Some students and faculty fear that the School of Public Health
building may be a danger to the public’s health.
Since 1978, the building’s seismic safety has been
evaluated six times, and each time received a “Very
Poor” rating, meaning that a major seismic disturbance is
anticipated to result in extensive damage and possible collapse.
According to the Southern California Earthquake Data Center, there
have been at least six major earthquakes in Southern California
during this time period.
The Graduate Students Association approved a resolution Nov. 30,
detailing complaints about lack of response from the university to
the building’s “Very Poor” seismic rating and
requesting that classes be relocated to a safer building until the
problem is remedied, said Ashley Peterson, co-president of the
Public Health Student Association, who authored the resolution.
“We have exhausted the normal procedures for appealing to
the administration, so the only avenue we have left is to increase
awareness in hopes of facilitating a safer structure,”
Peterson said. “We hope that more exposure will be more
pressure for the university to take action.”
In addition to PHSA’s efforts, students submitted a
petition with hundreds of signatures to various UC officials
earlier this month.
“We wanted to send the message that the risk we take to
pursue our education is simply unacceptable,” said Jaimie
Morse, a second-year public health masters student.
University of California seismic policy states that facilities
reported as “Poor” or “Very Poor” require
the responsible official to “immediately consider
alternatives to undiminished continued use and occupancy of the
buildings.” However, UCLA Administrative Vice Chancellor
Peter Blackman said that the occupancy of the building is not a
cause for concern.
“The seismic ratings of the Center for Health Sciences
complex (including the SPH building) do not suggest that it is
unsafe to occupy, but rather that the complex does require retrofit
or replacement in order to meet the seismic response standards set
forth in University of California policy. Assuring the safety of
our students, faculty, staff and visitors remains a matter of high
priority for the campus. To that end, we have long been engaged in
a comprehensive program to address seismic deficiencies throughout
the campus,” Blackman said.
The SPH building is not currently in the queue for construction,
according to the Web site for Capital Programs, responsible
construction around campus. Except for the CHS, nearly all other
structures on campus have been upgraded to a “Good”
seismic rating.
Blackman said a presentation to the UC Board of Regents in March
on the status of the seismic program at UCLA will address the
status of the entire CHS, including the SPH building.
Because it was believed that there were no plans for the SPH
building, faculty formed a Seismic Safety Committee to further
investigate the seismic status of the building last May, said Susan
Sorenson, chairwoman of the committee.
The committee has met with various administrators and introduced
its own resolution to the Academic Senate on Nov. 10 in order to
raise awareness about the issue, Sorenson said.
“Our committee has been exploring options for internal
strategies for letting people know what’s going on as well as
external strategies for action,” Sorenson said.
The short-term goal of the students and faculty is to relocate
all classes to safer building, Peterson said. The long-term goal is
to move the entire department into one safe building.
“Though we just want to relocate now, we hope to occupy a
new building within five years,” Peterson said. “It
really hurts the department to be located in many different
buildings because it fragments interdepartmental
communication.”
Two faculty members, including Sorenson, have opted to move
their classes to other buildings on campus next quarter.
“We operate under the assumption that UCLA is a safe
place, but this assumption is threatened when we have to work in
such a dangerous situation everyday,” Sorenson said.