[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