Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Alquist Priolo Occupancy

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Thanks to all who responded. 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: Alquist Priolo Occupancy

Paul-
Under the Alquist-Priolo Act and the policies of the State Geology Board, the cities and counties have primary responsibility for implementing the zoning regulations and they can be more stringent than state law.  You should contact the local building department or planning agency where the project is located to determine their requirements.  
 
Steve Grodin makes some good points on the moral arguments against creating such a ramp in his email responding to your query. The policies developed under the law suggest that cities or counties can be liable for death and injury from earthquakes if they don't carry out there responsibilities under the law. I'm sure a smart lawyer could extend that reasoning to the Engineer without much effort.
 
The Cities of Oakland and Berkeley have had exemptions written into the law exempting properties damaged by the 1991 Firestorm even though they may be in the fault zone.
 
Note also that the zone is defined as within 50 feet of an active trace so you really have a 100 foot wide zone, centered on the fault restricted from buildings for human occupancy. If there are multiple traces, which are not uncommon on the Hayward Fault in the S.F. Bay Area, the zone can be even wider.
 
Regards,
Bill Cain, S.E.
Berkeley CA
 
 
In a message dated 6/22/2005 2:52:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net writes:
We have a current project where the entitlement package is indicating the ramp to underground parking (covered as part of exterior courtyard) is crossing a designated Alquist Priolo fault trace.
 
My interpretation would be this is not permitted.  The Architects interpretation is that it is permitted as this is not an occupied structure (2000 hours per year).  I question this as, apart from the obvious problems of the retaining walls and ramp plus covering slab suffering differential movement crossing the fault trace, the courtyard is elevated and it is hard to quantify the occupancy.  The ramp is a means of egress with constant daily vehicle use, but also hard to quantify occupancy.
 
Any input from my peers?  Am I reading too much into this?  I know pools and hardscape are permitted to cross the fault trace, but they do not typically form a collapse mechanism.