BILL ANALYSIS �
Bill No: SB
1271
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Roderick D. Wright, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
Staff Analysis
SB 1271 Author: Corbett
As Amended: April 10, 2012
Hearing Date: April 24, 2012
Consultant: Paul Donahue
SUBJECT
School facilities: Field Act: seismic safety standards:
workgroup
EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes the Division of the State
Architect (DSA) within the Department of General Services
(DGS). The State Architect oversees construction of state
buildings.
Enacted in 1933, the Field Act<1> requires DGS to supervise
the design, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of
most K-12 and community college school buildings. The
Field Act directs DGS-which delegates this responsibility
to DSA-to do the following:
1)Ensure that the plans and specifications comply with
specified rules, regulations, and building standards and
to ensure that the work of construction is performed in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications,
for the protection of life and property.
-------------------------
<1> Education Code � 17281 states: "This article �approvals
of school construction], together with Article 6
(commencing with Section 17365) �fitness for occupancy],
and Article 7 (commencing with Section 81130) of Chapter 1
of Part 49, �approvals of community college construction]
shall be known and may be cited as the 'Field Act.'"
SB 1271 (Corbett) continued
PageB
2)Certify school construction projects when they comply
with the Field Act and with the state building standards
in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
3)Authorizes DGS to issue a stop work order when
construction work on a public school is being performed
in a manner that would compromise the structural
integrity of the building, thereby endangering the public
safety.
4)Requires DGS to allow construction of incidental and
minor nonstructural additions or nonstructural
alterations without invoking its stop work authority.
DESCRIPTION
This bill directs DGS to convene a workgroup to develop and
adopt recommendations for improving the oversight of school
construction projects. Specifically, the workgroup shall
do the following:
1)Review the Field Act to consider what, if any, statutory
changes should be made to prohibit occupancy of a school
building when and if significant safety concerns are
identified, and what, if any, penalties the DSA should be
able to levy against school districts that do not provide
all required documents.
2)Review changes made internal to DSA to improve its
oversight of school construction projects since the State
Auditor released a report in December 2011.
3)Make any recommendations it determines are necessary to
further improve oversight, process, training, and
inspection activities under the control of DSA concerning
school facility construction and seismic, fire, and life
safety.
This bill requires DSA to report the recommendations of the
workgroup, including any actions taken by DSA to modify its
oversight of school construction projects, to the Senate
Select Committee on Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness,
SB 1271 (Corbett) continued
PageC
Response and Recovery by January 1, 2014.<2> (The statute
would sunset on January 1, 2016.)
Membership of the workgroup would include representatives
from the following:
1)The Division of the State Architect.
2)The Superintendent of Public Instruction.
3)The Seismic Safety Commission.
4)The State Fire Marshal.
5)School districts representing the diverse size and
geography of state school districts.
6)The California Community College Chancellor's office.
7)A community college district.
BACKGROUND
1)Author's purpose : The author states that DSA has not
effectively enforced the Field Act, raising the risk that
some school facilities being used by children may be
unsafe during an earthquake. The bill's legislative
findings and declarations note that the State Auditor has
identified significant gaps in the effective and
comprehensive level of oversight of school construction
and seismic safety projects. The findings point out that
DSA did not effectively document its determinations about
the risk level of uncertified projects, or use these
determinations to guide its approach to following up on
those projects.
In addition, DSA has been inconsistent and ineffective in
enforcing the Field Act and using its authority to order
school districts to stop work on projects after
identifying a potential threat to public safety. The
findings also state that DSA does not have a process for
planning oversight for projects of similar size and
complexity and cannot demonstrate that it has provided
adequate field oversight.
2)Bureau of State Audits Report 2011-116.1 : The State
Auditor reported in December 2011 that, although DSA is
required to certify school construction projects when
-------------------------
<2> The bill specifies that the Senate Select Committee on
Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery
shall provide an opportunity for public comment before
proposing statutory changes recommended by the workgroup.
SB 1271 (Corbett) continued
PageD
they comply with the Field Act, about 16,400 school
construction projects statewide remained uncertified, and
that 23% of projects closed in the last 3 fiscal years
remain uncertified.
The State Auditor reported that DSA inconsistently used
its authority to order districts to stop work on projects
after identifying a potential threat to public safety.
In addition, DSA did not effectively document its
determinations about the risk level of uncertified
projects or to use these determinations to guide its
approach to following up on those projects. DSA's level
of oversight of school construction processes is not
comprehensive: three of 24 projects reviewed had no
evidence of any site visits by DSA field engineers, and
eight had evidence of only one site visit.
Although school districts must submit inspectors for
approval prior to construction, in 22 of 24 projects
reviewed, DSA did not approve inspectors until after
construction began. DSA does not provide the same level
of construction oversight for fire and life safety and
accessibility as it does for structural safety, even
though it reviews plans for all three disciplines.
3)State Auditor recommendations : To ensure public safety
and provide public assurance that school districts
construct projects according to approved plans, the State
Auditor recommends several measures to improve oversight
and mitigate risks, including:
a) DSA should develop a strategy establishing specific
expectations for conducting site visits and monitoring
construction. DSA should then record and compare its
actual visits and monitoring efforts to its planned
actions, and should document explanations for any
deviations from its plans.
b) DSA should develop formal procedures and explicit
directions for field engineers to ensure that they
establish a presence on project sites and provide
adequate oversight of inspectors during construction.
c) DSA should finalize the results of its field pilot
program related to field oversight of
accessibility-related and fire and life safety-related
SB 1271 (Corbett) continued
PageE
issues by qualified individuals.
d) DSA should prohibit occupancy when it has
identified significant safety concerns.
e) DSA should expand use of orders to comply and stop
work orders.
f) DSA should follow up with school districts on
uncertified projects.
4)The approval process for school facilities : The state's
multi-billion dollar investment in local school buildings
involves a time-consuming multi-agency approval process
that often fails to review important elements of the
projects.
The approval cycle for state-funded school construction
involves a number of agencies and can take 18 months or
longer to complete. The school construction approval and
state funding process requires schools to submit
applications and design drawings for approval by a
minimum of four oversight agencies.<3> The review
process is sequential, with very little concurrent review
or collaboration between agencies.
It appears that the DSA architects and engineers spend a
considerable amount of time reviewing plans instead of
conducting field inspections of construction projects.
In 2004, the American Institute of Architects suggested
that DSA should become an entity responsible primarily
for the management, oversight, training and certification
of the school construction process, instead of an entity
------------------------
<3> These agencies include, in the order of approval, the
Department of Education, Department of Toxic Substances
Control, DGS-DSA, and the Office of Public School
Construction within DGS.
SB 1271 (Corbett) continued
PageF
whose primary focus is on checking construction plans.<4>
5)Certification process : The school districts and school
construction interests note that the certification
process in particular, during which school districts must
demonstrate that a school was constructed according to
DSA-approved plans, relies now on paper, often hundreds
of pieces of paper. A more reasonable approach rooted in
the authority of the architect of record, the inspector,
and the DSA field engineer to "sign off" on the project
as complete is warranted. Much progress would be made by
the use of architects, inspectors, and DSA field staff in
the close-out process; such would diminish reliance upon
documents.
6)Staff recommendation : In light of the above, the author
and the committee may wish to consider amending the bill
to have the workgroup also make policy recommendations to
ensure that DSA architects and engineers devote
additional time to oversight of project inspectors,
project fire and life safety-related issues, and the
project close-out process-and less time on reviewing
plans and blueprints. Perhaps the collaborative process
in existing law could be utilized to assist in plan
review.
7)Collaborative process : Existing law<5> establishes a
collaborative process that among other things directs DGS
to contract with sufficient numbers of qualified plan
review firms for assistance in performing the school site
building plan review required under the Field Act.
8)Penalties : Interested parties have expressed concerns
with the emphasis that the bill places on reviewing
occupancy provisions within the Field Act. They oppose
any penalty that would deny beneficial occupancy of a
school at construction completion prior to receipt of
certification: "the extensive, complicated, and
expensive nature of school project site and plan approval
borne at the local level, the continuous and robust
-------------------------
<4> California Chapter, American Institute of Architects,
"Ideas to restructure, reorganize and reform state
government to enable the design and construction industry
to be more responsive to the needs of the public"
(Sacramento, California, April 2004), p. 8.
<5> See, e.g., Education Code � 81135
SB 1271 (Corbett) continued
PageG
nature of the oversight and inspection during the
construction process at the local level, and the final
responsibility and ultimate liability of the school
district for the project in total dictates that the
authority for occupancy must continue to reside with the
school district, not a state agency."
PRIOR/RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 588 (Runner) Chapter 704, Statutes of 2008 . Provides
for alternative building standards for the California
Community Colleges that mirror those applicable to the
California State University, keeping plan check and
oversight responsibilities with DGS.
AB 162 (Leslie) Chapter 407, Statutes of 2006 . Established
a Collaborative Process for Project Development and Review
applicable to K-12 and community college school to get
school projects approved in an expedited manner.
AB 127 (Nunez and Perata) Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006 .
Provided $7.3 billion for K-12 and $3.1 billion for higher
education facilities construction and modernization
projects and specified that California Community College
facilities must be built according to either the Field Act
or the California Building Standards Code.
SB 50 (Greene) Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998 . Reformed the
state program that distributes state bond funds to K-12
school districts, revised developer fees and mitigation
procedures for school facility purposes, and authorized a
$9.2 billion K-12 school and higher education bond act to
be presented to the electorate in November 1998.
SUPPORT:
Coalition on Adequate School Housing (if amended)
OPPOSE:
None on file
FISCAL COMMITTEE: Senate Appropriations Committee
SB 1271 (Corbett) continued
PageH
**********