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.