Follow us

Maillists  Subscribe  Follow Us on Facebook  Follow Us on Twitter  Check Us out on Flickr

MAP: Seismically hazardous buildings in the UC system

The UC system began identifying its seismically unsafe buildings in the late 1970s. Although it has fixed many of the buildings, the system still has 102 buildings rated as "poor" and 10 rated as "very poor."

Click on a marker in the map or building name in the adjacent sidebar to view more information about that building. Click the "Zoom To" link in the marker to see an aerial view of the building and the campus.

 

 

Key to UC rating system

G

Good. During a major earthquake this structure is anticipated to result in some structural and/or nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would not significantly jeopardize life. These buildings are not considered priorities for seismic funding. According to UC policy, they represent an acceptable level of earthquake safety.

F

Fair. During a major earthquake this structure is anticipated to result in structural and nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would represent low life hazards. These buildings are considered a low priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified "Good."

P

Poor. During a major earthquake this structure would experience significant structural and nonstructural damage and possibly falling hazards that would represent appreciable life hazards. These buildings are supposed to get high priority for funding for retrofits. Alternately, officials should consider reducing their occupancy.

VP

Very Poor. During a major earthquake, this structure would experience extensive structural and nonstructural damage, potential structural collapse, and possibly falling hazards that would represent high life hazards. These buildings are supposed to get the highest priority for funding for retrofits. Alternately, officials should consider reducing their occupancy.

Source: UC Policy on Seismic Safety

 

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development rating system for hospitals

Hospitals - structural ratings (For general acute care hospitals regulated by Senate Bill 1953)

SPC1

Building poses a significant risk of collapse and danger to the public.  These buildings were supposed to be brought up to SPC 2 level by January 1, 2008 or be removed from acute care service, but most hospitals in California received an extension until Jan. 1, 2013.

SPC2

These are buildings in compliance with the pre-1973 California Building Standards Code or other applicable standards, but are not in compliance with the structural provisions of the Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act. These buildings do not significantly jeopardize life, but may not be repairable or functional following strong ground motion. These buildings must be brought into compliance with the Alquist Act by January 1, 2030 or be removed from acute care service.

SPC3

These buildings are in compliance with the structural provisions of the Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act. In a strong earthquake, they may experience structural damage that does not significantly jeopardize life, but may not be repairable or functional following strong ground motion.  Buildings in this category will have been constructed or reconstructed under a building permit obtained through The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). They can be used to 2030 and beyond.

SPC4

These are buildings in compliance with the structural provisions of the Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act that may experience structural damage which could inhibit the building’s availability following a strong earthquake.  Buildings in this category will have been constructed or reconstructed under a building permit obtained through OSHPD. They may be used to 2030 and beyond.

SPC5

These buildings are in compliance with the structural provisions of the Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act, and are reasonably capable of providing services to the public following strong ground motion. Buildings in this category will have been constructed or reconstructed under a building permit obtained through OSHPD. They may be used without restriction to 2030 and beyond.

 

Hospitals - non-structural ratings (For general acute care hospitals regulated by Senate Bill 1953)

NPC1

In these buildings, the basic systems essential to life safety and patient care are inadequately anchored to resist earthquake forces. Hospitals must brace the communications, emergency power, bulk medical gas and fire alarm systems in these buildings by January 1, 2002.

NPC2

In these buildings, essential systems vital to the safe evacuation of the building are adequately braced. The building is expected to suffer significant nonstructural damage in a strong earthquake. Most hospitals must be at NPC3 or greater by 2013. Hospitals must be at NPC5 by 2030.

NPC3

In these buildings, nonstructural systems are adequately braced in critical areas of the hospital.  If the building structure is not badly damaged, the hospital should be able to provide basic emergency medical care following the earthquake. Most hospitals must be at NPC3 or greater by 2013. Hospitals must be at NPC5 by 2030.

NPC4

In these buildings, the contents are braced in accordance with current code.  If the building structure is not badly damaged, the hospital building should be able to function, although interruption of the municipal water supply or sewer system may impede operations. NPC-4 requirements apply to any new hospital building as well as any addition or remodeling or renovation work.

NPC5

These buildings meet all the above criteria and have water and wastewater holding tanks—sufficient for 72 hours of emergency operations—integrated into the plumbing systems. They also contain an on-site emergency system and are able to provide radiological service and an onsite fuel supply for 72 hours of acute care operation. Hospitals must be at NPC5 by 2030.

 

Source: California Watch created a database of previously uncompiled records, including data from UC and CSU systems, individual campuses, public records and interviews with campus officials.

See more on:

Comments

AndyW11's picture
0
Your rating: None
For decades, California lawmakers have worried about how hospitals will hold up in an earthquake. In 1973, legislators passed the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Seismic Safety Act directing California hospitals to make sure they can withstand strong shakes expected soon. The U.S. Geological Survey puts the odds at 80% to 90% that a significant earthquake of 7.0 or higher on the Richter scale will hit Southern California in the next 20 years. There's a 62% chance for such a quake in Northern California before 2030, according to the USGS. The rules for dental insurance and deadlines covering seismic safety of California hospital buildings have changed over the years. In 1994, the Legislature amended the 1973 legislation to require hospitals to replace or retrofit the most at-risk buildings by 2013. Designated as Structural Performance Category 1, these buildings are considered hazardous and at risk of collapse or significant loss of life in the event of an earthquake.
cristianx82's picture
0
Your rating: None
i agree but i don't know if these buildings will hold up against what will happen in the future, thinking that this year alone there have been some serious quakes around the globe
adamwestrop's picture
0
Your rating: None
Time and time again, you see the issue of earthquakes in relation to California and how at risk we are raised over and over.. However still it seems the government and corporations for that matter are prepared to accept a high level of risk? Why. This is human lifes we are dealing with... Obviously some high level legislation needs to be passed or something. Portable dvd player Ipad covers Transportable homes
amberbowers49's picture
0
Your rating: None
thanks for showing us these locations. reverse phone lookup reverse phone lookup
nicoduca's picture
0
Your rating: None
Earthquake design in California is dictated by state and local government interpretation of the uniform Building Code, which provides specifications for minimum protection to structures. Structures built to code specifications should not be damaged in a minor earthquake up to 4.5 on the Richter scale (M4.5), structurally damaged by a moderate event up to M6.5 Richter, nor collapse in a major earthquake above M6.5 Richter. New seismic technology designed to protect buildings, building contents and building function in earthquakes in the M8-plus Richter range is available to design professionals and the construction industry. However, familiarizing engineers, architects and construction regulators with new seismic technologies will take time. Government may also set an example. The state must facilitate the use of new earthquake hazard mitigating technologies by using them in state buildings and creating a positive environment for these new strategies in the private sector. one incentive would be liability protection for professionals who incorporate new designs into projects. In a highly litigious society, architects and engineers are now caught between two legal mandates in building design. On the one hand, any deviation from codified practices using earthquake mitigation technologies could result in a lawsuit. On the other hand, a design professional can be sued for not using new technology superior to code requirements. Most design professionals prefer to adhere to the code. Building owners must be convinced that insurance will not indemnify all losses due to earthquakes, and that the best insurance is prevention of damage through design. After any natural disaster, there is usually a flurry of activity to examine public policy. The earthquake hazard mitigating policies in California have deviated from this general phenomenon in that the California Engineering Foundation efforts affected policy changes independent of a specific earthquake. In fact, as mentioned before, SB 920 was signed into law three weeks before the Loma Prieta quake. Other changes in policy include the incorporation of base isolation in the Uniform Building Code, and in California, this mitigating strategy has been included in the Structural Engineers Association “Blue Book.” The California Office of State-wide Planning and Development has included base isolation in its hospital regulations. However, the Loma Prieta quake did stimulate many of the retrofit projects in the San Francisco area. But the window of opportunity for change closes very quickly—even after cataclysmic events. The responsibility lies with the technical community to develop and implement strategic plans necessary to move public policy in accordance with the development of new technologies, and educate the public about the urgency of earthquake hazard mitigation. Submited by : Caballos
v8 drive's picture
0
Your rating: None
Waouh, it's scaring how much building are not built according to safety measure and agreements. You just made a point here. So nice to have a map about this. Fred - Shores and sun
metin2 hack's picture
0
Your rating: None
Thanks its useful! metin2 hack
nblack's picture
0
Your rating: None
i agree but i don't know if these buildings will hold up against what will happen in the future, thinking that this year alone there have been some serious quakes around the globe Have a look at casino en ligne and liveshow !
andye72's picture
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
I think it is useful for everyone to know where these unsafe buildings are, so that we can avoid them, and petition the authorities to make them safer.managed forex accounts|managed forex funds
carson32's picture
0
Your rating: None
Thanks for revealing this to us news. We need more safety measures apparently. premature ejaculation treatment
isabellabella's picture
0
Your rating: None
faese asere
oquyhnnp free xxx ifhbikwl best penis enlargement iorgdyms male enhancement fedwgypv free porn pics
patrickculverton's picture
0
Your rating: None
Well, these part or locations surrounding these areas are prone to somewhat earthquake region. Patrick College Degree Online
IraqiDinar's picture
0
Your rating: None
Hi buddy, I want to show gratitude for writing such a good feature article, really will support me out in frequent ways, I am thinking to subscribe my email to you blog, so that I can have latest updates every time you make them happen. Iraqi Dinar
cocoom's picture
0
Your rating: None
The both of us genuinely enjoyed your article. It appears like you've put a lot of effort into your article and the world need lots more of these on the Net these years. I don't real have a wonderful deal to say in retort, I just wanted to comment to tell well done. marvelous post. i never think of that.
Regards,Jason Smith Researcher of celebrity phone numbers
vero216's picture
0
Your rating: None
I think it is useful for everyone to know where these unsafe buildings are, so that we can avoid them, and petition the authorities to make them safer. Free software downloads
raycruz182's picture
0
Your rating: None
Very 1st, I’d choose to tell thanks to you for this enlightening article. Next, I had prefer to interrogate wheresoever I can discover greater info pertaining your article. I got here via Bing & can't check any associated web websites on this subject. How do I sign for your web blog? I'd prefer to stick to your updates as they arrive along! I had a query to interrogate but I forgot what it absolutely was... anyways, thanx. Sincerely, Ray Cruz Author of how to cook beef tenderloin
onlinedegrees's picture
0
Your rating: None
Great article, keep up the good work. For education we have a blog online education programs
funboos's picture
0
Your rating: None
You just made a point here. So nice to have a map about this, by romantics

Log in to post a comment