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

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