and other County and City 
facilities in the Civic Center area accentuates the architectural 
expression of ``civic'' area as originally planned by the City and 
presents the potential for operational efficiencies.
    Proximity of the proposed location to the Civic Center serves two 
functions. First, its proximity to the City Library, Law Library, the 
City Hall, and other ``civic'' and business activities offers citizens 
convenient access to government services. Secondly, proximity of the 
courthouse to the Men's and Women's jail, County Courthouse, and Police 
Headquarters will result in more effective and safe prisoners' 
transportation. The site is also located close to retail and business 
amenities which add to the attraction of the proposed alternative.
    Additionally, the selection of the proposed location complies with 
Executive Order 12072 which mandates that federal facilities and 
federal use of space in urban areas shall encourage the development and 
redevelopment of cities. Procedures for meeting space needs in urban 
areas shall give first consideration to the central business area. 
Consistent with Executive Order 12072, the location of the proposed 
project is compatible with local development and redevelopment 
objectives. It will have a positive impact on economic development and 
employment opportunities in the City. Adequate public transportation 
and parking make it accessible to the public.

B. The Lease Alternative

    Under this alternative, the federal government would lease, on a 
long-term basis, approximately 333,000 square feet of occupiable 
building space within the City of Santa Ana's CBA. According to real 
estate and property management sources in the City, the amount of space 
required to fulfill the project need is currently unavailable within 
the CBA. However, the Main Street Concourse project, located at the 
northeast corner of Main Street and Owens Drive, which is currently 
under construction was chosen for specific analysis as the lease 
alternative because it would be completed prior to the expiration of 
the court's current lease on the modular facility in 1997. Although 
this alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative, it was 
found to be practically infeasible for several reasons.
    First, it does not have the capacity to accommodate long-term 
growth of the federal courts and related agencies beyond the 
projections for the year 2005. Any expansion would have to be housed in 
separate leased locations, which would only repeat the existing 
problems in the court's current locations. Second, the Main Street 
Concourse project includes a mix of commercial and residential land 
uses to be developed in two or more phases. Court use and residential 
use are not compatible. The security requirements for the courts are 
very strict and unsuited for a relaxed residential setting. Noise 
generated by everyday massive public use of the Federal Courthouse 
would be disturbing to adjacent residences. The heavy vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic demand of a courthouse would be annoying to the 
residential neighborhood. Third, although located at the fringe of the 
CBA, the lease alternative does not have the same convenient access to 
the City's Civic Center, public transportation, federal, County, and 
City's facilities.
    Finally, Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended (Pub. L. 100-678, 
40 U.S.C. 601) discourages GSA from leasing space to accommodate 
permanent courtrooms, judicial chambers or administrative offices for 
any United States Court where the average rental cost exceeds 
$1,500,000. Clearly, this Act reflects strong congressional interest to 
house the courts in permanent, rather than leased, space. The average 
annual rental for the lease alternative in Santa Ana exceeds greatly 
the $1,500,000 threshold. Thus, GSA is prohibited from adopting this 
alternative.

C. The Alternative Site Location

    The alternative site is currently owned by the federal government. 
It encompasses approximately 1.5 acres and is bound by Santa Ana 
Boulevard to the north, Parton Avenue to the east, 3rd Street to the 
south, and Flower Street to the west. Currently, this site is 
undeveloped and is used as a paved parking area for the Federal 
Building in Santa Ana. Because of the limited size of the site, the 
proposed structure on this site would require architecturally a single 
tower without adequate set backs necessary to mitigate the mass of such 
structure. The building of a courthouse structure would also eliminate 
the existing 164 at-grade parking spaces on the site necessary for the 
existing Federal Building.
    Additional underground parking would be required to provide both 
for the existing Federal Building and the new courthouse. The 
substantial excavation necessary to accommodate the required 
underground parking would be quite costly. In addition the future 
growth of the courts would have to be accommodated at another location 
off-site. The project goal of consolidating the space requirements of 
the courts and their related agencies would not be 
satisfied. [[Page 2604]] 

D. No Action Alternative

    Under the no action alternative, the title of the proposed site 
would return to the City of Santa Ana, and no federal courthouse 
building would be constructed there, or any other location. The U.S. 
Court for the Central District of California would either reduce its 
space needs in the Santa Ana area, or accommodate its future growth by 
some other means. The projected increase in the federal presence in 
Santa Ana is not contingent upon the construction of a Federal 
Building-Courthouse. The rate of growth in all categories of federal 
employees (including judicial and executive branch agencies) is 
projected to be the same, regardless of whether the proposed building 
is constructed.

II. Criteria for Evaluating EIS Alternatives

    Selection of an alternative site involves the weighing and 
balancing of many complex, interrelated and often competing policy 
factors. An alternative superior to others in one environmental respect 
may be inferior in another. Several factors were key in evaluating each 
of the alternatives. These are identified below:
    1. The first project criterion is to provide for the expansion of 
the federal courts and related agencies and consolidate their functions 
in one location in Santa Ana. Current facilities housed in the leased 
modular building and the Federal Building in Santa Ana are 
insufficient. Leasing additional space piecemeal to make up for the 
shortfall at these facilities would not be an efficient means of 
providing court space. Alternative project site and lease consolidation 
possibilities were therefore examined for their ability to meet 
existing court needs as well as their suitability for future expansion.
    2. The second project criterion is to promote local government 
redevelopment goals, which can often be greatly assisted by the 
implementation of large projects such as the high-profile federal 
courthouse building.
    3. The third project criterion is to minimize adverse environmental 
effects.
    4. The fourth project criterion is to provide an appropriate 
location for the facilities which are readily accessible to the general 
public. Some sites are more suitable due to their proximity to public 
transportation and amenities, the City's Central Business District, 
retail areas, and existing Federal, State, and local facilities.

III. Environmental Impact

    Implemetnation of the proposed action or alternatives would result 
in a variety of short-term and long-term impacts. During the 
construction period, surrounding land use would be temporarily impacted 
by dust, construction equipment emissions and noise, and adverse visual 
impact. Short-term erosion may occur until project landscaping is 
established. These impacts are considered temporary and would be 
mitigated to less than significant levels through measures recommended 
in Section 4.1 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, dated June 
1994 (FEIS). The long-term effect of the proposed action or 
alternatives would be the introduction of an urban structure, 
associated parking areas, and other amenities to a currently 
undeveloped sites. Construction of the project would constitute a 
change in land use for any of the development sites, and, in general, 
would serve as appropriate in fill. The characteristics of the 
physical, aesthetic and human environment would be impacted, as with 
any form of land use intensification. Consequences of this urbanization 
would include increased traffic volumes, incremental degradation of 
local and regional air quality, additional noise, alteration of the 
visual character of the sites, and incremental increases in demand for 
public services and utilities. Nonetheless, the proposed project would 
benefit the local community and federal government by providing much 
needed additional courtroom facilities. Implementation of mitigation 
measures, as proposed in the FEIS, would reduce impacts to the maximum 
extent feasible.

IV. Mitigation Measures

    All practicable means to avoid or minimize impacts to the area are 
being considered in the development of the project. GSA received a 
number of comments and mitigation suggestions from concerned citizens, 
and interested and responsible local, State, and Federal agencies. 
Mitigation measures were set forth in the FEIS and those that can be 
implemented were adopted by GSA.

A. Geology and Landform

    Due to its location within a seismically active region of Southern 
California, the proposed project site would be subject to potential 
long-term geologic hazards associated with seismic activity. Mitigation 
measures are adopted as specified in Section 4.1.1.2 of the FEIS to 
reduce those impacts to less than significant.

B. Natural Hazards

    The proposed project site is not located within the 100-year or 
500-year flood plain. Project implementation at the proposed site would 
not result in any significant impacts associated with flooding hazards.
    The proposed project site does not receive drainage from the 
surrounding areas. Project implementation would result in changes to 
existing flow paths and would increase storm runoff volumes, peak flows 
and velocities due to placement of structures and the increase of 
impervious surface areas. Surface runoff would be controlled by 
drainage facilities incorporated into project design. Mitigation 
measures are adopted as specified in Section 4.1.3.2 of the FEIS to 
reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

C. Air Quality

    Air quality impacts would occur from site preparation and building 
erection activities associated with construction of the project. The 
emissions of construction equipment and vehicles would be short-term 
and consist of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. Those impacts are 
mitigated to a less than significant level by GSA adopting all 
mitigation measures as identified in the FEIS section 4.1.4.2 except 
for:
     Restriction of construction activities that affect traffic 
flow to off-peak hours form 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. This 
cannot be adopted because it is not economically feasible for 
construction of a project this size. The hours of construction 
operation will be limited to 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Weekend construction 
activities will occur only under special circumstances if required.
     Trucks shall not idle for more than 2 minutes. This 
measure will not be adopted in full because it is not practical to 
measure and oversee. However, trucks arriving at the jobsite, and not 
being utilized will be shut down until required. GSA's general 
contractor will monitor to ensure that they do idle for an excessive 
period of time.
     Excavation and grading shall be suspended when the wind 
speed (as instantaneous gusts) exceeds 25 miles per hour. This measure 
will not be adopted because occurrence of wind at 25 miles per hour 
speed is often encountered in the area. If adopted, this measure would 
impede severely construction activities. Instead, the excavation 
contractor will be responsible for determining if the wind conditions 
are acceptable for construction activities. If the winds create 
conditions which are deemed to be unsafe for the construction or 
adjacent buildings and neighbors, then all work will be suspended. 
Also, the Government representatives on site have the authority to stop 
construction work [[Page 2605]] if they feel that the work is preceding 
unsafely.
    Long-term emissions from the proposed action would exceed the South 
coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operation thresholds for 
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Oxide 
(Nox). Therefore, these emissions are considered a significant impact 
to regional air quality.
    The long-term impacts will be alleviated by mitigation measures as 
indicated in the FEIS section 4.1.4.2 except for:
     Providing carpool matching services and mailing mass 
transit information and schedules with each juror's information packet. 
These measures should be established by building tenants, court and 
related agencies, and they are not under GSA control.
     Preferential parking spaces for carpool vehicles will not 
be assigned because all parking spaces are being provided for official 
government vehicles and building tenants.
     Bus turnouts and passenger benches on or adjacent to the 
project site are not required because the site is located across the 
street from Orange County Transit Center.
    In compliance with section 176 of the Clean Air Act, GSA has 
conducted a conformity analysis based on the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Final Rule entitled Determining Conformity of General Federal 
Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans, 58 FR 63214 (1993) 
(to be codified at 40 CFR parts 6, 51 and 93). The result of the 
analysis indicates that total project emissions (direct and indirect) 
are less than the de minimis thresholds. Therefore, the proposed 
project is exempt from the final conformity rule, and a conformity 
determination need not be prepared.

D. Noise

    Implementation of the proposed action would expose surrounding land 
uses to short-term construction noise levels in excess of City 
threshold levels. This impact is considered significant and 
unavoidable. Mitigation measures will be implemented as specified in 
the FEIS section 4.1.5.2 except that:
     Restriction of construction activities due to noise 
problems cannot be adopted because it is not economically feasible for 
construction of a project this size. The hours of construction 
operation will be limited to 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Weekend construction 
activities will occur only under special circumstances if required.
     Construction activities will not stop during the noon-hour 
period because with the number of contractors working on multi-shift 
basis on the job site, it is not practical to stop completely 
construction activities every day during the noon hour.
    No significant long-term noise impact have been identified with 
this project.

E. Archaeological and Historic Resources

    The implementation of the proposed alternative will have an impact 
on archaeological and historic resources. The proposed alternative site 
is located within the Santa Ana's Downtown Historic District which is 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The scale of the 
proposed courthouse will not be compatible with the surrounding 
historically significant structures. This is considered a significant 
unavoidable impact. GSA has consulted with the State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO) to seek ways to avoid or reduce the effect 
on historic properties. Mitigation measures were developed in 
consultation with the SHPO in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 
the GSA and the SHPO, with concurrence of the City of Santa Ana. 
According to the MOA, GSA shall develop and implement a Data Recovery 
Plan, consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and 
Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (48 FR 44734-37), for the 
recovery of data from the project site, in consultation with the SHPO.
    During construction excavation, archaeological monitoring will be 
performed under the supervision of an Archaeologist. If, during 
construction excavation, a ``major archaeological discovery'' (as 
defined in the MOA) has been made, the data will be recovered 
immediately. All materials and records resulting from data recovery 
will be curated in accordance with 36 CFR part 79 at the San Bernardino 
County Museum.
    Recognizing that the proposed project will have an adverse effect 
on the Downtown Santa Ana Historic District, the GSA, nevertheless, 
will ensure that the project design, to the extent feasible, is 
compatible with historic and architectural qualities of the Downtown 
Santa Ana Historic District in terms of scale, massing, color, and 
materials, and is responsive to the recommended approaches for new 
construction set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for 
Rehabilitation.

F. Transportation and parking

    Development of the proposed project would significantly impact the 
intersection of Main Street/Civic Center Drive, Main Street/First 
Street, Flower Street/First Street, and Broadway/Civic Center Drive. 
The impact analysis assumed minimal use of public transit. Given that 
the site is well-situated vis a vis the Orange County Transit Center, 
it is likely that employees would use transit at a similar rate as the 
existing employees in the downtown area. However, this would not reduce 
intersection impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation 
measures as identified in section 4.6.1 of the FEIS will not be adopted 
by GSA. Transit improvements, bicycle facility improvements and 
increased carpooling and vanpooling are not with GSA's authority and 
control.
    The General Services Administration believes that there are no 
outstanding issues to be resolved with respect to the proposed project. 
Questions associated with the environmental impacts of the new Federal 
Building-U.S. Courthouse may be directed to Ms. Mitra K. Nejad, 
Planning Staff (9PL), U.S. General Services Administration, 525 Market 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-5252.

    Dated: December 30, 1994.
Kenn N. Kojima,
Regional Administrator (9A).
[FR Doc. 95-480 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M