Findings and Implications Combining known seismic needs and the recommendations in the 1997 Preliminary Seismic Evaluation, Phase 1 Report, seven campus buildings have been rated Very Poor and 50 buildings have been rated Poor (a ratings explanation is given below). No buildings were downgraded to Very Poor as a result of the new report, but many formerly rated Good or Fair were downgraded to Poor. In all, 315,000 assignable square feet (ASF) is rated Very Poor and 1,610,000 ASF is rated Poor, totaling nearly two million ASF, or 27 percent of campus space. Nearly three-quarters of all campus space is rated Good or Fair. These figures and the analysis do not include facilities at Clark Kerr Campus, Richmond Field Station, Albany Village, and other off-campus facilities, which remain to be rated in Phase 2 of the evaluation project. Nor do they include more than 780,000 ASF in seismic projects currently funded for construction (Doe Library, 6701 San Pablo, 2607 Hearst, 2401 Bancroft, McCone Hall, Harmon Gym, and Hearst Mining). The 57 buildings rated Very Poor and Poor have a current replacement value exceeding $1 billion. A preliminary estimate of the total cost for seismic retrofit of these 57 facilities is at least $700 million, in 1997 dollars. This estimate includes seismic retrofit and associated minimum code upgrades, essential deferred maintenance work that should be performed concurrently with the seismic retrofit construction, demolition/relocation costs, and surge costs (that is, costs to relocate people and programs during construction). These estimates do not include non-seismic interior renovations. Preliminary estimates of available funds indicate that a 20- to 30-year time frame could be required to fund seismic corrections in these buildings. The total cost of the program would escalate to at least $1 billion to $1.2 billion over such a time frame, including assumed inflationary increases. The campus has long recognized its seismic safety problems and for some time has ranked correcting seismic deficiencies in campus facilities an issue of the highest priority, in order to protect the life and safety of students, faculty, and staff. The campus currently is in the midst of a major seismic upgrade program involving numerous campus buildings, and the realization of the magnitude of the problem identified in the 1997 Preliminary Seismic Evaluation comes at a time when the campus had anticipated completion of its seismic program by the middle of the next decade. The increased number of buildings means that a comprehensive program could take 20 or more years to complete. Until this program is complete, the campus will invest in efforts to address personnel safety, meet critical service needs, and ensure institutional survival should a major earthquake occur. Such efforts will include special communications systems, emergency preparedness training, and education, in addition to targeted capital investment. The Rating System Established campus standards for seismic rehabilitation projects, for new construction, and for hospital construction use performance ratings of GOOD, FAIR, POOR, and VERY POOR. These continue to serve as the backbone of the program. A GOOD seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in structural and nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would not significantly jeopardize life. Buildings and other structures with a GOOD rating would represent an acceptable level of earthquake safety, such that funds need not be spent to improve their seismic resistance to gain greater life safety. A FAIR seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in structural and nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would represent low life hazards. Buildings and other structures with a FAIR seismic rating would be given a low priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD. A POOR seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures expected to sustain significant structural and nonstructural damage and/or result in falling hazards in a major seismic disturbance, representing appreciable life hazards. Such buildings or structures either would be given a high priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD, or would be considered for other abatement programs, such as reduction of occupancy. A VERY POOR seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in extensive structural and nonstructural damage, potential structural collapse, and/or falling hazards that would represent high life hazards. Such buildings or structures either would be given the highest priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD, or would be considered for other abatement programs, such as reduction of occupancy. The table below lists the buildings included in the 1997 Preliminary Seismic Evaluation, Phase 1 Report, with their new seismic rating plus other buildings whose seismic rating had previously been determined to be Poor or Very Poor. Some campus buildings are not listed, either because they are off campus and will be included in an upcoming evaluation – the Phase 2 Report – or because they are currently funded for seismic retrofit. The latter buildings were known from earlier assessments to require seismic corrections, and were targeted by the campus as priority construction projects to be funded by the state or other sources.
		Frequently Asked Questions Supplement April 24, 1998
									Campus Buildings Seismic Ratings Updated April 24, 1998 Building Rating Building Name Seismic Rating Alumni House good Anna Head complex (6 buildings) poor Anthony Hall fair Architects & Engineers Building poor Art Gallery (old) very poor Atherton 2425 good Atherton 2425 (outdoor walkway) fair Bancroft 2111 poor Bancroft 2111 (stair tower) very poor Bancroft 2401 under construction (very poor) Barker Hall poor Barrows Hall poor Bechtel Engineering Center good Birge Hall good "Botanical Garden Building 1A (#1734, store)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 1B (#1734, office)" good "Botanical Garden Building 2 (#1739, rain forest house)" poor "Botanical Garden Building 3 (#1749, education annex)" poor "Botanical Garden Building 4 (#1741, fern house)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 5 (#1751/51A, meeting room-greenhouse)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 6 (#1742, staff commons)" poor "Botanical Garden Building 7 (#1752, topical house)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 8 (#1733/43, lath house)" poor "Botanical Garden Building 9 (#1732, greenhouse)" good "Botanical Garden Building 10 (#1731, greenhouse)" good "Botanical Garden Building 11 (#1746, tool shed)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 12 (#1745, greenhouse)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 13 (#1747, greenhouse)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 14 (#1750, domed greenhouse)" good "Botanical Garden Building 15 (#1744, rest room)" good "Botanical Garden Building 16 (#1738, storage-rest room)" good "Botanical Garden Building 17 (#1735/37, greenhouse)" poor "Botanical Garden Building 18 (#1736, greenhouse)" poor "Botanical Garden Building 19 (#1729, greenhouse)" fair "Botanical Garden Building 20 (#1753, information center)" fair Bowditch 2334 poor Bowles Hall good California Hall good California Memorial Stadium poor Calvin Laboratory good Campbell Hall poor Campus Garage poor Carleton 2000 fair Channing 2515 poor Channing 2521 poor Channing 2539 good Channing 2547 (Shorb House) poor Channing 2612 poor Chavez Center good Cheit Hall good College 2241 poor College 2243 poor College 2251 very poor Cory Hall fair Davis Hall (new) poor Davis Hall (old) fair Doe Library under construction (poor) Doe Library Annex poor Doe Stack good Donner Laboratory (new) poor Donner Laboratory (old) good Durant Hall fair Dwight 2427 fair Dwinelle Annex poor Dwinelle Hall good Edwards Track Stadium poor Eshleman Hall poor Etcheverry Hall good Evans Hall poor Faculty Club (The) fair Faculty Club (Women's) good Field Station for Behavioral Research Building 5 poor Field Station for Behavioral Research Building 6A/6B poor Field Station for Behavioral Research Building 7A good Field Station for Behavioral Research Building 7B/7C/7D poor Field Station for Behavioral Research Building 9 poor Field Station for Behavioral Research Building 9A good Foothill Student Housing (9 buildings) good Founders Building good Fulton 2223 poor Genetics and Plant Biology Teaching Building good Giannini Hall poor Giauque Laboratory good Gill Tract Hybridoma Building (#9518) good Gill Tract Insectary Building (#9510) good Gilman Hall fair Girton Hall good Greek Theatre very poor Haas Clubhouse poor Haas School Complex (faculty and student buildings) good Harmon Gymnasium under construction (poor) Haste-Channing Student Housing good Haviland Hall fair Hearst 2607 under construction (poor) Hearst Gymnasium poor Hearst Mining Building under construction (very poor) Heating Plant good Hertz Hall poor Hertz-Morrison canopy good Hesse Hall (new) good Hesse Hall (old) poor Hildebrand Hall very poor Hilgard Hall fair Hudson Field House good International House good Kerr Campus Building 1 good Kerr Campus Building 2 (north and west) good Kerr Campus Building 2 (south) poor Kerr Campus Building 3 good Kerr Campus Building 4 good Kerr Campus Building 5 fair Kerr Campus Building 6 fair Kerr Campus Building 7 good Kerr Campus Building 8 fair Kerr Campus Building 9 fair Kerr Campus Building 10 (dining halls) fair Kerr Campus Building 10 (kitchen servery) poor Kerr Campus Building 11 good Kerr Campus Building 12 good Kerr Campus Building 13 fair Kerr Campus Building 14 fair Kerr Campus Building 15 good Kerr Campus Building 16 good Kerr Campus Building 17 (Keller Hall) good Kerr Campus Building 18 fair Kerr Campus Building 19 fair Kerr Campus Building 20 fair Kerr Campus Building 21 poor Kerr Campus Building 22 poor Kerr Campus Building 23 fair Kerr Campus Building 24 fair Kerr Campus Building 25 fair King Student Union fair Koshland Hall good Kroeber Hall good Latimer Hall poor Law Building good Lawrence Hall of Science good LeConte Hall (new) good LeConte Hall (old) poor Lewis Hall poor Life Sciences Addition good Manville Hall good Mathematical Sciences Research Institute good McCone Hall under construction (poor) McEnerney Hall (1750 Arch) good McLaughlin Hall poor Minor Hall good Minor Hall Addition good Moffitt Library good Morgan Hall good Morrison Hall good Moses Hall fair Mulford Hall poor Naval Architecture Building poor North Gate Hall (east wing) good North Gate Hall (library and west wing) fair Northern Regional Library fair Northwest Animal Facility good O'Brien Hall good O'Brien-McLaughlin link poor Oxford 2120 fair Oxford Tract Natural Resources Laboratory good Parking Structure A good Parking Structure B poor Parking Structure C good Parking Structure H good Parking Structure U good Piedmont 2222 poor Piedmont 2224 poor Piedmont 2232 poor Piedmont 2234 poor Piedmont 2240 poor Pimentel Hall good Recreational Sports Facility good Residence Halls Unit 1 (towers) good Residence Halls Unit 1 Dining Commons poor Residence Halls Unit 2 (towers) good Residence Halls Unit 2 Dining Commons poor Residence Halls Unit 3 good Richmond Field Station Building 100 fair Richmond Field Station Building 102 poor Richmond Field Station Building 110 fair Richmond Field Station Building 112 poor Richmond Field Station Building 150 very poor Richmond Field Station Building 151 good Richmond Field Station Building 152 poor Richmond Field Station Building 154 good Richmond Field Station Building 155 fair Richmond Field Station Building 158 fair Richmond Field Station Building 159 poor Richmond Field Station Building 160 poor Richmond Field Station Building 161 fair Richmond Field Station Building 164 fair Richmond Field Station Building 165 good Richmond Field Station Building 167 good Richmond Field Station Building 175 very poor Richmond Field Station Building 177 poor Richmond Field Station Building 178 poor Richmond Field Station Building 180 very poor Richmond Field Station Building 190 poor Richmond Field Station Building 194 good Richmond Field Station Building 196 poor Richmond Field Station Building 197 poor Richmond Field Station Building 275 fair Richmond Field Station Building 276 good Richmond Field Station Building 277 good Richmond Field Station Building 280 good Richmond Field Station Building 300 good Richmond Field Station Building 420 fair Richmond Field Station Building 421 good Richmond Field Station Building 445 poor Richmond Field Station Building 450 good Richmond Field Station Building 451 poor Richmond Field Station Building 452 poor Richmond Field Station Building 453 poor Richmond Field Station Building 454 poor Richmond Field Station Building 472 fair Richmond Field Station Building 473 fair Richmond Field Station Building 478 (machine shop) poor "Richmond Field Station Building 478 (wood collection, corridor)" good Richmond Field Station Building 480 poor Richmond Field Station Building 484 poor Richmond Field Station Building 486 fair San Francisco Extension Center Middle Hall (old gym) fair San Francisco Extension Center Richardson Hall poor San Francisco Extension Center Woods Hall and Annex good San Pablo 6701 under construction (poor) Sather Tower (observation level) poor Senior Hall poor Silver Laboratory poor Silver Laboratory Annex good Simon Hall good Smyth House poor Smyth-Fernwald 2925-2939 Dwight (4 buildings) poor "Smyth-Fernwald 2939 Dwight (entry, office-workshop)" fair South Hall good Sproul Hall good Stanley Hall poor Stanley Hall Annex good Stephens Hall fair Stern Hall good Strawberry Canyon Center under construction (poor) Strawberry Canyon Chemical Facility fair Switchgear Station No. 1 good Switchgear Station No. 1 (retaining wall) fair Tan Hall good Tang Center good Tolman Hall poor UC Berkeley Art Museum very poor University Hall good University House fair Valley Life Sciences Building good Warren Hall poor Wellman Hall poor Wheeler Hall good Wurster Hall very poor   Estimated Building Repair or Replacement Costs These figures are very preliminary and require further detailed analysis and verification. Anna Head complex $11,000,000 Architects & Engineers Building 1,000,000 Art Gallery (old) 4,000,000 Barker Hall 14,000,000 Barrows Hall 13,000,000 2334 Bowditch 1,000,000 California Memorial Stadium 14,000,000 Campbell Hall 18,000,000 Campus Garage 4,000,000 2515 Channing 2,000,000 2521 Channing 7,000,000 2547 Channing 2,000,000 2241 College 1,000,000 2243 College ------ 2251 College 2,000,000 Davis Hall (new) 16,000,000 Doe Library Annex 10,000,000 Donner Laboratory (new) 9,000,000 Dwinelle Annex 2,000,000 Edwards Track Stadium 10,000,000 Eshleman Hall 13,000,000 Evans Hall 24,000,000 2223 Fulton 14,000,000 Giannini Hall 21,000,000 Greek Theatre 5,000,000 Haas Clubhouse 3,000,000 Hearst Gymnasium 16,000,000 Hertz Hall 8,000,000 Hesse Hall 14,000,000 Hildebrand Hall 19,000,000 Latimer Hall 25,000,000 LeConte Hall (old) 14,000,000 Lewis Hall 22,000,000 McLaughlin Hall 13,000,000 Mulford Hall 23,000,000 Naval Architecture Building 4,000,000 O'Brien Hall (link portion) 1,000,000 Parking Structure B 2,000,000 2222 Piedmont 1,000,000 2224 Piedmont 2,000,000 2232 Piedmont 2,000,000 2234 Piedmont 1,000,000 2240 Piedmont 2,000,000 Residence Halls, Unit I Dining Commons 6,000,000 Residence Halls, Unit II Dining Commons 6,000,000 Sather Tower (observation level) 4,000,000 Senior Hall 1,000,000 Silver Laboratory 15,000,000 Smyth House 1,000,000 Smyth-Fernwald buildings 7,000,000 Stanley Hall 24,000,000 Strawberry Canyon Center 1,000,000 Tolman Hall 20,000,000 UC Berkeley Art Museum 28,000,000 Warren Hall 10,000,000 Wellman Hall 14,000,000 Wurster Hall 17,000,000 Totals Total Seismic Retrofit or Replacement 544,000,000 Surge 95,000,000 Essential Deferred Maintenance 21,000,000 Demolition or Relocation 17,000,000 Subtotal 677,000,000 Plus Financing During Construction @ 3% 20,000,000 Total Seismic Program Costs, 1997 $697,000,000
				Campus Map RATINGS GOOD A GOOD seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in structural and nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would not significantly jeopardize life. Buildings and other structures with a GOOD rating would represent an acceptable level of earthquake safety, such that funds need not be spent to improve their seismic resistance to gain greater life safety. FAIR A FAIR seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in structural and nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would represent low life hazards. Buildings and other structures with a FAIR seismic rating would be given a low priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD. POOR A POOR seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures expected to sustain significant structural and nonstructural damage and/or result in falling hazards in a major seismic disturbance, representing appreciable life hazards. Such buildings or structures either would be given a high priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD, or would be considered for other abatement programs, such as reduction of occupancy. VERY POOR A VERY POOR seismic performance rating would apply to buildings and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in extensive structural and nonstructural damage, potential structural collapse, and/or falling hazards that would represent high life hazards. Such buildings or structures either would be given the highest priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD, or would be considered for other abatement programs, such as reduction of occupancy.
					[Summary] [Background] [Findings] [Plan of Action] [SAFER Program] [UC Berkeley Home]