2602 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Notices

position on issues raised by the

proposal. Notice of the proposal is

published solely to seek the views of

interested persons on the issues

presented by the application and does

not represent a determination by the

Board that the proposal meets, or is

likely to meet, the standards of the BHC

Act.

Any comments or requests for hearing

should be submitted in writing and

received by William W. Wiles,

Secretary, Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, Washington,

D.C. 20551, not later than January 24,

1995. Any request for a hearing on this

application must, as required by §

262.3(e) of the Board’s Rules of

Procedure (12 CFR 262.3(e)), be

accompanied by a statement of the

reasons why a written presentation

would not suffice in lieu of a hearing,

identifying specifically any questions of

fact that are in dispute, summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing, and indicating how the party

commenting would be aggrieved by

approval of the proposal.

This application may be inspected at

the offices of the Board of Governors or

the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, January 4, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–526 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

United Valley Bancorp, Inc., et al.;

Formations of; Acquisitions by; and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied for the Board’s approval

under section 3 of the Bank Holding

Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and §

225.14 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding

company or to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the applications

are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act

(12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Each application is available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

application has been accepted for

processing, it will also be available for

inspection at the offices of the Board of

Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank or to the offices of the

Board of Governors. Any comment on

an application that requests a hearing

must include a statement of why a

written presentation would not suffice

in lieu of a hearing, identifying

specifically any questions of fact that

are in dispute and summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received not later than February

3, 1995.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior

Vice President) 100 North 6th Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105:

1. United Valley Bancorp, Inc.,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; to become a

bank holding company by acquiring 100

percent of the voting shares of United

Valley Bank, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. UVB Interim Bank, will

be formed to facilitate the transaction.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

(James A. Bluemle, Vice President) 230

South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois

60690:

1. First Mutual Bancorp, Inc., Decatur,

Illinois; to become a bank holding

company by acquiring 100 percent of

the voting shares of First Mutual Bank,

S.B., Decatur, Illinois.

C. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice

President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:

1. Elgin Bancshares, Inc., Elgin, North

Dakota; to become a bank holding

company by acquiring 100 percent of

the voting shares of Farmers State Bank,

Elgin, North Dakota.

D. Federal Reserve Bank of San

Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning,

Director, Bank Holding Company) 101

Market Street, San Francisco, California

94105:

1. Wells Fargo & Company, San

Francisco, California; to acquire 100

percent of the voting shares of Wells

Fargo Bank (Arizona), National

Association, Phoenix, Arizona, a de

novo bank.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, January 4, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–528 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Notices 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.
2604 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Notices

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. Shortterm 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Notices 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

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

[Public Law 103–40]

Public Meeting for Federal, State, and

Local Government Agencies, and

Others Interested in the

Implementation of The GPO Electronic

Information Enhancement Act of 1993

The Superintendent of Documents

will hold a public meeting for Federal,

State, and local government agencies

and others interested in the

implementation of the Government

Printing Office (GPO) Electronic

Information Access Enhancement Act of

1993 (Pub. L. 103–40). The meeting will

be held on Monday, February 6, 1995,

from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., in the First

Floor Conference Room at Van PeltDietrich Library Center, 3420 Walnut

Street, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Walk-in:

Blanche P. Levy Park, north side).

Under Pub. L. 103–40, the

Superintendent of Documents is

required to provide a system of online

access to the Congressional Record, the

Federal Register, and other appropriate

information. The purpose of this

meeting is to demonstrate the online