BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1783
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Dodd |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 27, 2016 Hearing |
| |Date: June 22, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin DelCastillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: School facilities: nonstructural earthquake hazards:
assessment
SUMMARY
This bill requires a local educational agency (LEA) located in
an area of higher seismicity to develop a plan and to conduct an
assessment of the contents in each school building to assess
whether furniture and equipment meet specified safety guidelines
in the event of an earthquake.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of
1998 for the purpose of providing state funds for the
construction or modernization of K-12 school facilities
pursuant to the School Facilities Program (SFP). The SFP
provides funding for the design, construction, testing,
inspection, and furniture and equipment costs related to
the actual construction of the school facility, and
requires the State Allocation Board (SAB) to utilize a
per-pupil allocation formula to provide the funds for these
costs. Additionally, the SFP provides funding for site
acquisition, site development, and certain other
construction related costs. (Education Code § 17070.10, et
seq.)
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 2
of ?
2) Establishes the Field Act, which provides reasonable
minimum standards for the design and construction of new
school buildings, as specified.
(Education Code § 17365-17374)
3) Requires the Office of Emergency Services (OES), in
cooperation with the California Department of Education,
the Department of General Services, and the Seismic Safety
Commission to develop an educational pamphlet for use by
grades K-14 personnel to identify and mitigate the risks
posed by nonstructural earthquake hazards. The OES is
required to print and distribute the pamphlet to the school
and community college districts and also make it available
to private schools upon request. (Government Code §
8587.7)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1) Makes various legislative findings and declarations
regarding damages from major California earthquakes and
that school classrooms should be examined to ensure that
furnishings and equipment are property located, anchored
and braced to prevent harm to pupils and school personnel.
2) Requires, by January 1, 2018, each school district, county
office of education (COE), and charter school located in an
area of higher seismicity to develop a plan for the
inspection of the contents in each of its school buildings
of areas that are accessible to or occupied by pupils,
including classrooms, hallways, libraries, gymnasiums,
multipurpose rooms, cafeterias, computer rooms,
administrative offices, and other similar spaces.
3) Defines "higher seismicity" as an area with the result of
.30g or greater on the California Geological Survey's
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 3
of ?
Ground Motion Interpolator found on the Department of
Conservation Internet Web site.
4) Requires the Department of Conservation (DOC), on or before
February 1, 2017, to post instruction or a hyperlink on its
Internet Web site on how to determine whether a school
district, COE, or charter school is located in an area of
higher seismicity.
5) Provides that the purpose of the plan shall be to assess
whether the contents comply with the guidelines set forth
in Chapter 3 of the "Guide and Checklist for Nonstructural
Earthquake Hazards in California Schools" (Guide),
published by the Office of Emergency Services, to identify
school building contents that do not comply with the
guidelines, and to develop corrective actions.
6) Requires the plan to be developed in consultation with a
California licensed civil or structural engineer or a
California licensed architect, a representative of a local
fire service agency, a school administrator or school
business official, a classroom teacher, and a
representative of classified school employees.
7) Requires the plan to designate the person responsible for
performing the assessment and developing corrective
actions; identify all school buildings that are to be
assessed and the order of assessment; and include a cost
estimate for the assessment.
8) Requires the plan to be submitted to the governing board of
the school district, the county office of education, or the
governing body of the charter school at a public meeting,
as specified.
9) Requires each school district, county office of education,
and charter school to complete the assessment by January 1,
2020. Requires the person conducting the inspection to, at
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 4
of ?
minimum, complete the checklist for Chapter 3 published in
the Guide.
10) Requires, within 60 days of completing the assessment, the
checklist of compliant and noncompliant contents to be
reported to the governing bodies of the school district,
county office of education, or charter school. Requires
the report to include a prioritization of noncompliant
items that present an immediate and serious threat to the
safety of pupils and school personnel and a set of
recommended corrective actions.
11) Requires the governing bodies to review the report in a
public meeting and post the report on their Internet Web
site.
12) Requires the superintendent of a school district, the
county superintendent of schools, or the chief
administrator of a charter school to annually certify in
writing which corrective actions have been taken and
requires the certifications to be posted on each governing
body's Internet Web site.
13) Specifies that if a school district, county office of
education, or charter school completes an assessment before
January 1, 2017, it may report the assessment and any
corresponding corrective actions it takes to its respective
governing bodies to meet the reporting requirement.
14) Defines "contents" as including, but not limited to, file
cabinets, bookcases, desktop and countertop equipment,
equipment on carts, display cases, art objects, potted
plants, aquariums, equipment on wheels or rollers, such as
pianos and chalkboards, office equipment, refrigerators,
vending machines, shop and gym equipment, gas cylinders,
gas piping and storage racks.
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 5
of ?
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill. According to the author's office, "the
South Napa earthquake struck early in the morning on August
24, 2014. Structural damage to schools was minimal.
However, nonstructural damage was significant and could
have been life-threatening had the earthquake occurred
during school hours. Post-earthquake inspection showed
file cabinets had collapsed on desks, a drill press lying
on the floor, and bookcases blocking exists, among many
other hazards. The safety hazards posed by school contents
during the South Napa earthquake have been found in the
aftermath of a number of other earthquakes elsewhere in the
state in previous years. In addition to the school
contents related life safety hazards during the South Napa
earthquake, there were significant financial impacts.
Replacing and repairing contents damaged by the earthquake
was estimated at $9 million for schools in Napa Unified.
The observed damage was essentially all non-structural,
affecting the building cladding, interior partitions and
ceilings, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment
and contents."
2) School Facility Program and Field Act. Local educational
agencies (LEAs) may apply for and receive state bond funds
for school facility new construction and/or modernization
projects through the State School Facility Program (SFP).
As part of the application process, the SFP requires an LEA
to receive approval from the California Department of
Education for the proposed school site that is selected
site to ensure that the school site specifications are safe
and meet the school's education plan. The LEA must also
receive approval from the Division of State Architect to
ensure that the architectural design plans meet fire, life
and safety requirements, Field Act requirements, and access
requirements under the Americans with Disability Act. The
Field Act was enacted in 1933 after an earthquake in Long
Beach, and authorized the Division of the State Architect
(DSA) to develop a statewide building code to make all
buildings, especially school buildings, safe from
earthquakes. Because of this, public schools are commonly
considered to be the safest public buildings in the state.
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 6
of ?
3) Field Act does not apply to building contents. While the
Field Act addresses the structural integrity of buildings,
there are no requirements that apply to their contents.
Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, SB 1122 (Alarcon,
Chapter 294, Statutes of 1999) was enacted to require the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) to develop an
educational pamphlet. As a result, the California
Emergency Management Agency, in consultation with the DSA,
the Seismic Safety Commission and the California Department
of Education, developed the "Guide and Checklist for
Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California School."
This guide covers several components within a building,
including the ceilings, walls, and furniture, and specifies
various guidelines and recommendations for ensuring
earthquake safety related to these components. However, it
is unclear how many school districts have actually used the
recommendations to secure the contents within their school
buildings.
4) Fiscal impact. This bill would apply to school districts
in areas of higher seismicity, as defined. This is likely
to affect a majority of the districts located outside of
the Sacramento Valley and the Central Valley.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown
Proposition 98/General Fund state mandated costs, likely in
the low millions of dollars, for school districts to
develop and implement plans for the inspection of school
building areas accessible to children. Costs per district
could range from several hundred dollars to over $200,000.
Costs to implement a plan will vary depending on the size
of the district, the approach to review, and whether a plan
has already been developed. Additional resources may be
needed to make corrective actions if deemed necessary.
SUPPORT
American Red Cross
California School Employees Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Structural Engineers Association of California
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 7
of ?
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --