3001 OAKES AVE SNO CO JUSTICE CENTER 2018-01-01 MF Import

� nbbj < < Parapets and exterior decoratian sha!!be investiga�ed jor conjormance wilh the Bui(ding CaJe or evalualion methodologies and anchorage with the ability to resist seismrc forces sha!!be required, excep!in�he case where those parapets or decoralion are judged�o present no hazard lo life snje.y. A report shall be made oJlhe frndings oJlhe survry and evaluation noling al!deterioration oj the existing structure and making recommendations for the repair ojdeteriora�ion muf for mry reconstruction or s�rengthening which shonld 6e wdertaken. Plans and specifrcations for the work done pursumtt to tbe survey and evalua�ion prepared wder thrs sec�ion shall be prepared under the responsible charge oJan archilect or structural engineer. The Code allows the building official t�require preparation of a facility assessment concerning seismic loads. Snohomich County prcpered a seismic evaluation covering several buildings on the downtown campus about two ycars ago. The Carnegie building is included in the roport and a wpy of the mport has bcen delivered to the City of Everett through the rounty Architect. The recommendations in the report address the deficiencies discovered during the analysis including the unreinforced brick masonry walls on the exterior,the need for new shear walls on the interior end significant modification to the framing system. At the time of the report the estimated cost for the recommended improvements was about SI.S million. The nature of the building proposed modifications are significantly less involved than the seismic upgrade described in the report. We aze looking to install a new sprinkler system for the building, increase the number of toilet fixtures and several life safety matters like smoke detectors,exit signs and exit doors. We are not disturbing the exterior wall,removing any of the original walls,ceilings or floors. It is the County's proposal that none of the building strengthening issues be addressed es part of this temporary occupancy change. In addition to the strengthening analysis,the engineer identified several nonstructural scismic ha�rds. We have reviewed these non-structural recommendations,the removal of plaster ceilings and anchoring of the clay roofing tiles,end feel that the existing plaster ceilings do represent i hazard to the building occupants. We propose to address this specific he�ard on the upper floor where the inmates are housed. Clearly,the ceilings in the sleeping dortnitories need to be addressed. Our proposed response to this ha7ard will focus on those areas where the building cecupants spend a majority of their time;this wc,uld suggest that the sleeping dortnitories,the day rooms and the path ofegress,all be addressed. Anchoring of roofing tiles is another noo-structural seismic hazard mentioned in the reporc. At this time,the County dces not propose to make any changes to the roofing system. 'Ihe tile roof represents an exterior hazard,where tiles not anchored properly may dislodge and slide ofl the roof. This hazard dces not represent any more risk to the inmates evacuating the building than the current office staff. We anticipate that the City will require r,ome documentation that addresses the nature ofthe original report,and the proposed intermediate measures taken,until the complPre s:ismic strengthening of the Camegie buildi�,,: i:•undertaken. H�fo