Are Mill Valley Public School Buildings Earthquake-Safe?

By Nejat Duzgunes

The Division of the State Architect (DSA) has designated 8 Mill Valley School District (MVSD) buildings as "Category 2," among the most structurally vulnerable 14% of the total square footage of the public school buildings in California. Our children should not have to choose between a quality education and the right to safety. We need to advocate for our children and insist that the MVSD have our school buildings inspected immediately for seismic safety.

Although no California schools have collapsed as a result of a seismic event since the passage of the Field Act in 1933, more than 100 schools had to be designated as unsafe or yellow-tagged for limited entry after the 1994 Northridge earthquake (reported by Jennifer McKim, Orange County Register, Oct 9, 2005). Assembly Bill 300, passed in 1999, required the California Department of General Services to conduct an inventory of public school buildings that are of "concrete tilt-up construction and those with non-wood frame walls that do not meet the minimum requirements of the 1976 Uniform Building Code (Seismic Safety Inventory of California Public Schools, Nov. 15, 2002). Category 2 buildings are not expected to perform as well as Category 1 buildings (the slightly better next 6% of square footage) in future earthquakes, and "require detailed seismic evaluation to determine if they can be expected to achieve life-safety performance." Diane Waters, senior architect of the California Department of Education, has informed the author that the seismic safety of school buildings is the responsibility of School Boards. Lawyers of the State Assembly reportedly determined that school officials could be liable if they do nothing, but are immune if they address the problem.

Rather than having the buildings seismically evaluated as recommended by the DSA, the MVSD Superintendent has chosen to deal with the problem by quoting DSA structural engineer Dennis Bellet that Category 2 "only represents an increased vulnerability. It does not mean that a building is unsafe." In contrast, Mr. Bellet was quoted in the Orange County Register article as saying "You need to have the evaluation to know what situation you've got...This should be evaluated because it could be possibly dangerous." In essence, the District is telling us, even though we do not know how safe our buildings really are, the children are safe.

The MVSD has spent at least $176,000 for a facilities improvement plan prepared by Vanir Construction, but has not bothered to look at whether the buildings are seismically safe to begin with. Since there is no code requirement from the DSA that the District take further action, the District has chosen not to take any action. Despite repeated public appeals by the author since November 2007, the District has refused to obtain seismic evaluations by a certified structural engineering firm. It is ironic that the District has required Edna Maguire School parents to obtain the approval of the DSA to build a wooden shed in the Children's Garden, but has not heard the clear message from the DSA that Category 2 buildings require detailed seismic evaluation.

The District cannot claim poverty to avoid evaluating our school buildings, which would cost about $133,000, using the DSA estimate. The Board has just allocated $500,000 to upgrade the telephone system. The polling firm EMC Research advised the MVSD in August 2007 to use a bond measure in February 2008 to pay for facilities improvement, including "retrofit structures to meet earthquake safety requirements," based on strong support by the community. The District chose to ignore this advice.

The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that the Bay Area has a 63% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake within the next 30 years. Common sense and a sense of ethics should dictate that our children, who are required by law to attend school, have a right to be in seismically safe buildings. The MVSD has not kept pace with many California public school districts that have rebuilt or rehabilitated their facilities since 1976. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the Berkeley Unified School District was pressured by local PTAs and the PTA Council to have their buildings evaluated. A flagship school in the district, built according to Field Act specifications, was found to be a collapse hazard, could not even be retrofitted and was abandoned. Six other schools were found to be unsafe (Earthquake Risk Management, California Seismic Safety Commission, 1999). As strong advocates for our children, and supporters of our schools, we cannot accept our buildings to be among the most vulnerable 14%.

The safety of our children should be a public health priority. Our public schools represent the core of our community and should also be an infrastructure priority, potentially serving as public shelters in case of a natural disaster. Our children should not have to choose between a quality education and the right to safety. Our community needs to advocate for our children and insist that the MVSD have our school buildings inspected immediately for seismic safety. We need to plan for the future of our schools from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.

Adapted from the Mill Valley Herald, May 29, 2008