Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports·Decided June 3, 1986·No. 85-803·Published

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP

Attorney General

_________________________

:

OPINION : No. 85-803

:

of : JUNE 3, 1986 :

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP :

Attorney General :

:

RODNEY O. LILYQUIST :

Deputy Attorney General :

:

________________________________________________________________________

THE HONORABLE JAMES F. McMULLEN, STATE FIRE MARSHAL, has requested an opinion on the following question:

Does the State Building Safety Board have the duty to hear appeals with respect to those aspects of the construction of hospitals dealing with fire safety and its related details?

CONCLUSION

The State Building Safety Board does not have the duty to hear appeals with respect to those aspects of the construction of hospitals dealing with fire safety and its related details.

85-803

ANALYSIS

The San Fernando Valley earthquake of February 9, 1971, "although moderate in terms of total energy release, resulted in such total collapse or damage as made many hospital buildings inoperable." (Stats. 1972, ch. 1130 § 1.) To lessen the likelihood of a reoccurrence, the Legislature enacted a statutory scheme requiring hospitals to be constructed to special earthquake standards similar to those for public schools covered by the Field Act. (Ibid.) This legislation is now known as the Hospital Seismic Safety Act of 1983. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 15000-15095; "Act".)1

The Act requires in part that the State Fire Marshal ("Marshal") analyze "the fire safety and related details, as set forth in the working drawings and specifications, and . . . observe . . . that part of the construction of hospitals." (§ 15001.) Under a separate statutory scheme the Marshal is required to adopt regulations "establishing minimum requirements for the prevention of fire and for the protection of life and property against fire and panic in any . . . hospital." (§ 13143, subd. (a).)

The question presented for analysis is whether the State Building Safety Board ("Board") has the duty to hear appeals with respect to those aspects of the construction of hospitals dealing with the Marshal's standards for fire safety and its related details. We conclude that it does not.

The Board is part of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ("Statewide Office"). (§ 15080.) It has been designated by the Legislature to hear certain appeals with respect to the construction of hospitals. Section 15080 states:

"There is in the statewide office a Building Safety Board which shall advise and, except as provided in section 18945, shall act as a board of appeals with regard to seismic safety of hospitals. The Director of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, with the advice of the Department of General Services, shall appoint the members of the Building Safety Board, which shall advise and, except as provided in section 18945, shall act as a board of appeals in all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of building standards relating to hospital buildings during construction or alteration projects published in the State Building Standards Code and the other provisions of this chapter." (Emphases added.)2

1 All references hereafter to the Health and Safety Code are by section number only. 2 Section 18945 deals with the authority of the State Building Standards Commission to hear appeals respecting building standards:

85-803

In determining whether section 15080 is applicable to the Marshal's fire safety standards, we are guided by several well-established principles of statutory construction. "It is fundamental that legislation should be construed so as to harmonize its various elements without doing violence to its language or spirit." (Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781, 788.) Interpretive constructions that render some words surplusage, defy common sense, or lead to mischief or absurdity are to be avoided. (Fields v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 322, 328.) The legislative history of a statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment are legitimate aids in construing its provisions. (Steilberg v. Lackner (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 780, 785; Alford v. Pierno (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 688.) Moreover, we must accord "great weight and respect to the administrative construction" of a statute. (International Business Machines v. State Bd. of Equalization (1980) 26 Cal.3d 923, 931.)

Is "fire safety and its related details" included within the term "seismic safety" for purposes of section 15080? While "seismic" refers only to earthquakes (see Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1971) p. 2057), it may be argued that a fire would be a natural consequence of an earthquake collapsing a hospital building. Water damage would be another "resulting" consequence.

The language of present section 15080 was contained in former section 15021 which initially gave the State Building Safety Board appeal hearing responsibilities "with regard to seismic structural safety of hospitals" and "in all matters affecting seismic structural safety in the administration and enforcement of this chapter." (Stats. 1972, ch. 1130, § 3.) In 1978 the Legislature deleted the word "structural" from the statutory language. (Stats. 1978, ch. 835, § 3.) In 1979 the two phrases "except as provided in section 18945" were added to the statute as was the reference to "building standards." (Stats. 1979, ch. 1152, § 44.) In 1982 former section 15021 was repealed

"(a) Any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency respecting the administration of any building standard may appeal the issue for resolution to the commission. "(b) If any local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of such agency respecting such building standard both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission, then both parties may appeal only if the commission determines that the issues involved in such appeal have statewide significance."

85-803

and its language incorporated into section 15080 with minor modifications. (Stats. 1982, ch. 303, § 2.)3

Looking at the declaration of legislative intent contained in section 15001, we find that the purpose of the Act is to require hospitals to "be designed and constructed to resist, insofar as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity, and winds." More importantly, section 15001 distinguishes between the structural safety and the fire safety elements of hospital construction:

"It is further the intent of the Legislature that the Department of General Services, through a contract with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, shall analyze only the structural systems and related details as set forth in the working drawings and specifications, and shall observe only that part of the construction of hospital projects and report the findings of such analysis to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that the Office of the State Fire Marshal, through a contract with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, shall analyze only the fire safety and related details, as set forth in the working drawings and specifications, and shall observe only that part of the construction of hospital projects, and report the findings of such analysis to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development."

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, (Cal. 1986).

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion (Untitled California Attorney General Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc.
632 P.2d 217 (California Supreme Court, 1981)
Fields v. Eu
556 P.2d 729 (California Supreme Court, 1976)
Alford v. Pierno
27 Cal. App. 3d 682 (California Court of Appeal, 1972)
Steilberg v. Lackner
69 Cal. App. 3d 780 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)
International Business Machines v. State Board of Equalization
609 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1980)