Collapsed Hall Had No Peer Review

An 8-year-old problem-ridden music complex at Cal State Long Beach was built during a period when California State University did not require an independent review of building plans for possible design flaws.

The $6.3-million complex was one of scores of projects erected on Cal State campuses statewide during the 1970s and early 1980s that were authorized by the university system without being scrutinized by independent structural engineers.

Instead, as a matter of policy, Cal State relied on architects and engineers of projects to detect and correct their own mistakes--a practice that is commonly frowned upon by the building industry.

No one knows yet whether such a review would have prevented the July 2 collapse of the Gerald R. Daniel Recital Hall and apparent structural problems in 13 other buildings within the complex. As students prepare to return to classes on Tuesday, investigators are still analyzing debris and searching for a cause for the 120-ton roof cave-in.

“We are doing the best we can to make sure that nothing else like this happens,” said Pete Anderson, an investigator for an engineering firm hired by Cal State to find the cause.

While state law does not mandate independent reviews of university building plans, University of California officials say they have routinely required them on their campuses as a safety precaution. Cities and counties also have commonly relied on so-called plan checks to ensure that new structures--from private homes to high-rise offices--meet local and state building codes.

“You need peer review,” said Larry Guthrie, chief of architecture and engineering for the Office of the State Architect, which under state law must review building plans for community colleges and elementary and secondary schools but not universities. “We are all human, and everybody makes mistakes.”

In a major policy shift, Cal State started checking building plans five years ago at the urging of a new assistant vice chancellor who had previously worked for San Diego County, where such reviews are mandatory. Although there are no indications of widespread structural problems on Cal State campuses statewide, the policy was changed as a safeguard.

In a written statement, Cal State Vice Chancellor Dale Hanner said the policy change has “significantly reduced the chance of mistake and thereby costly corrections to be made” to new buildings throughout the Cal State system.

Hanner said, however, that it would be premature to comment on whether an independent review of plans a decade ago would have prevented the recital hall collapse. The contributing factors leading to the collapse will be answered as part of the investigation, he said.

But the architect of the sprawling three-acre music complex and engineers involved in the investigation said an independent review might have made a difference.

“If those buildings had been built today, it could be a completely different story,” said investigator Lynn Bockemohle of Englekirk & Hart Consulting Engineers, the firm hired by Cal State.

Architect Donald Gibbs said his firm depended on structural engineer Don Erb to check his own structural calculations for the complex. Erb, citing the advice of his attorney, would not comment.

“Nobody is perfect,” Gibbs said. “Every time something is looked at, there are chances that imperfections will be picked up.”

Investigators with Englekirk & Hart said a preliminary review of the 20-building complex identified a number of building code violations in many structures--some of which, the investigators said, would have been easily detected during a preconstruction plan review.

Anderson, a civil engineer for the firm, said they will likely recommend that at least half of the music complex buildings be reinforced or altered to make up for deficiencies in the original design and construction. In some cases, he said, plans called for studs--the structural supports in walls--that were too narrow to meet seismic requirements.

“Obviously there was something that was wrong here that got by whoever was looking at it before,” Anderson said.

Richard Esgate, president of San Diego-based Esgil Corp., the firm now contracted by Cal State to review all building plans, said Cal State officials turned to his company five years ago because “an awful lot of plans were coming in with significant change orders,” meaning corrections were being made by builders during construction.

“We catch many serious errors on plans, and I am not just talking about CSU,” said Esgate, whose firm also checks plans for 60 cities and counties. “Quite often we get plans in here that are just not adequate for construction. Yet (designers) are forced to complete them and meet their schedules. It is really important that there is an independent review.”

Hanner, the vice chancellor, said Cal State began requiring plan checks in 1985 because the “volume and complexities” of the system’s building program were increasing and officials wanted a higher level of control. In 1984, for example, there were $13 million worth of projects under construction and $25 million in design stages systemwide. This year, by contrast, $350 million worth of projects are being built and $650 million are being designed.

Immediately after the July 2 collapse, Cal State instructed campus officials statewide to inspect buildings with the same design, architect or general contractor as the recital hall. Any further review of campus buildings, Cal State officials said, would occur only if it were recommended in the final Englekirk & Hart report, which is expected later this month.

While Cal State officials defend that approach, an official with the Office of the State Architect said the university system should be treating the incident as seriously as a major earthquake.

“They should be re-evaluating their whole building program,” said Patrick Campbell, chief of structural safety for the state architect. “Each earthquake or failure should trigger that kind of reaction. . . . They should go back and look at what buildings they have and go over the plans and see if possibly there are some other problems.”

But Cal State officials cautioned against overreaction, saying it was not necessary to re-examine every structure. Sheila Chaffin, the former Cal State assistant vice chancellor who pushed for plan checks, said the shift in policy in 1985 should not be interpreted as an indictment of buildings constructed before that.

“It doesn’t mean what was built before has poor design or sloppy work,” Chaffin said. “The key is there haven’t been mass collapses or terrible problems. . . . I wouldn’t draw the conclusion that there should be alarm.”

An informal survey of Cal State campuses statewide confirmed that, aside from those associated with major earthquakes, no major structural problems have been reported with buildings erected during the 1970s and early 1980s.

Many campus officials, nonetheless, said they have greater confidence in the safety and dependability of buildings that underwent plan review than those buildings that did not.

Several campus officials speculated that plan checks might have helped avoid minor problems with some buildings, ranging from an inadequate air-conditioning system at Cal State Northridge to ventilation problems at San Diego State.

Office of the State Architect officials said they routinely reviewed Cal State building plans through the 1960s, before reorganizations of both the university system and the state architect’s office shifted responsibility to the chancellor’s office.

Today, Cal State is required to submit building plans to the state architect only to ensure compliance with state codes on access for the handicapped. The plans must also be reviewed by the state fire marshal for fire code compliance, but no other state review is required.

That may change, however, because of concerns about the structural safety of state-owned buildings that have been raised as a result of last fall’s Loma Prieta earthquake in the Bay Area.

A board of inquiry recommended to Gov. George Deukmejian in May that an independent state agency act as the “local building department” for all new state buildings in order to ensure higher levels of seismic safety.

Concern about earthquake safety has been high in the minds of those investigating the Cal State Long Beach music complex. University officials closed five music complex buildings last month because of fears that they may not be able to withstand an earthquake, and identified six others that investigators said need remedial action if they are to remain open “for any long-term continued use.” Since then, two of the five buildings have been reopened while they await repairs.

Even so, all 20 music complex buildings passed earthquake safety checks after the Whittier and Loma Prieta temblors, and also received favorable reviews in routine visual maintenance inspections.

The complex got near-perfect marks in maintenance inspections over the last several years, although in January the buildings for the first time received a grade less than satisfactory. University officials have not been able to find the complete January inspection report, but a summary page reveals that the roof received a rating of four out of a possible seven points.

Scott Charmack, Cal State Long Beach director of facilities management and physical planning, said the low rating was due to problems with leaky roofs. He said the university had budgeted $53,000 this year for repairs.

Investigators with Englekirk & Hart said they are looking into the possibility that rain had so severely damaged the wood and metal trusses in the recital hall--the primary structural component of the roof--that they weakened and eventually gave out. Segments of the trusses have been sent to testing laboratories for analysis, including a test to determine if they were manufactured with a structural flaw.

They are also exploring the possibility that the roof collapsed because too much concrete was used in its construction. Plans call for a three-inch layer of concrete atop a plywood sheet, but investigators said preliminary checks show that in some areas the concrete was thicker than specified.

Segments of the roof have been sent to testing labs to determine how widespread the problem was and whether the additional weight could have caused the collapse.

Meanwhile, Cal State officials have been unable to locate the inspector for the project who was responsible for overseeing on-site construction. They said an index card kept by the chancellor’s office on the music complex identified the inspector as Clyde Jones, but no other information was available.

Construction of the music complex marked the first time a private on-site inspector was used by the Cal State system under an arrangement beginning in 1980 that permitted the hiring of inspectors outside the Office of the State Architect, said Campbell, the office’s structural safety chief.

Executives from Shirley Bros. Inc., the Pasadena general contractor that built the music complex, refused requests to be interviewed. The company also refused to make construction records available.

Construction records were also unavailable from Cal State. A spokeswoman for Cal State Long Beach said university officials “turned this place upside down” looking for copies of the records, but could not find them. Officials from the Cal State system, which is officially responsible for maintaining such records, said they are destroyed after five years.

“This institution is 40 years old, and this is the first building failure we had,” said Charmack. “I am not sure it is reasonable to keep records all the way back.”

Others disagreed.

“The various warranties are hardly over with after five years,” said Guthrie of the Office of the State Architect, which keeps construction records indefinitely. “We have lawsuits that have gone on for 15 or 20 years.”