AB 3010
(Laird)
COMMUNITY
COLLEGES:
Building
Approval Process
(As amended
July 19, 2004)ed to be amended)
This
bill would revise the
process whereby the State Architect approves Community College building
plans.
With the assistance of the author’s office, the Community Colleges, the Office of the State Architect, the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG, the state engineers’ union), and the Seismic Safety Commission have worked cooperatively to develop this new process.
Under
existing law, the California
Uniform Building Code (UBC) establishes standards for the construction of
buildings in California. The seismic
requirements in the UBC are imposed under the police powers of the state in
order to protect life and safety of those in and near the building in the event
of a major earthquake. The life and
safety provisions are intended to allow people to exit the building following a
major earthquake; the life and safety provisions are not intended to assure
that a building is usable after the earthquake.
The
state’s Field Act of 1933 requires that community college buildings be designed
to UBC standards, but with about ten percent more earthquake-resistance
capacity than the UBC. The purposes of
the higher standards are to (1) increase the life safety protection for those
in a building at the time of an earthquake, (2) increase the probability that a
building can be used as a community center in the hours and days after a major
earthquake, and (3) increase the probability that the buildings will be useable
for educational purposes in the future, thereby protecting the investment in
the building.
The
Field Act also requires that a building inspector be on the building site on a
continuous basis.
Under
existing law, the State Architect
must approve the engineering designs of community colleges. This approval is done after the plans are
completed. The State Architect
evaluates the designs for some, but not all, of the requirements of the UBC:
(1) seismic requirements, (2) fire safety, (3) American Disability Act
requirements, and (4) energy conservation requirements.
This
bill would revise the
process whereby the State Architect approves Community College building
plans. There would be three changes.
First,
the State Architect would be directed to review, at appropriate stages, the
building plans being prepared for community college buildings. The purpose of this change is to allow the
State Architect to provide input during the plan development process rather
than at the end (as is done now), thus reducing the potential for the need for
expensive and difficult changes after the plans are completed.
Second,
the State Architect and the Community Colleges would be directed to enter into
a collaborative process to improve the quality and efficiency of the design and
construction of community college buildings – improving coordination, reducing
the time for design and construction, improving building safety, reducing
building life cycle costs, and including appropriate security into building
design.
Third,
the State Architect and the Community Colleges would be allowed to provide
training for staff and for architects and engineers building community college
buildings. The cost would be covered by
a fee.
The
“training” portion of the bill is patterned after Education Code
Section 17308, which allows the State Architect to
provide training for K-12 building designers and to charge a fee.
It
is recognized that this new process may cost the community colleges more for
the State Architect’s services, but it is thought that the overall cost will be
lower. Overall costs are expected to be
lower because early plan review should catch needed plan changes earlier in the
design process when they are easier and less costly to correct. It is also thought that this new process
will result is less construction delay (time is money).
None
After the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the
Governor’s Board of Inquiry made recommendations about seismic safety for state
facilities. The board recommended,
among other things, that the California State University (CSU) improve its
capability to assure that CSU buildings meet seismic requirements. In response, CSU created a Seismic Review
Board, which was to undertake a system-wide program called “peer review.” Under peer review, members of the Seismic
Review Board consult with the building designers at critical stages, primarily
as a means of assuring that design errors are caught early in the design
process, rather than at the end of the process. This bill is intended to emulate, in part, the process utilized
by CSU.
SUPPORT
California Community
Colleges
(sponsor)
AFSCME
Community College
Districts of Orange
County
San Diego Community
College District
None known
Clyde
Macdonald
Assemblymember
John Laird's Office (916) 319-2027
(916) 319-2127 FAX