Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 30; GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT`; Planning CommissionSubmitted Pursuant to the Ptovisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 128 (1969) January 1974 MEETING THE EARTHQUAKE CHALtENGE Final Report to the Legislature State of California by the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety MEETING THE EARTHQUAKE CHALLENGE Part One: A Comprehensive Approach To Seismic Safety Final Report to the Legislature State of California by the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety Submitted Pursuant to the Provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 128 (1969) January 1974 A complete volume including Part One, Part Two and Part Three is available through the Committee Consultant at J oint Committee on Seismic Safety 777 N. First Street, Suite 600 San Jose, California 95112 (408) 287 -9903 ii MEMBERS' OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON SEISMIC SAFETY Senator Alfred E'. Alquist, Chairman Assemblyman Jim Keysor, Vice Chairman Senator Joseph M. Kennick , Senator Alfred H. Song Senator James E. Whetmore Assemblyman Leroy F. Greene Assemblyman Richard D. Hayden Assemblyman Paul Priolo CHAIRMAN OF THE ADVISORY GROUPS Karl V. Steinbrugge ADVISORY GROUPS Advisory Group on Engineering Considerations and Earthquake Sciences Gordon B. Oakeshott, Chairman Advisory Group on Disaster Preparedness Robert A. Olson, Chairman Advisory Group on Postearthquake Recovery and R~development Will H. Perry, Jr.! Chairman Advisory Group on Land Use Planning George G. Mader, Chairman Advisory Group on Governmental Organization and Performance Marcella Jacobson, Chairman ) ASSEMBLYMAN JIM KEYSOR VICIC CHAIRN"N SENATOR JOSEPH M. KENNICK SENATOR ALFRED H. SONG SENATOR JAMEs E. WHETMORE ASSE:M8LYMAN LEROY F. GReENE ASSEMBLYMAN RICHARD D. HAYDEN ASSEMBLYMAN PAUt.PRIOLO QIalifnruht Ifitgislaturt 3lntttt QIlllllUritlrr Honorable Legislators and Citizens of California State Capitol SENATOR ALFRED E. ALQUIST CHAIRMAN January 9, 1974 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Colleagues and Californians: ROOM !S031 STATE CAPITOL S"CRAMENTO 9~a14 (gun 44S·9740 The Joint Committee on Seismic Safety, established in 1969 by Senate Concurrent Resolution 128, is pleased to present its final report. This document is the result of four years of intensive study by Committee members and over 70 technical ad- visors. These volunteer advisors have donated tens of thousands of hours of their time and. deserve the heartfelt thanks of all Californians. Our recommendations are presented in two sections: first, a comprehensive approach to seismic safety including high-priority legislative proposals, and sec- ond, five detailed advisory group reports. These recommendations are supported by a third section of supplem~ntary materials. As a result of advances in technology, as well as the tragic experience of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, we now have the knowledge necessary to substantially reduce earthquake risks. Certain seismic safety measures have already been im- plemented by legislation sponsored by the Joint Committee, but much remains to be done. Meanwhile, the potential for earthquake catastrophe continues to increase as population concentrates in urban centers and hazardous buildings remain in use. The key question faced by the Committee during its study was to determine accept-able levels of earthquake risk for Californians. How much loss of life and property damage are we willing to risk in future tremors? What costs are we willing to bear to reduce those risks? In this report we present what we consider to be prudent precautions, those essen- tial, yet economically realistic steps that can and should be taken to prepare for future earthquakes. We encourage your thorough study of this report and welcome your comments. AEA:mc Very cordially, 6?!J; ( Alfred Joint l Contents LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .............................. iii PART ONE: A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO SEISMIC SAFETY .. . Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 An Overview: Putting It All Together. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 The Principal Earthquake Hazard: Works of Man .............. 5 Guidelines for Seismic Safety .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Performance: Past and Present .......................... 6 A Systematic and Responsible Approach .................... 7 The Proposed Program ............................... 8 A Basic Legislative Package .. , ..... '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 California Commission on Seismic Safety ................... 11 Land Use Planning Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Building Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Abatement of Hazardous Buildings ....................... 18 Critical and High-Exposure Facilities ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 Emergency Preparedness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 An Additional Agenda of Critical Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Further Employment of Land Use Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Additional Design Measures for Seismic Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Furthering Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ............. 28 Training and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 Earthquake Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Governmental Roles in Seismic Safety ....................... 30 The State Government ................................ 30 Local Government ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 Regional Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 The Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 PART TWO: ADVISORY GR.OUP REPORTS .................. 33 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 History and Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 Major Accomplishments .............................. 37 Report of the Advisory Group on Engineering Considerations and Earthquake Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45 Advisory Group Membership ............................. 46 Introduction: State Policy .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 Summary of Recommendations ........................... 48 State Earthquake Commission ............................ 49 Structural Standards and Codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49 Revision of Existing Requirements ....................... 49 Training of Building Officials ........................... 50 Safety of Dams ....................................... 51 Hazardous Structures .................................. 51 Development and Environmental Impact ..................... 52 Lifeline Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 Insurance and Land-Title Problems ......................... 52 vi Information and Education .......•...................... 53 Disaster Plans and Operations ............................ , 53 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 54 Report of the Advisory Group on Disaster Preparedness ....... 57 Advisory Group Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 Scope and Purpose ..... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 Definitions ....................................... 59 The Preparedness and Response Environment ................ 60 Assignment of Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 Implementing the Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 Disaster Planning .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 Authorities and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 Jurisdictional Roles in Disaster Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 Special Planning Considerations ......................... 69 Strengthening Operating Capabilities ........................ 77 Structures, Supplies, and Equipment ...................... 77 Training, Eduction, and Information ...................... 79 Financial and Administrative Measures .................... : 81 Evaluating Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 Minimizing Future Disaster Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90 Report of the Advisory Group on Postearthquake Recovery and Redevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 Advisory Group Membership ............................. 98 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99 Postearthquake Financial Assistance ........................ 101 Insurance ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Loans ........................................... 103 Grants .......................................... 105 Priorities .......................... , . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 106 Recommendations .................................... 107 Immediate Post earthquake Procedures ...................... 107 Long-Term Postearthquake Actions ....................... 110 Postearthquake Utilization and Compensation of Professionals ......................... . . . . . . . . . 112 Pre-earthquake Hazard Reduction ........................ 113 Supplementary Information ................... ' ........... 120 Report of the Advisory Group on Land Use Planning .......... 121 Advisory Group Membership ............... .............. 122 Introduction ........................ ' ................ 123 Land Use Planning .................................... 125 Background .......... " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 Recommendations .................................. 127 Zoning Regulations .................................... 134 Background ....................................... 134 Recommendations .................................. 134 Subdivision Regulations ................................. 135 Background ................ ' ....................... 135 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 135 viii PART THREE: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ............. 183 Appendix A: History of Official State Government Involvement in Earthquake Safety ........................ 185 Chronology ....................................... 185 Activities of Other State Agencies ........................ 188 Appendix B: History of Earthquake Code Provisions and Regulations in California ........................... 192 Early Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 192 Santa Barbara and Palo Alto ............................ 193 State Chamber of Commerce ........................... 193 The Field Act ..................................... 194 The Riley Act ........................... , ......... .195 City of Long Beach .................................. 195 Los Angeles County ................................. 196 .City of Los Angeles ................................. 196 Uniform Building Code ............................... 197 Board of Fire Underwriters of the Pacific ................... 197 City of San Francisco ' ................................ 197 Structural Engineers Association of California ................ 198 State Building Standards Commission ...................... 199 Applied Technology Council ........................... 199 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute .................. 199 Appendix C: Geologic and Seismologic Features of Earthquakes ...................................... 200 Ground Motion .................................... 201 Surface Faulting .................................... 201 Ground Failure ..................................... 201 Seismic Sea Waves and Seiches .......................... 203 Appendix D: The San Fernando Earthquake Study ............... 215 Origin and Purposes ................................. 215 Major Effects of the Earthquake ......................... 215 Appendix E: Potential Earthquake Losses in the San FranciSco Bay Area ............................... 217 Appendix F: Senate Concurrent Resolution 128 (1969) ........... 218 vii Building, Grading, and the Sale of Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 139 Background ....................................... 139 Recommendations .................................. 139 Geotechnical Assistance for Local Governments ................. 141 Background . . . . . . . ... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Recommendations ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 141 Additional Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 144 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 144 Recommendations ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Supplement on Fault Hazard Control ........................ 146 Recommendations ........... . . . . . . . . . ... '.' ......... 146 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . . .... 147 Report of the Advisory Group on Governmental Organization and Performance ................................... 151 Advisory Group Membership ............................. 152 Introduction ........................................ 153 Summary of Recommendations ........................... 154 Governmental Organization for Seismic Safety .................. 156 The Basic Role of Government at Each Level ................. 156 A Cooperative Program for Seismic Safety .................. 157 Land Use Planning Policies ............................... 160 The Problem in California ............................. 160 Approaches to the Problem ............................ 160 Structural S'afety ......................... ............ 164 Engineering Standards for New Construction ................. 164 Enforcement of Standards ............................. 165 Abatement of Hazardous Structures: A Two-Phase Program ....................................... 165 Information and Education .............................. 168 Promoting Public Support for Seismic Safety ................. 168 Information to Guide Individual Behavior .. '.' ............... 168 Information for People with Special FUIfctions' ............... 168 Information about Seismic Hazards ....................... 169 Mutual Aid, Emergency Planning, and Recovery and Reconstruction ... 170 Mutual Aid ....................................... 170 Emergency Plans and Operations ......................... 170 Recovery and Reconstruction ............... . ............ 171 Financing Policies ..................................... h2 Recommendations .................................. 172 Legal Aspects of Seismic Safety ........................... 174 Legislative Measures ................................. 174 Administrative Procedures ............................. 176 Emergency Powers .................................. 177 Basic Concepts: Acceptable Risk and Priorities for Seismic Safety ..................................... 178 Defining Acceptable Risks ............................. 178 Risk Levels That Should Not Be Exceeded .................. 179 Conclusion ......................................... 181 MEETING THE EARTHQUAKE CHALLENGE Part One: A Comprehensive Approach To Seismic Safety 3 PREFACE In preparing Part One we have relied on the thoughtful work of more than 75 people comprising the Joint Committee's five advisory groups. Their reports, compiled in Part Two, are based on nearly four years of study and discussion. Moreover, in the fmal stages each group reviewed and commented on draft versions of the reports of all the other groups. Accordingly the advisory group reports can be viewed as statements of substantial consensus on the principal policy needs for seismic safety and ·provide appropriate directions for future legislative .and administrative action .. In this first part of the Joint Committee report we have attempted, to the best of our ability, not only to summarize but also to reflect faithfully the concepts, principles, and recommendations of all the advisory groups. The recommendations appear in two sections of Part One. (1) The section entitled "A Basic Legislative Package" is presented for critical consideration and enactment during the 1974 session of the California Legislature. The keystone of the basic legislative program-on which effective accomplishment depends-is the proposed California Commission on Seismic Safety. Other essential poliCies are also included in the basic legislative package. (2) Another section of Part One, entitled "An Additional Agenda of Critical Recommendations," presents further measures to be considered and implemented by a wide range of appropriate agencies, and especially by the proposed California Commission on Seismic Safety. We wish to acknowledge the tremendous help we have received in our editorial and drafting efforts from the chairmen and members of the five advisory groups. Mark Peters, an accomplished editorial consultant, provided expert help in the preparation of these volumes. We pay particular thanks to Brynn Kernaghan, of Diridon Research Corporation, for administrative and coordinative work done always with good spirit and good will. Finally, we acknowledge the indispensable help of Karl V. Steinbrugge in his role as Chairman of the Executive Committee, and as thoughtful and friendly critic of our writing efforts. Our association with this entire enterprise has been a source of much satisfaction, and of only occasional frustration. We believe that . the end result more than justifies the time and energy that a large number of people have contributed to this effort on behalf of earthquake safety. Robert Olson Assistant Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission Hotel Claremont, Berkeley Stanley Scott Assistant Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley Virtually all earthquakes. of our major, llrban areas are susceptible to U.S. Geological Survey photo. 5 AN OVERVIEW: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER California is situated in a seismically active region of the globe, and is laced with earthquake faults that spread over much of the State, including some of its most important urban areas. Consequently, virtually all of California is subject to earthquake shaking, and future earthquakes capcrble of producing great damage and disaster are inevitable. Accordingly, the basic approach recommended by the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety is to (1) take all practicable measures that will reduce the present high hazard levels, and (2) avoid creating further hazards by discontinuing imprudent planning, building, and development practices. Such thoughtful seismic safety poliCies, if persistently pursued and diligently implemented, can bring dramatic reductions in California's earthquake hazard. For this, the people and institutions of this State need to commit themselves to a comprehensive and long-term effort. The recommendations of the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety are intended to help martial the State's many resources into a thorough, systematic, and effective program. The Principal Earthquake Hazard: Works of Man In broad overview, the works of man 100m as the principal cause of earthquake hazard. In open country, one should be able to "ride out" a great earthquake in reasonable safety, barring landslides, large-scale liquefaction, and tsunamis. It is primarily the structures built in seismic regions that create the hazard. Viewed this way, earthquake safety seems disarmingly simple to achieve. All that needs to be done is either leave the landscape untouched or prudently plan where to build, and design every structure and excavation to minimize any hazard created. Accordingly, the seismic safety implications of any proposed action should be evaluated and found acceptable before the action is permitted. Guidelines for Seismic Safety These insights yield useful guidelines for seismic safety measures and policies: First, thoughtful land use decisions are fundamental to seismic safety. We should make sure not to erect a structure on ground that is subject to high levels of seismic or geologic hazard, unless such construction is unavoidable, or the risk to life and property can be made acceptably low. Sometimes, of course, we are forced to build in areas of high hazard, such as across earthquake faults. A good example is the case of water mains. In such cases, we must use sophisticated and often expensive designs so that the structures and principal mains can accommodate substantial movement without loss of function. We should, moreover, also provide adequate back-up capacity and alternative temporary emergency facilities in case the use. of ~he original facilities is lost. Second, when contemplating grading or construction in seismic areas, one should first consider the stability of the underlying geologic formations. With ground of doubtful stability under earthquake conditions, building or grading should proceed only after all the likely consequences have been evaluated and approved by competent professionals. 6 Third, in a seismic region like California, decision makers .should observe one invariable rule of thumb, namely, that every significant structure in California can be expected to undergo at least one major earthquake in its lifetime. All should therefore be located, designed, and built to withstand future shaking or ground failure in order to minimize possible death or injury and avoid unnecessary or unacceptable damage. In any event, no action should be taken that will raise the earthquake risk above levels that reasonable people would presumably consider acceptable. (See Table 1 for a suggested scale of acceptable risks.) All of the above considerations are important, but the third is crucial. Every building should be made as secure against earthquake shaking as is practicable. To this end, no structure should be built unless the geologist, architect, engineer, and builder-as well as the community-are satisfied that it meets adequate standards designed to prevent life-threatening collapse or damage in future earthquakes. Performance: Past and Present Past performance in seismic safety has clearly been inadequate. Estimates vary widely, but California has perhaps more than 100,000 unreinforced brick or hollow-tile buildings, most of them built before 1933. These buildings are prime earthquake hazards, most of them not having been specifica~y designed and built to withstand seismic forces. Further, recent earthquakes show that many other types of buildings fall substantially short of providing adequate seismic safety. Some modern buildings are hazardous, as demonstrated by the damage that Los Angeles County's brand new Olive View Hospital sustained in the San Fernando earthquake of 1971. Furthermore, we have continued to build on or across faults, and to erect high-rise structures under conditions that leave authorities fearing for the fate of occupants should an earthquake be followed by fire. Thus, not only has past performance fallen short of meeting the need for earthquake safety, but present performance is still clearly unsatisfactory in many respects. Why has past performance been inadequate? The answer, basically, is that we have failed to implement what is already known about earthquake safety. The familiar economic pressures to "build now and hope for the best" are part of the explanation. Unawareness, wishful thinking, and preoccupation with day-to-day problems are also responsible. California's policy leaders, in other words, need to be much more concerned with the State's seismicity and the need for earthquake safety. But the problem also relates to the role of professionals who should, in turn, be exercising more effective leadership. They should be constructively involved in the policy-making process, posing the issues, and supplying technical guidance to policy leaders in exploring alternative solutioJ;ls. We need more professionals who can provide such leadership. The "good" ones are overworked, and the others fail to understand, to care, or to communicate, or are too busy earning their daily bread. If we encouraged greater responsibility on the part of professionals, and made better use of the professional capabilities available, we could with present knowledge achieve respectable progress toward seismic safety. Accordingly, we appear to have been 7 most remiss in failing to ensure thorough, consistent, and forward-looking application of what we already know about earthquake-hazard reduction. We need to close the gap between knowledge and practice. Thus, while we clearly need new earthquake legislation, we also need more and better-trained professionals, with strong motivation and ready access to policy makers. The following comments by respected and knowledgeable engineers during the Joint Committee's May 1972 earthquake conference ill Sacramento are relevant to this point. Less than 20 percent of building designs cross the desk of an engineer competent to check them. Of those that are checked competently, half do not meet seismic safety standards. Failures to meet present codes are caused by: (1) not enough money for building inspection function, and (2) a hack attitude on the part of some professionals. * Substantial increases in earthquake resistance can be achieved with little increase in cost, if there is proper coordination on seismic safety measures and needs between architects, planners, engineers, and other professionals concerned with the location, design, and construction of 'buildings. t A Systematic and Responsible Approach A systematic and responsible approach can help translate the guidelines for seismic safety into specific hazard-reducing measures. The community can reasonably be asked to adopt these measures, and otherwise implement them, if it is to deal responsibly with earthquake hazard. Where do we go from here? 1. We must ensure that all who are directly involved in designing for earthquake safety-geologists, seismologists, ·planners, architects, engineers, builders, developers, and owners-are effectively forewarned about earthquake and geologic hazards that should enter into their decisions. They should have such hazard information on hand even before any contemplated structure reaches the design or site selection stages, in order to avoid possible misunderstanding. Good decisions with regard to earthquake safety require a full understanding of existing hazards and their implications for site selection and preparation, and for designing, building, equipping, and maintaining structures. 2. Full recognition should be given to seismic hazards when preparing general plans and land use regulations. This will enable land use control measures to playa vital role in minimizing future earthquake hazard. 3. In planning and designing structures, the participating professionals and owners need to engage in interdisciplinary communication during the design process, to ensure that their efforts are compatible, and mutually contribute to seismic safety. 4. We ought to make certain, through governmental controls, that building plans are reviewed by competent professionals to ensure that the designs and * Robert W. Giese, Building Inspector, Contra Costa County. t Carl B. Johnson, Consulting Structural Engineer, Los Angeles. 8 standards of construction called for will achieve acceptable levels of seismic safety. (See Table 1.) To this end, the design process should be monitored and checked to ensure that earthquake safety standards are met. The designers need someone looking over their shoulders to see that a good job is done. 5. Adequate inspection-independent of the designer-and enforcement should take place during construction to make sure that the earthquake-safety measures called for by the plans and specifications are carried out effectively, and that no on-the-job shortcuts create unnecessary earthquake hazards. 6. Preparedness plans and measures should be in readiness to guide the initial efforts that ought to be made when the inevitable happens and future earthquakes strike populated areas. Such measures must include the rescue and care of the injured, and the housing and feeding of survivors. They must include plans for recovery and reconstruction-plans outlined beforehand to prevent hasty rebuilding that may recreate old mistakes. They must include plans for economic recovery, and for aid to those who have suffered significant economic losses. 7. Financial rehabilitation measures may need to include a comprehensive disaster insurance program, with earthquake insurance a component part. At present, earthquake insurance is available but not widely purchased. Thus, most properties are uninsured. Moreover, as things stand now, the seismic region of California may be virtually uninsurable as a whole. The potential losses from a single strong earthquake are very great-on the order of $5-$50 billion-and there is no certainty that the next such earthquake will be delayed long enough for the insurance industry to build up adequate reserves to cover the losses. Sketched in broad-brush fashion, these are the main outlines of the seismic safety measures that need to be taken. Looked at in summary form, they seem simple and straightforward. But getting them enacted and implemented will be a herculean, many-sided task, partly because of the wide range of interests, disciplines, professions, and organizations involved. Mostly, the problem is one of getting many different people and organizations to work together on aspects of a huge and complex enterprise that is still imperfectly understood. Accordingly, the job of fitting all the pieces together is the essence of the effort. The Proposed Program The next major section in Part One of the Joint Committee report outlines a comprehensive, first-stage program of P9licies and actions that the committee believes should be enacted by the California Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. The single most important component of this "basic legislative package" is the creation of 'the California Commission on Seismic Safety. The other parts of the package are the tools needed by the seismic safety commission to do the job. The third section in this part of the report is an additional agenda of critical recommendations; it outlines other measures that should be taken or explored by the proposed California Commission on Seismic Safety. The agenda assumes prior enactment of all components of the basic legislative package. The two together constitute a comprehensive program that the committee believes is essential to further substantial progress in seismic safety. The concluding section of Part One discusses, in a general way, the role that government at each level can and should play in this entire effort. Table 1 -A Scale of Acceptable Risks Level of Acceptable Risk Kinds of Structures Extra Project Cost Probably Required to Reduce Risk to an Acceptable Level 1. 2. 3. 4. '--------- Extremely low1 Structures whose continued functioning is critical, or whose No set percentage (whatever is failure might be catastrophic: nuclear reactors, large dams, required for maximum attain- power intertie systems, plants manufacturing or storing able safety) explosives or toxic materials Slightly higher than Structures whose use is critically needed after a disaster: 5 to 25 percent of project cose under level 11 important utility centers; hospitals; fire, police, and emer- gency communication facilities; fire stations; and critical transportation elements such as bridges and overpasses; also smaller dams Lowest possible risk Structures of high occupancy, or whose use after a disaster 5 to 15 percent of project cost4 to occupants of the would be harticular~ convenient: schools, churches, thea- structure 3 ters, large otels, an other high-rise buildings housing large numbers of people, other places normally attracting large concentrations of people, civic buildings such as fire stations, secondary utility structures, extremely large com- mercial enterprises, most roads, alternative or noncritical bridges and overpasses. An "ordinary" level The vast majority of structures: most commercial and 1 to 2 percent of project cost, in of risk to occupants industrial buildings, small hotels and apartment buildings, most cases (2 to 10 percent of of the structure3 ,s and single family residences. project cost in a minority of -------------------_ ... ----------------------cas~t__ _ _____ 1 Failure of a single structure may affect substantial populations. 2 These additional percentages are based on the assumption that the base cost is the total cost of the building or other facility when ready for occupancy. In addition, it is assumed that the structure would have been designed and built in accordance with current California practice. Moreover, the estimated additional cost presumes that structures in this acceptable-risk category are to embody sufficient safety to remain functional following an earthquake. 3 Failure of a single structure would affect primarily only the occupants. 4 These additional percentages are based on the assumption that the base cost is the total cost of the building or facility when ready for occupancy. In addition, it is assumed that the structures would have been designed and built in accordance with current California practice. Moreover the estimated additional cost presumes that structures in this acceptable-risk category are to be sufficiently safe to give reasonable assurance of preventing injury or loss of life during and earthquake, but otherwise not necessarily to remain functional. 5 "Ordinary risk"; Resist minor earthquakes without damage; resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; resist major earthquakes of the intensity or severity of the strongest experienced in California, without collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. In most structures, it is expected that structural damage, even in a major earthquake, could be limited to repairable damage. (Structural Engineers Association of California). - \0 1 A seismic safety commission to do the job. 11 A BASIC LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE California Commission on Seismic Safety The State should establish the California Commission on Seismic Safety with responsibility and authority to develop seismic safety goals and programs, help evaluate and integrate the work of State and local agencies concerned with earthquake safety, and see that the programs are carried out effectively and the objectives accomplished. The Need for an Overseer Agency. The work of both the Governor's Earthquake Council and the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety provides ample evidence for the following conclusions. First, many different agencies and levels of government have substantial responsibilities in the fields of earthquake preparedness and seismic safety. Second, there is a pressing need to provide a consistent policy framework for and integrate the activities of agencies at all governmental levels, a need not now being addressed by any governmental entity that has continuity and duration. * Third, in the absence of an effective overview, many efforts are poorly coordinated, and inadequate progress is being made toward important safety goals, or the goals themselves are lacking. Fourth, only through concerted and broad-gauge efforts, coordinated by a State-level overseer agency, can methodical, continuing, long-term progress be made toward higher levels of seismic safety. The proposed seismic safety commission could meet all these needs. Commission Functions and Makeup. The commission should be responsible for the following in connection with earthquake-hazard reduction: (1) setting goals and priorities; (2) developing programs; (3) devising criteria and standards; (4) providing technical assistance; (5) monitoring performance, reviewing accomplishments, and recommending program changes; (6) reviewing recon- struction efforts after damaging earthquakes; (7) gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information; (8) encouraging research; (9) sponsoring training to help improve the competence of specialized enforcement and other technical personnel; (10) helping coordinate the seismic safety activities of government at all levels; and (11) ensuring compliance with standards. To carry out its mission effectively, the commission would have to be given adequate powers, funds, and staff. The commission's role could be advisory, coordinative, and policy-making, but it should also have the power to order compliance with State standards. This power could be employed if any State or regional agency or local jurisdiction should fail, within a specified period of time, to implement and enforce sound seismic safety practices as adopted by the legislature or the commission. The commission would also be empowered to review, comment on, and approve seismic safety measures proposed for adoption by State, regional, and local agencies. The commission should be principally representative of the public, served by a highly competent staff, and authorized to establish advisory groups repre- senting appropriate professions, disciplines, and interests. A reasonable size for * Neither the Governor's Council nor the Joint Committee is a continuing body. 12 the commission would be nine members. Five members could be appointed by the Governor, two by the Senate Rules Committee, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly. Their term of office should be four years, on a staggered basis. Land Use Planning Measures Good land use planning measures constitute attempts to guide future development in directions considered appropriate and beneficial to the com- munity while recognizing all relevant factors. Among the many relevant factors are geologic and earthquake hazards. It is clear that prudent land use planning, taking adequate account of what we know and can learn about geologic conditions and the effects of earthquake shaking can, in time, greatly reduce casualties, property damage, and other losses in future earthquakes. Good land use planning must be a shared State-and-Iocal function. Most basic zoning controls are lodged at the city and county level, where most land use planning decisions are actually implemented. However, the State is also unquestionably obligated to see that the overriding questions of public health and safety are given adequate consideration. In this light, the Advisory'Group on Land Use Planning identified two major kinds of State responsibility concerning land use in seismic hazard areas. Briefly, th~y are: (1) prudent planning and zoning to reduce future hazards, and (2) earthquake recovery guidance to ensure that post-disaster reconstruction programs do not re-create disaster situations. Accordingly, the achievement of much higher levels of seismic safety can be furthered by the early enactment of several measures, discussed below, designed to employ the powers and procedures of land use planning and land use control in reducing future earthquake hazard. Local Seismic Safety Elements. The California Commission on Seismic Safety should be authorized and directed to review the progress and performance of local governments in incorporating adequate seismic safety elements in their general plans, and in enforcing compliance with those elements. If inadequacies are found, the commission should be directed to recommend legislation or other . measures necessary to correct deficiencies of either performance or enforcement. Legislation passed in 1971 required that local governments include seismic safety elements in their general plans, while legislation in 1972 provided for local progress reports on their adoption and implementation. But there is no provision for effective review of such reports, or for .... 12reparing and recom- mending corrective measures if progress and performance are found inade- quate. In addition to requiring a suitable review of local progress' toward seismic safety, the State should consider adopting policies designed to ensure that the zoning and public-building construction practices of cities, counties, and special districts are consistent with the seismic safety elements of their general plans. Geological Safety of Subdivisions. Legislation should be enacted to ensure that any future subdivision or building activity of substantial scope be undertaken only with full cognizance of the geologic anll soils conditions both in the general area and at the site of construction. Whenever there is any question about how stable the ground would remain during earthquakes, neither grading , 1 The area shown in this 1965 photo has since been highly developed and is now covered by housing and many other structures. Improved land use planning would have minimized this hazard. U.S. Geological Survey photo. 14 nor building should be permitted until the question has been satisfactorily resolved by competent professionals in soils engineering and engineering geology. Accordingly, the Subdivision Map Act should redefme subdivisions to include all divisions of land into two or more parcels, so that no future land-dividing activity may escape the geologic safety regulation proposed. AlSQ, the Subdivision Map Act should require that cities and counties deny subdivision approval whenever there is reasonable doubt about the geologic-seismic safety of individual lots or of subdivisions. Further, the legislation should provide guidelines defining "reasonable doubt" with respect to geologic-seismic safety. The Real Estate Practices Act should require that the State Real Estate Commissioner, on the advice of the Division of Mines and Geology or the local agency concerned, deny issuance of a real estate report whenever there is reasonable doubt about a subdivision's general geologic or seismic safety. Where such doubt applies only to individual lots, these could be specifically designated and excluded, without affecting the status of the entire subdivision. The Subdivision Map Act should also require that any information on geologic hazards turned up for a given subdivision be recorded in the city or county offices and adequate reference to those facts be made on the face of the fmal subdivision or parcel map. Consulting geologists and soils engineers must certify the fmal maps, clearly indicating where geologically hazardous areas remain. Cities and counties should be required to adopt regulations at least as restrictive as the basic State regulations, including provisions permitting the local governments and their building officials to require soils-geologic reports. These should include information on potential earthquake effects with respect to building and grading in the case of all sites subject to significant geologic-seismic hazards. The local code should also prohibit the issuance of building or grading permits if such action is' likely to have any adverse effects on the site or on property outside the site. These measures, utilizing subdiVision, building, and land use controls, are necessary because most potential hazards created in the future would involve new building activity in new subdivisions or redevelopment areas. Moreover, in the face of California's continuing rapid urbanization, failure to improve our performance in forestalling the creation of new geologic and seismic hazards means that old mistakes will proliferate into new areas. Consequently, appropriate action prior to subdivision and construction can be extremely effective, at comparatively low cost, in avoiding this situation. It is essential, therefore, that land use controls for regulating subdivision and building activity be strengthened. Community Redevelopment. The State Community Redevelopment Act should be amended to provide that geologic and seismic hazards be considered blighting conditions that might help to make a given area eligible for redevelopment. Moreover, adequate provision should be made for a post-disaster redevelopment process that could be instituted expeditiously following an earthquake. Present procedures are much too slow for reconstruction activities in a post-disaster situation. Disasters require reasonably prompt action, and, to be effective, the program applied must be based on careful advance contingency 15 planning prior to the disaster. Most local governments do not at present have adequate staff or resources for such contingency planning. Accordingly, the California Commission on Seismic Safety should be directed to explore the possibilities of using the community redevelopment process-as both a long-term hazard-reduction and postearthquake reconstruction tool-to advance the cause of seismic safety. Through their normal planning, redevelopment, and disaster preparedness programs, local governments may be able to develop advance "sketch plans" for reconstruction, contingent upon the occurrence of earthquakes. Such sketch plans should be based on the estimated probable damage from earthquakes of various magnitudes and intensities. These plans should also designate areas where lower densities or open space are preferable to existing densities and uses. The recommended density reductions could guide reconstruction and relocation efforts after disasters. By preparing such plans carefully and in advance of future earthquakes, communities and their governments could act methodically to avoid repeating old mistakes in the reconstruction process. The information developed as part of the program to abate hazardous buildings (discussed later) could serve as the basis for such contingency planning by indicating buildings and city areas where the most damage can be expected. Environmental Impact Reports. Both legislative and administrative guidelines should specifically require that geologic hazards and seismic safety be considered in the preparation of environmental impact statements. In addition, environ- mental impact statements should be required for all projects that involve critical concern with respect to geologic hazards and seismic safety. The statements would be required for the first three levels of acceptable risk outlined in Table 1. Utilities in Planned Unit Developments. The State should require that the ownership, management, and financing of small utility distribution systems, such as those serving cluster housing and planned-unit developments, be adequate to secure them against financial or administrative failure in case of earthquake damage. This kind of protection is necessary because the popularity and proliferation of cluster housing in these developments has spawned the growth of relatively untried mechanisms for managing common facilities and utilities. Often these are neither publicly owned nor the responsibility of the established large-scale privately owned utility and service companies. Instead, they are owned in common and managed by associations of community property owners. Such associations are clearly incapable of coping with disaster situations. To mitigate this king of problem, the State can do either of two things: (1) set minimum standards and guidelines for the deSign, location, ownership, management, and record-keeping of planned-unit utility systems; or (2) prohibit such systems from being operated by homeowners' associations. Building Construction Revision of Standards and Codes. Under the aegis of the California Commission on Seismic Safety, the State should persistently pursue efforts to improve construction engineering standards and other code measures-especially Adequate codes can provide excellent earthquake bracing. 17 lateral-force requirements. This work should be done in cooperation with, and in support of, the continuing efforts of relevant professional societies and institutions of higher education. The revised codes should incorporate all the latest data from seismic and structural engineering research, and should take into account the lessons learned from recent earthquakes.'The California Commission on Seismic Safety should be given responsibility to review successive drafts of proposed code revisions, and to obtain advisory opinions from recognized professional experts on controversial points. The State should also provide adequate financial assistance to facilitate the expeditious revision of codes and standards. Enforcement Measures. State legislation should-as a minimum-require that all State and local jurisdictions abide by the lateral-force requirements and other seismically relevant portions of current codes, such as the latest Uniform Building Code (UBC), and other codes as determined by the commission. The California Commission on Seismic Safety should be authorized to establish seismic review panels in different areas of the State to (1) assist local building departments in their review and approval of plans for construction; (2) monitor and report to the California Commission on Seismic Safety on the adequacy of enforcement, standards, and performance; and (3) help establish, in the case of critical facilities, acceptable criteria for seismic design and seismic braCing systems. (The last point is discussed later under "Critical and High-Exposure Facilities. ") Where it is determined that the necessary competence in seismic safety or other specialized disCiplines is not currently available to local jurisdictions, the State program should help supply qualified personnel, working through the State or county governments, or those of the larger cities, to ensure acceptable levels of performance. Training and Protection of Professionals. The California Commission on Seismic Safety should ensure that adequate educational programs are available to train and inform building officials and others with regard to seismic safety requirements. Moreover, the State should encourage educational and profes- sional development programs aimed at giving all engineering and other design professionals adequate training and information on the best methods of achieving seismic safety. Reasonable protection against liability should be provided for geologists, engineers (including structural, civil, and soils engineers) and other geotechnical consultants, and public safety officials, performing under mutal aid agreements, whose services are indispensible in seismic safety activities. Accordingly, the State should enact legislation to mitigate the present liability problem, which adversely affects professional persons working in specialized technical fields. Such legislative protection could include exemption from the rules of strict liability, amendment of the appropriate statute of limitations to ensure that liability commences when the work is done, and possible provision of a program of malpractice insurance. Geotechnical consultants who render services to public agencies should be protected to the same extent as other public employees. All of these measures are essential for several reasons. First, the acknowl- 18 edged difficulties some professional societies have in agreeing on the code revisions required to keep standards current argue strongly for State financial and other assistance. Such help can ease the accomplishment of these tasks. Furthermore, codes and standards need to be updated regularly as new knowledge becomes available, and as lead-time in the practical implementation of new knowledge can be reduced. Second, there is much evidence that many local jurisdictions, especially the smaller ones, do not have adequately trained personnel available for the plan-checking and other reviews necessary for effective code enforcement. Without such personnel, there is no assurance of enforcement. Third, many design professionals are not fully aware of the appropriate design criteria and other needs that must be met to build safely in seismic regions. And finally, existing liability laws create unacceptable risks for professionals operating in their respective fields. To illustrate the point, few soils engineers or engineering geologists can qualify for or afford the insurance needed to provide adequate protection, while structural engineers, by the same token, generally hesitate to perform damage inspections for public agencies. Abatement of Hazardous Buildings The California Commission on Seismic Safety should be authorized and directed to proceed immediately With a program of hazardous-building abate- ment. Such a program is needed because little progress is being made on the greatest of existing hazards confronting Californians: the thousands of old hazardous buildings in which people live and work. Moreover, it is known that some newer buildings are also hazardous. Activities under the recommended program should concentrate first on the older buildings and those in areas of known hazards. At the same time, the program participants would also inventory other more recent structures and work out a plan for the abatement of hazards found unacceptably high. As an adjunct to the hazardous-building abatement program, the State should require local jurisdictions to formulate and enforce regulations leading to the elimination of unsafe parapets, especially those on earthquake-resistant buildings. Dangerous Older Buildings. As mentioned above, initial abatement acitivities would concentrate on buildings constructed before 1933 or-in the case of any given jurisdiction-before some later date based on an evaluation of the history of locally applied design standards and enforcement. Buildings would be reviewed if they were put up before the designated date, and are of "Type III" construction, with unreinforced brick and masonry walls, and wood floors and roofs. Those failing to meet the commission's requirements would have to be brought up to standards or demolished under due process and rules outlined by the commission. Judgments on hazardous-building abatement should take particular account of (1) the desirability of preserving historical and unique structures, (2) special geologic and soils hazards, and (3) the socio-economic consequences of the attendant relocation and housing programs. California has many thousand old hazardous buildings such as this one which was damaged in the moderate Santa Rosa earthquake of 1969. San Francisco Examiner photo. 20 Inventory of Other Buildings. During the abatement program for older buildings, the commission could also conduct an inventory-perhaps on a sampling basis-of all other types of potentially hazardous buildings. The inventory would enable the commission to estimate the magnitude of the tasks of hazard reduction, to affIx costs, and to estimate the number and kinds of personnel needed. The commission would be instructed to develop a realistic arid workable program-staged over a number of years-for the abatement of all hazardous structures. Integral to the program would be finding ways to fInance the effort. Critical and High-Exposure Facilities It is essential to improve safety levels of facilities (1) whose continued performance is critical immediately after an earthquake, or (2) whose failure would cause signifIcant numbers of injuries and perhaps substantial loss of life. Accordingly, both ~e State legislature and the California Commission on Seismic Safety should carefully consider the need for more stringent safety requirements for such critical and high-exposure facilities. Special Safety Measures. State legislation should direct the California Commission on Seismic Safety to· review and consider the effectiveness of seismic safety measures in the case of structures and facilities corresponding to the fIrst three levels of acceptable risk listed in Table 1. The commission should use appropriate administrative measures to make sure the acceptable risk levels are not exceeded, and should recommend new State legislation where necessary to this end. Schools, Hospitals, and Emergency Facilities. Special seismic safety measures have been taken with regard to public schools under the Field Act. The newly enacted Hospital Safety Act has extended similar protection to future hospitals. Both acts provide for State-level plan-checking and construction inspection to ensure compliance with the specifIed safety criteria. At the time of this writing, legislation similar to the Field Act and the Hospital Safety Act, but applying to emergency service facilities, had been introduced and was under consideration. Other High-Exposure Facilities. The legislature should also instruct the California Commission on Seismic Safety to make sure that other critical and high-exposure facilities are reviewed to determine whether their location, site preparation, and building designs will effectively reduce the risk to acceptable levels. The commission should be directed to establish a task force to review the safety of high-rise structures. This task force should examine and comment on plans for high-rise construction, with special attention to (1) collapse hazard, (2) performance of elevators, stairways, and mechanical and electrical facilities during and after an earthquake, (3) fIre hazard and fIre safety measures, and (4) performance of nonstructural components undergoing earthquake stresses. State legislation, to be implemented and enforced by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, should require that all buildings of high exposure include acceptable plans and procedures for the evacuation of occupants or for the Hospitals and other critical facilities should be earthquake-safe. Los Angeles City Fire Department photo. Dam failure can affect thousands. Los Angeles Times photo. 22 creation of safe internal environments in case of earthquake and fire. Issuance of building permits should be contingent on meeting these requirements. The adequacy and probable performance of safety plans should be reviewed regularly. A permanent State board should be established, having a continuing responsibility for: (1) adVising the Division of Safety of Dams on the adequacy of. standards of safety for structures under its jurisdiction; (2) determining whether the division is adequately staffed to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety; (3) checking that the necessary standards of safety are adequately enforced; and (4) adVising on technical problems related to the safety of dams in California. In the interest of minimizing hazards due to dams and reservoirs, the California Commission on Seismic Safety should be encouraged to review the program on dam safety-jointly with the Director of the Department of Water Resources-in order to ensure that the best obtainable safety levels are achieved. Moreover, the commission should be directed to review with all appropriate agencies the problem of achieving maximum downstream security from floods caused by earthquake damage to dams .. ' Emergency Preparedness Measures Local Emergency Plans. The Emergency Services Act should make it unmistakably clear that cities and counties are obligated to prepare and maintain emergency plans, consistent with the deSignations and criteria established by the. State Office of Emergency Services (DES). Similar plans should be required of special districts, and of public utilities that provide essential services such as water, gas, electricity, and sewage disposal. Provisions should be made for implementing the plans on a county or regional basis. . Formal procedures should be established for the review and approval oflocal emergency plans by DES. The review should be comprehensive, thorough, critical, and complete in a timely manner. The review process could also be employeq by the State 'to help ensure that all local governments enact an adequate complement of disaster and emergency-related ordinances and reso- lutions. In addition, greater incentives and help, in the form of money and technical assistance, are needed to stimulate local disaster preparedness efforts. Disaster Exercises. Emergency-plan testing and disaster exercises should be conducted at least once a year in each city and county, and in State and Federal agencies and the larger non public organizations. Short of an actual disaster, a simulated-disaster exercise is the most effective way to learn about weaknesses in emergency operations plans, procedures, and resource ~ystems. Disaster exercises should be an integral part of the preparedness planning and plan-review process. DES is the appropriate agency to assist in developing and coordinating disaster exercise programs, to receive reports, and to summarize the results of disaster exercise activities throughout the State. It should do these things in conjunction with its review of local emergency plans, as proposed above. In addition, the legislature should require that all elementary, intermediate, and secondary schools conduct regular earthquake disaster drills. The legislature should review the Emergency Services Act to ensure adequate coverage of enrolled or registered persons enlisted into service during a "local Mobile base operation and vehicles responding to a disaster. Los Angeles County Fire Department photo. I \.i 24 emergency." There appears to be adequate coverage already ip the case of a "war emergency" or "state of emergency," but some doubt remains with respect to the situation in a "local emergency." Emergency Funds and Resources. The legislature should provide larger annual sums to the State Emergency Fund. The current level of $ j million is regularly exceeded by emergency demands and represents ail unrealistic minimum. It should be increased to $5 million a year. The increase might -be coupled with improved administrative procedures, including reimbursements to local governments for disaster-related expenses. The value of mutual aid has been well established in the case of fire fighting, and the legislature shoUld therefore provide for the expansion of the Master Mutual Aid Agreement to cover other resources that might be needed immediately after a damaging earthquake. This could include the services of employees in law enforcement, public works, bUilding inspection, public health, and perhaps other fields. The program's value would also be enhanced greatly if a means were provided to reimburse local agencies for costs incurred when -rendering aid to other jurisdictions. The legislature sho:uld commission studies to (1) evaluate the adequacy of public safety resources in our communities, and (2) develop techniques for establiShing minimum standards for public safety services. M;any communities are not adequately supporting their basic emergency resources. Consequently, we must take measures-to remedy this situation. Research The State should support an expanded program of basic and applied research, directed toward: (1) a better understanding of earthquakes and seismic activity in general, and related geologic hazards; (2) t:\le development of safer earthquake-resistant structures; arid (3) iinproving the ability of local govern- ments-to respond effectively to earthquake disasters. Research funds should be appropriated and allocated to the universities and qualified technical and scientific groups for the following: * 1. Applied -earthquake engineering research programs having specific objec- tives leading to improved earthquake-resistant structural systems, practical design methods, and reliable details of construction. 2. Increased support of geologic mapping by the Division of Mines and Geology. 3. Basic research in areas of geology and seismology related to faUlts and earthquakes. 4. Geodetic measurements to idel).tify and delineate distortions of the land sui-face, both before and after earthquakes. S. Monitoring of groundwater movements and examination of records from *-See the "Report of the Advisory Group on Engineering Considerations and Earthquake Sciences" in Part Two for a more detailed discussion of the areas of research that should be supported. I I, r One aspect of seismic research: examining the recordings of the aftershocks of an earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey photo. 26 continuously recording surtace-water-level gauges for indications of tectonic movements. 6. Postquake studies by competent State personnel in all relevant disci- plines, to be made immediately after any moderate-to-great earthquakes, in any area of the world where such knowledge would be applicable to safety or geologic hazards in California. 7. Evaluation of the social, economic, psychological, and biological effects, as well as any other significant consequences of earthquake disasters. 8. Intensive study of the requirements for including earthquake. insurance in a national program of comprehensive disaster insurance, and the implementation of such a program. 27 AN ADDITIONAL AGENDA OF CRITICAL RECOMMENDATIONS The basic legislative package should be complemented by additional efforts whose cumulative effect can greatly advance the cause of seismic safety. The advisory group reports are a compendium of such recommendations whose exploration and implementation should be pursued by the proposed California Commission on Seismic Safety. Some of the most critical of these recommended measures are outlined below. Further Employment of Land Use Controls 1. Additional effort should be devoted to designating critical seismic areas such as fault zones. Such areas could be declared of critical statewide concern, and appropriate measures taken to regulate development by requiring special permits, setting aside open space in hazardous areas, and identifying hazards in general plans. 2. Zoning and building practices of cities and counties should be consistent with the seismic safety elements of their general plans. This goal may require monitoring and enforcement. Special zoning districts, such as open space or hazardous districts, should be employed where appropriate. Local agencies should employ "down zoning," or place existing properties in nonconforming status, where hazards are excessive. In extreme cases, temporary moratoria on the issuance of permits should be used. 3. Property reports should be required to be furnished by local governments to all prospective purchasers of real estate, and such reports should evaluate seismic and geologic hazards. 4. Public funding agencies should ensure that public investment decisions and capital improvement programs do not encourage development in hazardous areas without adequate precautions. Local agencies should consider seismic hazards when reviewing public and private improvement projects. Projects due to receive governmental funding or loan guarantees should be evaluated for geologic hazards before any financial commitments are made. Additional Design Measures for Seismic Safety All structures designed for human use should be capable of Withstanding a great earthquake (approximately 8.0, Richter scale) without collapsing or sustaining damage that could cause substantial injury or loss of life. Utility systems must be designed to resist earthquakes, and be capable of rapid restoration. 1. All jurisdictions should have adequate minimum construction standards for seismic safety. These standards should be reviewed, monitored, and where necessary, supplemented by the proposed California Commission on Seismic Safety. 2. Building design standards should be improved, and their application and enforcement strengthened. 3. Adequate seismic design standards must be developed for utility and communications systems. 28 'i Furthering Preparedness, Response, and' Recovery California residents are entitled to an effective governmental response to disasters caused by damaging earthqu~kes. This requires Federal, State, and local commitment to comprehensive natural-disaster-preparedness, assistance, and recovery programs. 1. Community post-disaster reconstruction should begin as soon as practi- cable, but previous mistakes should be avoided and future hazards minimized. Disaster victims should be helped to secure prompt disaster benefits from equitably administered' assistance programs. 2. Local agencies should identify available sources of competent assistance for inspecting damaged buildings. A statewide emergency medical care plan should be developed, capable of effectiv.e operation at the community level. In addition, the Emergency Services Act should give the county governments responsibility for coordinating intracounty local' emergency operations (unless viable alternatives exist). 3. All barriers to the expeditious use of resources during disasters should be identified and removed.' There should be assurance that every organization with an emergency service function would plan for and practice the use of available emergency communications facilities. 4. Preparedness and disaster response measures need more careful moni- toring and, periodic evaluation. There should be a continuing program to test disaster preparedness efforts, and all disaster preparedness plans-including the State Emergency Plan-should be accompanied by emergency action checklists and standard operating procedures. 5. Community plans to guide future reconstruction efforts should be' prepared, taking into account all relevant factors that might affect future hazards, or that would improve the quality of life in the community. Federal, State, and private agencies should work with local governments and regional organizations in preparing such community reconstruction plans. 6. The follOWing measures would help improve the effectiveness of disaster . assistance programs: a. Public and private organizations should be supplied with information on available disaster services, and on appropriate procedures for obtaining thenL ' . b. Both State and Federal governments should review the disaster- assistance delivery systems. c. Local governments should cooperate with State and Federal repre- sentatives in planning for and establishing disaster assistance centers in damaged areas. Training and Education All practicing professionals whose work is in any way related to the question of seismi~ safety should be aware of that relationship, and should be informed on all appropriate safety measures. Moreover, all California residents should have a basic knowledge qf earthquakes and be reasonably informed about living with seismic risks. 29 1. Professional development should be encouraged through conferences and seminars, courses of instruction, special programs, and possible certification criteria for those engaged in structural design and construction. 2. Specialized personnel with competence in seismic safety or sophisticated forms of earthquake-resistant construction should be made available to all local building officials. In the principal urban areas, this should be done by augmenting the local staff or using consultants. Where such skills are not regularly needed, resource personnel could be made available on contract from neighboring metropolitan areas, State agencies, or professional organizations. In the case of critical buildings, special review panels could participate in establishing design criteria, examine and approve preliminary designs, and evaluate the adequacy of seismic bracing systems. 3. Adequate rescue training should be available throughout the State. Intensive training should be provided for local public safety and public works employees in connection with rescue activities needed after an earthquake. 4. Greater public awareness of earthquakes and seismic safety should be stimulated. Suggestions include an annual "Earthquake Preparedness Day," improvement of school curricula and use of earthquake drills, and imaginative employment of the communications media (e.g., fIlms, fliers, pamphlets, radio and television spot announcements, and instructions printed in telephone directories). Earthquake Insurance 1. All new borrowers who are purchasing one-to four-family residential buildings should be required by lending institutions to have ~arthquake insurance, just as is the case for fire insurance. 2. State government should actively work with the Federal Government and appropriate industry organizations to determine if a program of comprehensive national disaster insurance is needed, including earthquake coverage, and if so, to develop such a program. The main focus of these efforts should be on the creation of additional risk-bearing capacity. 30 GOVERNMENTAL ROLES IN SEISMIC SAFETY In concluding our discussion, let us examine one of the more pervasive and crucial items, namely, the question of the roles and performance of government at the various levels in the quest for seismic safety. The State Government As the principal governing entity of a major population subject to severe earthquakes, California's State government has a crucial role to play. Thus the State government has the ultimate non-Federal responsibility for the health, welfare, and safety of Californians, and accordingly is obligated to take measures adequate to the need. These measures must include working with the local governments to help and encourage their seismic safety efforts, and to improve their performance where this is needed. In addition to aiding and encouraging local governments along these lines, the State can and should take other more direct actions, where necessary. Seismic safety in California should be treated as a State-and-Iocal government partnership. But wherever local government performance falls short of full acceptability, the State must obviously assume the role of senior partner. Neither logic nor the well-being of California's citizens would be ·served by any other view. Accordingly, the proposed California Commission on Seismic Safety would provide a focal point at the State level for the development 'of required policies and implementation of needed improvements. In addition, the State Development Plan and the State Environmental Goals and Policy Report, and any similar statewide comprehensive plan or policy documents required in the future, should contain items of official policy on seismic safety, including, possibly, the identification of major fault zones and statement of the criteria and standards that should be applied in all such zones. The State must also assume major new roles in the areas of planning review and approval if it is to help ensure . that local plans and regulations properly recognize seismic safety considerations. In this capacity, local agencies would be encouraged to adopt and enforce local plans and regulations conforming to and carrying out the State seismic safety standards and program. Furthermore, the State would assist and advise the local agencies, and review and monitor their performanee, before initiating more stringent enforcement measures. Another State function should be to provide the necessary guidance, technical assistance, and other support for jurisdictions needing help in coping with problems related to seismic safety. Finally, the State must see to it that its seismic safety regulations are applied uniformly in charter cities and counties as well as general-law cities and counties. Moreover, it must emphasize that the regulations also apply to all State agencies and all special districts. However, no local jurisdiction should be precluded from adopting and enforcing higher seismic safety standards than those specified as a minimum by the State. 31 Local Government The principal governmental resource at the site of any potential disaster is usually that of a local government. Consequently, local agencies will of necessity be heavily involved in preventive actions, as well as in the immediate on-the-scene response to disasters. This fact, coupled with our strong local home-rule tr~dition, suggests that local government will continue to be the primary agent for direct action in resolving seismic safety problems. Because local government constitutes such a principal resource, the matter of its performance is of statewide concern. Accordingly, one consideration high on the agenda of the California Commission on Seismic Safety would be the provision of continuing help to local governments, as necessary, to facilitate and ensure the best possible performance in the interest of seismic safety. Regional Bodies Between the State and local governments are logical areas for activity by single and multipurpose regional agencies. In fact, single-purpose regional organizations are increasingly important in most metropolitan areas. The planning and other programs of such regional organizations-like the Southern California Rapid Transit District, the San Francisco Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commis- sion, and California's State and regional coastal commissions-can help signif- icantly to advance the cause of seismic safety. Moreover, if and when multipurpose regional governments are created in one or more metropolitan areas, promotion of seismic safety should be an integral part of their funtions, programs, and plans. Meanwhile, the roles of existing voluntary associations of governments-the Association of Bay Area Govern- ments, the Southern California Association of Governments, the San Diego County Comprehensive Planning Organization, and others-could be strength- ened by requiring that they (1) identify and propose solutions to seismic safety problems, (2) make sure regional planning programs consider earthquake hazard conditions, and (3) employ seismic safety considerations when evaluating local and regional projects under the grant review process. Finally, the function of the county-level local agency formation commissions (LAFCO) with respect to seismic safety planning should be made explicit. The commissions are developing a role as basic long-range governmental planning organizations in each county. They must review and approve all proposals for the incorporation of new cities, the development of new communities and special districts, the annexation or exclusion of territory, and the dissolution of local governments. Thus, LAFCOs clearly have the power to stop agencies providing water, sanitation, and other municipal-type services from annexing territory (as well as detaching it). Moreover, LAFCOs can prevent the formation of new municipal- type service agencies where none existed before. These are strong powers with which the LAFCOs can discourage development in hazardous areas. The commissions should fully recognize and utilize these powers to minimize seismic and geologic hazards. 32 The Federal Government Of all the governmental jurisdictions in the United States, that at the Federal level is the largest, has traditionally the ultimate responsibility for the general welfare, and possesses the greatest supply of fiscal and other resources. As a consequence, it generally plays the primary role in minimizing disaster effects and maximizing recovery from disasters, whether this is done through loans, grants, insurance, or provision of materiel and large-scale application of manpower and organizational resources. The California Commission on Seismic Safety should be both respectful and forthright in pointing to the need for Federal action and Federal programs, especially where problems are too big for State and local government in California, or where the Federal Government can play key catalytic or regulatory roles that will help reduce the earthquake hazard or spread the risk. The Federal Government can help in many ways, including the follOWing: 1. No applications under Federal grant, loan, and revenue sharing programs should be either submitted or approved unless there is a demonstration that seismic and geologic hazards have been considered, and adequate steps taken to minimize them. For example, where State or local land use policies are insufficient, Federal standards should be employed as guides; grant programs, such as for new towns, should encourage development in low-risk instead of high-risk areas; and federally approved or .subsidized programs should help reduce existing hazards and avoid creating new ones. 2. Programs and procedures providing funds for post-disaster reconstruction should be improved so as to ensure that their release is conditioned upon adequate standards of seismic safety. 3. Federal encouragement and financial support of basic and applied research in seismic safety should be continued. 4. Development of a system of natural-disaster insurance, that would protect property owners and reduce hazards by encouraging future building in safe locations and according to earthquake-resistance standards, should be pursued with vigor. 5. The Federal Government should take the lead in establishing a National Disaster Preparedness Program that is conceptually sound, clearly defines objectives and programs, determines the appropriate roles of all levels of government, and includes criteria for performance and means for its measure- ment.