Clusters Roble & Acacia Background on Seismic Evaluation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE

Clusters Roble & Acacia

• Background on Seismic Evaluation requirement
• Compliance with Field Act and Education Code
• Seismic Evaluation by Engineer
• Occupancy Safety
• District Responsibilities
• Options in Response to Analysis
• Next Steps

EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE

Clusters Roble & Acacia

Existing Conditions

November 2011 Board Presentation

• Evergreen fault is considered to be an "active" fault
• Roble and Acacia sit within a State‐prescribed “no‐build” zone

Master Plan November 2011

November 2011 Board Presentation

ACTIONS NECESSARY PER FIELD ACT & ED. CODE 1) Prepare cost estimates to address replacement or relocation

• f affected buildings

2) Notify the State and apply for funding 3) Board notification 4) Engineering study of building safety

EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE

Clusters Roble & Acacia

November 2011 Board Presentation

ACTIONS TAKEN 1) Prepare cost estimates to address replacement or relocation

• f affected buildings – June 2011 / Oct 2013

2) Notify the State and apply for funding – July 2012 / July 2013 3) Board notification – November 2011 / November 2013 4) Engineering study of building safety – October 2013

EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE

Clusters Roble & Acacia

Engineering Analysis of Roble & Acacia

• Thornton Tomasetti
• Based on original construction documents (1973)
• Data/basis of analysis
• In‐depth structural analysis programs
• FEMA “Hazus” software – Probabilistic risk to

structure and occupant safety

• Geologic data specific to the site
• Completed October 2013

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Seismic Evaluation

“Safe” and “unsafe”

• Education Code, Section 81162

“The report required by this section shall include a statement that each of the buildings examined is safe or unsafe for school use. For the purpose of this statement, the sole consideration shall be protection of life and the prevention of personal injury at a level of safety equivalent to that established by Article 7”

• Each circumstance is judged on its own conditions. The evaluation of Roble

and Acacia takes into account the structural design of the buildings, the ground and subsurface geology on which they are constructed, and the Hazus data generated by these conditions.

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Seismic Evaluation

Thornton Tomasetti Findings:

• “From the standpoint of engineering and risk of casualties,

we consider some parts of the Acacia and Roble Clusters unsafe.”

• Generally, it is recommended that “use …. should cease as

soon as possible and (they) should be demolished.”

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Seismic Evaluation

Thornton Tomasetti Findings:

• Roble and Acacia “were designed for the current code at the

time of their design.”

• “From a legal standpoint it is compliance with the code that

implies safety.… As long as the use has not changed and the buildings are not altered….in a strict legal sense the buildings comply with the code.”

• “We only consider those portions of Roble and Acacia to be

unsafe in the event of the probabilistic seismic event. We consider all of Roble and Acacia to be safe for typical conditions such as gravity loads and wind storms.”

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Seismic Evaluation

The buildings do not need to be removed from service by law or code

• “The provisions of the Education Code … and the Field Act itself, do not

require the District to stop using existing school buildings which have, by virtue of new information, been determined to be unsafe in the event of earthquake.” John Shupe, Esq

• “There is no code or law in effect that mandates that buildings designed

and constructed according to a previous version of the code need to be brought into conformance with the current code, provided that there is no change in use or alteration that includes a significant increase in load or decrease in structural capacity. So despite the fact that the Acacia and Roble Clusters do not meet current code, continued use of these buildings is allowed by code…..” ‐ Thornton Tomasetti

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Occupancy Safety

Governed by Field Act and Education Code

Section 81162 “Whenever an examination of the structural condition of any school building

• f a community college district has been made …… by any licensed structural

engineer …… for the governing board of the district, ….. and a report of the examination….. has been made to the governing board of the district, and the report shows that the building is unsafe for use, the governing board of the district immediately shall have prepared an estimate of the cost necessary to make repairs to the building or buildings that are necessary, or, if necessary, to reconstruct or replace the building so that the building ….. shall meet those standards of structural safety that are established in accordance with law…..” (emphasis added)

EVC – Roble & Acacia

District Responsibilities

Governed by Field Act and Education Code

Section 81162 “The governing board, utilizing the information acquired from the examination and report developed pursuant to this section, shall establish a system of priorities for the repair, reconstruction, or replacement of unsafe school buildings.” (emphasis added)

EVC – Roble & Acacia

District Responsibilities

2025 Facilities Master Plan

• Anticipated replacing Roble and Acacia
• January 2011
• Updated in November 2011
• Acacia ‐ to South Campus and Automotive Technology
• Roble ‐ to GED4 and Engineering & Applied Technology

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Options in Response

Master Plan January 2011 Updated Master Plan November 2011

Space Affected

• Acacia
• 39 classrooms
• 8 laboratories
• Administration and Faculty offices
• Special Programs
• Roble
• 14 classrooms
• 5 computer labs
• Special Programs

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Options in Response

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Options

Bring in Portable Buildings to replace space in Roble & Acacia

• 1. Cost (based on 2‐year lease) ‐ $3.2M
• 2. Time – Occupancy January 2015 (classrooms/offices) and July 2015 (labs)
• 3. Advantages – Removes activities from both buildings
• 4. Disadvantages
• Must relocate all programs from Roble and Acacia
• Space required for 58 portable buildings
• Completion of Autotech and South Campus within 12 months of
• ccupying portables. (Note: South Campus will not have sufficient

classroom space to replace all Acacia programs.)

• Laboratory programs (esp. Chemistry) are difficult and expensive to set

up in portable buildings

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Options

Strengthen both Roble & Acacia

• 1. Cost ‐ $2.8M
• 2. Time – Retrofit Complete March 2015
• 3. Advantages
• Both buildings would be considered “improved” for use until 2020
• No portables needed until Roble is demolished
• 4. Disadvantages
• Disruption in both buildings during retrofit.
• Completion of South Campus and Autotech are within 9 months of

retrofit completion.

• Roble will need to be demolished as soon as money is available (as early

as January 2017) to construct replacement building (Engineering and Applied Technology). At that time, programs and offices will need to move to portables.

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Options

Strengthen Acacia, use portables for Roble

• 1. Cost ‐ $2.8M
• 2. Time –
• a. Acacia: Retrofit Complete March 2015
• b. Portables: Occupancy January 2015
• 3. Advantages
• Acacia would be considered “improved” until 2020, could be used as

“swing space” and additional classrooms after Science, Mathematics and Autotech relocate to new buildings in January 2016.

• Allows action to demolish/replace Roble after January 2015.
• 4. Disadvantages
• Disruption in Acacia during retrofit.
• Completion of South Campus and Autotech within 9 months of retrofit

completion.

• Continue to develop data for and details of Options
• Continue pursuit of State funding through the

Chancellor’s Office

• Work with District and College to develop final plans
• f action
• Report back to Board

EVC – Roble & Acacia

Next Steps