CSU SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS

Rev. February 2024

CSU Seismic Requirements Quick Start Guide

Scope: These California State University (CSU) Seismic Requirements were established to implement

the Seismic Policy set by the Board of Trustees. The CSU Seismic Policies apply to all structures

within the bounds of a CSU physical master plan. To accomplish its seismic purpose, it requires

considerations of gravity loadings and response.

Applicability: If a University seeks to conduct operations at an off-campus location, the facility must

be evaluated according to the “Standards for Acquiring Buildings and Space” (Lease/Acquisition

Policy). Project funding source has no effect on peer review needs. CSU use is the determining

factor. (Sec. 3.2, 3.4, 8.0)

Planning for all Capital Projects: Planning for all projects shall address the options considered to

improve seismic performance beyond minimally required code conformance. The basis for

determination of the selected option shall be documented to Capital Planning, Design and

Construction (CPDC). (Sec. 8.0)

What Needs Seismic Peer Review: All major capital building projects require seismic peer review.

All minor capital building projects shall be seismically assessed; however, a Campus Deputy Building

Official (CDBO) may issue a written waiver for individual minor capital infrastructure and capital

projects that do not have material seismic issues. If there is any doubt, contact the campus Seismic

Peer Reviewer to assess a project’s peer review need. (Sec. 3.7, 4.0, 5.5)

Early Notice to Design Team of Seismic Design Coefficients and Risk Category: The CSU has

established campus-specific ‘seismic ground motion parameters’ that supersede California Building

Code (CBC) values and implements a conservative evaluation on CBC Structural Risk Category

assignments. As these can have a substantial effect on project costs, it is imperative that

Universities inform the Contractor and Design team proposer of these CSU seismic requirements at

the solicitation stage of a project. (Sec. 3.1, 3.3)

Peer Review: Peer review starts at project inception and continues until construction completion.

Peer review concurrence letters are issued at the completion of the Schematic Preliminary Design

and Construction Documents Phases, and during the course of construction on deferred submittals

that have a seismic component. (Sec. 4.0) All Seismic Review Board (SRB) peer review comments

require resolution. SRB construction phase submittals must be resolved prior to an occupancy permit

being issued. Engage the SRB peer review of the Owner Program Requirements (OPR) and/or

Feasibility Study (FS) concurrent with Project Request for Proposal (RFP) development for Design

Build (DB) or Collaborative Design Build (CDB) Deliveries. Secure Seismic Peer Reviewer’s

concurrence letters for the OPRs and/or FSs in advance of advertisement for DB or CDB proposals

and deliveries. (Sec. 3.8, 4.4, 5.18)

Purchase, Lease: The CSU Seismic Requirements have standards for the purchase, lease, license,

and another form of acquisition or occupancy of buildings or portions thereof. Compliance is

required before actual occupancy begins. (Sec. 1.0, 8.0)

Special Conditions: The CSU Seismic Requirements address many special conditions including

Geotechnical Investigations, Modular Buildings, Pre-engineered Structures, Temporary Use of

Buildings, Voluntary Retrofits, Use of Engineered Wood Products, and Designated Seismic Systems.

(Sec. 5.0)

Phased Retrofit: If the CSU Building Official approved retrofit completion date is not met, then at

their discretion, the CSU Building Official can direct the building to be vacated until such work is

completed and a certificate of occupancy issued. (Sec 5. 16)

Change of Use: Temporary use changes (<14 days) require a Special Event Permit. Coordinate with

CDBO. Renovations that alter an existing CBC Use and Occupancy require CDBO and SRB review.

Early concept review by SRB can readily provide an informal advisory assessment.

(Sec. 5.20)

CSU Seismic Priority Lists: Buildings on the CSU Priority Lists require seismic assessments to be

included as a part of the project scope of any renovation work. (Sec. 7.0)

CSU Seismic Emergency Response: In the event of a seismic or structural emergency, contact any

Seismic Peer Reviewer to assess the need for a mobilization response. If a mobilization response is

warranted, the CDBO functions will be temporarily assumed by the SRB to rapidly assess which

buildings are safe for use. (Sec. 6.0)

Responsibility of Design Professionals During Construction: Design professionals are expected to

directly notify the CSU construction manager and Seismic Peer Reviewer of potential construction

changes or modifications to the approved design documents that can substantively impact expected

structural performance and, where appropriate, directly contact the Seismic Peer Reviewer for

consideration of and concurrence with the changes as specific conditions warrant. (Sec. 3.10)

Table of Contents

1. CSU SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................. 1

2. SEISMIC REVIEW BOARD ..................................................................................................................... 3

3. CODES AND STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO CSU CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ................................................. 3

3.1 Minimum Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Application to New Buildings .................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Campus Seismic Coefficients ................................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Applications to Existing Buildings ............................................................................................................ 6

3.5 Code Enforcement ................................................................................................................................... 9

3.6 Active Faults .......................................................................................................................................... 10

3.7 Peer Review for Small Projects .............................................................................................................. 11

3.8 Peer Review Verification........................................................................................................................ 11

3.9 Engineer-of-Record................................................................................................................................ 12

3.10 Responsibility of Design Professionals during Construction .................................................................. 12

3.11 Special Inspections ................................................................................................................................ 13

3.12 Structural Observations ......................................................................................................................... 13

4. PEER REVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Scope of Review ..................................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Timing of Peer Review ........................................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Reports .................................................................................................................................................. 15

4.4 Responses and Corrective Actions ......................................................................................................... 16

4.5 Distribution of Reports .......................................................................................................................... 16

4.6 Design Professional Responsibility ........................................................................................................ 16

4.7 Resolution of Differences....................................................................................................................... 16

4.8 Peer Review Contract and Cost ............................................................................................................. 17

5. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ................................................................................................................. 17

5.1 Private Buildings Constructed on CSU Land........................................................................................... 17

5.2 Geotechnical Investigations .................................................................................................................. 17

5.3 EOR References to Geotechnical Investigation...................................................................................... 17

5.4 Changes and Additions to Published SRB Requirements ....................................................................... 18

5.5 Projects Not Warranting Peer Review ................................................................................................... 18

5.6 Demolition Projects ............................................................................................................................... 18

5.7 Material Properties of Existing Buildings .............................................................................................. 19

5.8 Design Build and CM at Risk Projects .................................................................................................... 19

5.9 Moment Frame Structural Systems ....................................................................................................... 20

5.10 Post-tensioned Structural Elements ...................................................................................................... 20

5.11 Alternate Methods of Construction ....................................................................................................... 20

5.12 Use of Engineered Wood Products ........................................................................................................ 21

5.13 Delegated Design and/or Deferred Approvals ...................................................................................... 21

5.14 Pre-engineered Structures ..................................................................................................................... 22

5.15 Designated Seismic Systems .................................................................................................................. 24

5.16 Phased and Voluntary Retrofit .............................................................................................................. 24

5.17 Final Approval ....................................................................................................................................... 25

5.18 Earthquake Soil Pressures ..................................................................................................................... 25

5.19 Temporary Use of Buildings and Structures .......................................................................................... 26

5.20 Suspended Ceilings ................................................................................................................................ 26

6. POST-EARTHQUAKE REVIEWS ........................................................................................................... 27

7. CSU SEISMIC BUILDING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES ............................................................................. 28

8. PROJECT PLANNING ......................................................................................................................... 30

8.1 Priority Lists ........................................................................................................................................... 30

8.2 Project Considerations........................................................................................................................... 32

9. SEISMIC SAFETY STANDARDS FOR ACQUIRING BUILDING AND SPACE .................................................... 33

9.1 Types of Acquisitions ............................................................................................................................. 33

9.2 Acceptable Evaluation Documents ........................................................................................................ 35

Attachment A ....................................................................................................................................... 38

California State University Seismic Review Board ............................................................................ 38

ATTACHMENT B ...................................................................................................................................... 39

CSU Seismic Requirements values for use on all projects subject to the 2022 edition of the California Building

Code ...................................................................................................................................................... 39

Table 1 - CSU Campus Seismic Ground Motion Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Parameters ............. 40

ATTACHMENT C....................................................................................................................................... 49

California State University Campus Assignments of Seismic Peer Reviewers .................................................. 49

ATTACHMENT D ...................................................................................................................................... 50

Seismic Performance Levels for Existing Buildings ....................................................................................... 50

ATTACHMENT E ....................................................................................................................................... 52

Technical Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 52

A. American Concrete Institute 318 Requirements .................................................................................. 52

B. Post-Tensioning Institute Recommendations ...................................................................................... 52

C. California Building Standards Code .................................................................................................... 53

D. Recommended Standards of Care & Practice ...................................................................................... 53

ATTACHMENT F ....................................................................................................................................... 55

References.............................................................................................................................................. 55

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 1

CSU Seismic Requirements

Originally Adopted December 8, 2000; revised July 1, 2023

1. CSU SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS

The California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees adopted the following policy to apply to

all CSU construction projects:

RESOLVED, by the Trustees of the California State University, that the

following policy is adopted:

It is the policy of the Trustees of the California State University that to the

maximum extent feasible by present earthquake engineering practice to

acquire, build, maintain, and rehabilitate buildings and other facilities that

provide an acceptable level of earthquake safety for students, employees,

and the public who occupy these buildings and other facilities at all

locations where University operations and activities occur. The standard for

new construction is that it meets the life safety and damageability

objectives of Title 24 provisions; the standard for existing construction is

that it provides reasonable life safety protection, consistent with that for

typical new buildings. The California State University shall cause to be

performed independent technical peer reviews of the seismic aspects of all

construction projects from their design initiation, including both new

construction and remodeling, for conformance to good seismic resistant

practices consistent with this policy. The feasibility of all construction

projects shall include seismic safety implications and shall be determined by

weighing the practicality and cost of protective measures against the

severity and probability of injury resulting from seismic occurrences.

[Approved by the Trustees of California State University at its May 18-19, 1993

meeting (RTCPBG 05-93-13).]

These CSU requirements are the basis for CSU seismic actions. CSU undertook the assessment of

the seismic hazard posed by the University’s building stock at the direction of Governor

Deukmejian in 1992 with resources provided by the Legislature in 1993. Since then, CSU has had

a vigorous program of reducing the unacceptable seismic risk of its owned, constructed,

acquired, and leased buildings based on these CSU requirements’ enforcement to acceptable

levels. Assessment of seismic issues also entails gravity and other environmental loads as

necessary companions, which are included in the assessment.

The CSU Seismic Requirements describe the CSU framework used to implement the Trustees’

Seismic Requirements. Key objectives and requirements are excerpted below.

Additional background information and direction to the related policy requirements are

provided for each.

1. The goal is, to the maximum extent feasible by present earthquake

engineering practice, to provide an acceptable level of earthquake

safety when acquiring, building, maintaining, and rehabilitating

buildings and other facilities.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 2

Discussion: Actions necessary to accomplish this goal were initiated in

1992 for existing buildings and will continue until all CSU existing

buildings meet the seismic safety objective of the Trustees and all new

construction meets this goal. Each year capital expenditures are

recommended until the unacceptable safety hazard buildings are

seismically retrofitted or removed from service. The Seismic Review

Board is responsible to the Chancellor for review of expected seismic

performance characteristics of all CSU buildings and advises the

Chancellor of actions necessary to achieve an acceptable level of seismic

risk for CSU buildings. The SRB is addressed in Section 2. Safe use of

buildings subjected to possible earthquake damage is addressed in

Section 6. Other special issues are addressed in Section 5. Standards for

the acquisition and lease of buildings are given in Section 9.

2. The standard for:

• New construction is that it meets the life safety and damageability

objectives of Title 24 applicable provisions.

• Renovation and maintenance construction is that it provides

reasonable life safety protection consistent with that for typical new

buildings.

Discussion: The California Building Code (CBC) and the California Existing

Building Code (CEBC) provide construction standards for new

construction and renovation of existing buildings, respectively.

(The implementation of these standards is addressed in Section 3.)

3. Independent technical peer reviews shall be conducted concerning the

seismic aspects of all construction projects from their design initiation,

including new construction, maintenance, and remodeling, for

conformance to good seismic-resistant practices consistent with these

CSU requirements.

Discussion: The SRB is delegated responsibility to conduct independent

technical peer reviews of all CSU construction projects. The conduct of

seismic peer reviews is addressed in Section 4.

4. The feasibility of all construction projects shall include seismic safety

implications and shall be determined by weighing the practicality and

cost of protective measures against the severity and probability of injury

resulting from seismic occurrences.

Discussion: The CBC establishes minimum standards for building safety.

The CSU Standard may require more demanding considerations than

what current CBC and referenced technical standards require where the

SRB review indicates it is necessary to achieve the Trustees’ standard of

seismic performance. Section 9 of the CSU Seismic Requirements

addresses the incorporation of seismic design and review into facilities

planning and campus development.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 3

2. SEISMIC REVIEW BOARD

The SRB was established in 1992. It is charged with implementing the independent peer review

requirements of the Trustees’ Seismic Requirements later adopted. The Board of Trustees also

advises CSU on structural engineering issues for specific projects. Membership is comprised of

professionals not otherwise affiliated with the University system. Board members are appointed

by and serve at the discretion of the Chancellor. The Board’s current membership is listed in

Attachment A.

3. CODES AND STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO CSU CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

By law, California State University is required to enforce the current edition of the adopted

applicable elements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 in its entirety as adopted by

the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), henceforth known as the CBSC unless

specifically noted otherwise. To facilitate this legal requirement, the CSU has adopted, as policy,

selected additional sections of Chapter 1 Scope and Administration of the CBC related to code

administration, code enforcement, and code interpretation, see California State Policy

“PolicyStat” for listing of sections adopted as policy. These Seismic Requirements supplement

the requirements of the Code (Parts 1 through 12). Where requirements differ, the more

restrictive shall apply.

The CBSC applies to all construction activity undertaken by CSU and applies to both seismic and

non-seismic requirements for construction. The two sections address the seismic design of

structures: the requirements for new buildings are found in Chapter 16 of Part 2, Volume 2 of

the California Code of Regulations, known as the California Building Code (CBC); and the

requirements for existing retrofit/renovation and repair to campus buildings are found in

Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations, termed the California Existing Building Code

(CEBC).

The CSU Building Official (known hereafter as the Building Official) is based in the Chancellor’s

Office and is responsible for the enforcement of the Code and these CSU Seismic Requirements.

A Campus Deputy Building Official (CDBO) is designated on each campus and has the delegated

responsibility under the direction of the Building Official to enforce the code at the associated

campus and those additional sites under campus jurisdiction. When an emergency occurs at the

campus resulting in earthquake damage, an SRB member serves as Emergency Designated

Building Official (EDBO) to assure the independence of judgment on safety-related issues.

Designated historic structures may be subject to the State Historic Building Code; these

requirements are in addition to the same life safety objectives as provided in CBC and CEBC.

3.1 Minimum Requirements

The current edition of the CBC provides the minimum requirements for the regulation of

all California State University construction activity. It has 12 sections, including those for

new (Part 2), existing (Part 10), and historic buildings (Part 8). By common practice, the

CBSC Code refers to the entirety of the 12 Parts. It applies to all construction, whether it

is new, or an addition, modification, or alteration of an existing structure, including both

permitted and non-permit-requiring actions.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 4

The seismic requirements of CEBC for existing buildings are less stringent than CBC

Requirements for new buildings. The intent of CEBC is to retrofit and repair existing

structures that will yield an essential life-safety level of performance. Essential life

safety seeks to provide design performance that will allow building occupants in a

seismic event to exit the structure safely. CBC Part 2, Chapter 16 may be used for

modifications of the International Building Code (IBC) existing building, if so desired.

Essential life safety does not necessarily mean that the occupants will be uninjured or

not need medical attention. A structure is presumed to achieve this level of performance

where: although significant damage to the structure may have occurred, some margin

against total collapse remains, even though damage may not be economical to repair;

major structural elements have not become dislodged or fallen to pose a life-safety

threat; and, non-structural systems or elements, which are heavy enough to cause

severe injuries either within or outside the building, have not become dislodged so as to

pose a life-safety threat. Window glass, roofing tile, and elements of non-structural

cladding systems are not generally considered to be a falling hazard to be included

within this category of concern, except over primary entrances and exits. Very heavy

cladding, such as precast concrete or prefabricated scrim panels, should be considered

falling hazards.

The CBC-required seismic provisions can be modified by the University to provide a

higher level of seismic performance and shall be in compliance with the intent and

purpose of this code but may not be modified to provide a lower level of seismic

performance. Part 2 Division I Chapter

1 allows the Building Official to enforce other

provisions as long as they do not diminish the safety of the facility. At any time when the

Building Official chooses to exercise the authority of Section 104.10 Modifications, the

basis for the modification must be reviewed and approved by the SRB prior to the

approval of the construction plans. If any such modifications are considered, they should

be provided to the design team as soon as possible, preferably before the design begins.

Consistent with CEBC, the retrofit or repair of a structure to essential life safety as a

level of expected structural performance intends that occupants will be able to exit the

structure safely following an earthquake.

Special Note: CBC Section

1604.5 requires the [Structural] Risk Category to be

determined for every building. Table

1604.5 characterizes the nature of the Risk

Category for various occupancies and uses. Occupant load is typically calculated per CBC

Chapter 10 occupancy values based on use and square footage. Once the occupant load

is determined, Table 1604.5 is applied to assign the Risk Category for structural design

purposes.

Note that the occupant load determined by the design team (architect) is based on

fire-related considerations and confirmed by the CDBO.

CBC Table 1604.5 refers to “buildings and other structures containing educational

occupancies above 12th grade with occupancy load greater than 500.”

These requirements broadly apply to all CSU buildings with educational occupancies

and/or instructional facilities, including non-state-funded buildings, dormitories (with

educational occupancies above 12th grade and occupancy load greater than 500), dining

centers, student unions, student recreation centers, student health centers, office

buildings, stadia, aquatic facilities, etc. When a building exceeds this threshold, it shall

be classified as Risk Category III, unless other designations trigger a more restrictive

designation.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 5

Certain CSU operations, including emergency operations centers, public safety buildings,

water storage facilities, and pump structures required to maintain water pressure for

fire suppression will trigger a Category IV use classification.

Exception: Parking Structures: The occupancy threshold trigger for Risk Category III

applied to parking structures is 5,000 occupants as calculated by CBC Chapter 10.

Requiring a Category III inclusion at 500 occupants for the inherently short-term,

transient occupancy of a parking structure use is inconsistent with the CBC intent to

provide supplemental, concentrated occupancy protection otherwise broadly afforded

to college and university adult education facilities.

Parking structures may be designed for Risk Category II provided there is no

sub-occupancy of Risk Category IV and not more than 10 percent of any other

non-parking occupancy of Risk Category III, see Section 3.1, Exception.

3.2 Application to New Buildings

These policy requirements apply to all construction, whether new or modification of an

existing building. Additions to an existing building that are seismically separated from

that existing building shall meet the requirements for a new building. An addition may

be considered seismically separated if the response of its structural elements will not be

directly impacted by those of the existing building, either because they are not

physically connected, or the physical separation is sufficient to avoid contact during an

earthquake response. The addition’s foundation systems may be in contact if they are at

or below grade and both existing and new foundations have been evaluated to avoid

surcharging each other.

3.3 Campus Seismic Coefficients

CBC Chapter 16 and CEBC Part 10 require seismic coefficients for structural calculations.

CSU has adopted specific seismic parameters (Attachment B) to be used at all sites

within the contiguous portions of a given campus that supersede those provided in the

CBC unless justified by the project geotechnical engineer and approved by the SRB.

For new buildings, the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE

) Ground

Motion Response Acceleration parameters (S

and S

) and the Design Earthquake (DE)

Ground Motion Response Acceleration parameters (S

and S

) shall not be less than the

respective BSE-2N (MCE

) and BSE-1N (DE) values

given in Table 1 of Attachment B for

the Site Class corresponding to the site-specific subsurface conditions of the building

location. Corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration parameter values (PGA

and PGA

) to

be used for the evaluation of potential geologic/seismic hazards are also given in Table 1

of Attachment B.

Similarly, the ground motion response acceleration parameters used for evaluation

and/or retrofit of existing buildings shall not be less than the respective BSE-C (S

and

) and BSE-R (S

and S

) values

given in Table 1 of Attachment B for the Site Class

corresponding to the site-specific subsurface conditions of the building location.

As specified in the CBC, the BSE-C and BSE-R parameters are related to the hazard levels

of 5% and 20% probabilities of exceedance (P

) in 50 years, respectively, and are not

constrained by BSE-2N (MCE

) and BSE-1N (DE) values. Corresponding Peak Ground

Acceleration parameter values (PGA

and PGA

) to be used for the evaluation of potential

geologic/seismic hazards at the respective hazard level are also given in Table 1 of

Attachment B.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 6

The campus seismic ground motion parameters given in Table 1 of Attachment B

correspond to reference rock Site Class BC (V

S30

= 760 m/s) as utilized by the United

States Geological Survey (USGS) in developing the U.S. Seismic Design Maps, as well as

Site Classes C and D, with adjustments made using site coefficients F

and F

per

ASCE/SEI 7-16 Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2, respectively, and F

PGA

, per ASCE/SEI 7-16

Table 11.8-1. The SMS and SM1 values given in Table 1 of Attachment B for Site Class BC

represent the mapped spectral response acceleration parameters at short periods (SS)

and at a period of 1 second (S1), respectively.

The site-specific subsurface conditions are to be determined for the building/facility site

by the geotechnical engineer as part of the project’s development. Site Class at a given

building/facility site location shall be determined based on site-specific soil and/or rock

properties data following the Site Class definitions given in ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 20. If soil

and/or rock properties information is not available in adequate detail to designate the

Site Class per ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 20, the Default D Site Class shall be used unless

geologic/geotechnical information indicates that Site Class E or F ground conditions may

be present at the site that could trigger the need for site-specific hazard analyses.

For locations not covered in Attachment B, the University shall request and the CSU

Seismic Review Board shall provide such values for design.

Use of the seismic ground motion parameters given in Table 1 of Attachment B satisfies

the provisions of ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 11, Section 11.4.8, requiring site-specific ground

motion hazard and/or site response analyses for structure locations at CSU campuses

for any Site Class except as provided below. Site-specific ground motion hazard and/or

site response analyses are required for Site Classes E and F ground conditions.

Site-specific ground motion hazard and/or site response analyses are permitted for any

Site Class if warranted by the nature or special characteristics of a project; however, the

need for such site-specific analyses, as well as the methodology for these analyses and

analysis results, shall be subject to peer review by the geotechnical member of the CSU

Seismic Review Board.

3.4 Applications to Existing Buildings

The California Code of Regulations, the California Existing Building Code (CEBC), Sections

317 through 323, governs work on CSU existing buildings and provides a level of life

safety generally consistent with that of new buildings, but not particularly to achieve

any other function, maintenance, or damage limitation objectives. These CEBC sections

reference sections of ASCE 41-17, but they supersede the application of ASCE 41 as the

basis of the design directly unless SRB approves.

Whenever a construction project on an existing building is planned, CEBC requires, if any

of the triggers defined in Section 317.3.1 are exceeded, a two-level structural

assessment of the seismic performance of the building, and possibly its modification, to

assure adequate seismic performance of the modified building.

For projects that include new construction that is not structurally connected to

above-grade existing elements, that is adequately separated from the existing elements

to avoid possible contact, and that share only below-grade basement and/or foundation

elements, CBC Part 2, Chapter 16 applies to the new construction.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 7

Seismic improvements are not required for the adjacent above-grade existing elements

unless required for another reason. It must be verified by rational analysis that loads

imposed on the existing below-grade structural elements by the new structure do not

compromise the gravity load supporting and lateral load resisting performance of the

existing structure as determined using the provisions of CEBC.

Even when no structural modifications are planned, CEBC may require evaluation and

modification of the structural system as a part of the construction project. The SRB has

determined for some specifically identified seismic priority buildings that the triggers for

CEBC are predetermined to require its application. The lists of such buildings are

discussed in Section 7.

Through this regularized assessment procedure, the University seeks to ensure, over

time, that its building stock will align with the current code-defined standard of

performance desired.

When the planned construction project incorporates existing structural elements into the

lateral force-resisting system of the modified structure, CEBC allows the use of the

resistance capacity of all existing structural elements that participate in the building’s

seismic response, even when those elements do not meet CBC requirements for new

construction. The provisions of CEBC apply to the entire structure.

The resistance capacity of the existing structural elements may be included in the lateral

force-resisting system using CEBC. New and existing elements may be jointly considered

to be part of the lateral force-resisting system only when the load-deformation

characteristics of each of the elements are considered and the forces are apportioned in

accordance with their relative rigidities. The rigidities assumed should be representative

of the conditions, including deterioration, and expected to exist at the maximum

seismically-induced cyclic deformations expected to occur at the seismic performance

level being assessed.

Building renovation cost levels defined in CEBC Section 317.3.1, Item 1, are cumulative

for alterations occurring after the effective date of the 1995 CBC. Any building alteration

whose cost exceeds the threshold requirement of this Item 1 must be reviewed to

determine if structural modifications are required to meet CEBC seismic performance

requirements. This requires an evaluation to assess that the building’s anticipated

seismic performance is adequate and may require a retrofit of the building.

Seismic retrofit is required only when the evaluation determines the building lacks

sufficient seismic force resistance to achieve the specified performance levels.

Determination if a Seismic Assessment is Required for Existing Building

Modification:

The assessment of whether a proposed modification of an existing building requires

seismic assessment and potential seismic retrofit depends on whether any of the five

triggers for the project in Section 317.3.1 are exceeded:

1. Total construction cost for the building, not including the cost of furnishings,

fixtures, equipment, or normal maintenance, exceeds 25 percent of the

construction cost for the replacement of the existing building. The changes are

cumulative for past modifications to the building that occurred after the

adoption of the 1995 California Building Code and did not require seismic

retrofit.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 8

2. There are changes in the risk category.

3. The modification to the structural components increases the seismic forces in, or

strength requirements of, any structural component of the existing structure by

more than 10 percent cumulative since the original construction unless the

component has the capacity to resist the increased forces determined following

Section 319. If the building's seismic base shear capacity has been increased

since the original construction, the percent change in base shear may be

calculated relative to the increased value.

4. Structural elements need repair where the damage has reduced the lateral-load-

resisting capacity of the structural system by more than 10 percent.

5. Changes in live or dead load increase story shear by more than 10 percent.

If any of the five triggers are exceeded or applicable, then an assessment is required that

could lead to a seismic retrofit being required for the proposed work to be allowed.

Whether Items 2 through 5 apply is determined by the design team. Item 1 requires an

assessment of all building construction-related activity since the effective date of the

1995 CBC (January 1, 1998). The key metric is whether the cumulative work done is 25%

or more of the cost of construction for the replacement of the building.

Item 1 shall be evaluated as follows:

a. Determine the current replacement cost of the building in its current condition,

not as improved.

b. Determine the cost of qualifying work for all projects since completion of the

building or January 1, 1998, whichever is later, including the total cost of the

proposed project. Prior project costs are not inflated to the present day. If the

ratio of the qualifying costs plus the proposed project to the replacement cost is

less than 15%, then the trigger is deemed not to have been exceeded.

This approach simplifies the trigger evaluation by eliminating the need to inflate

past costs to current costs.

c. Alternatively, determine the regional Engineering News Record (ENR)

construction cost index applicable to each qualifying project to inflate it to the

present cost basis. From these values for each project, compute the equivalent

present-day cost estimate, including the proposed project. If the ratio of

qualifying costs to the replacement cost is less than 25%, then the trigger has

not been exceeded.

The cost basis for Section 317.3.1, Item 1, does not include normal maintenance work:

ordinary upkeep and repair work such as replacement in kind, repainting, re-plastering,

and re-roofing. However, any work caused by an earthquake is not considered as normal

maintenance.

For either b or c above, if the building has been retrofitted to then-current CEBC

requirements, then the date for assessing qualifying costs begins when this work was

completed.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 9

If at any time, the construction cost of the project exceeds that used in either b or c and

the ratio is more than 15% or 25%, as applicable, the Building Official shall determine if

this is because of cost escalation or increase of the project scope; if the latter, then the

project must be reassessed to determine if the revised seismic retrofit cost ratio requires

evaluation and modification of the design. If it does, then the building shall be

immediately evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Section 7, and placed the

buildings on List 1, List 2, or No List.

When a seismic retrofit satisfying the requirements of Table 317.5 is completed, then

the cumulative total cost ratio is reset to zero and the effective date in Section 317.3.1,

Item 1, is advanced to the completion date of the seismic retrofit.

3.5 Code Enforcement

California State University is responsible for the enforcement of the CBSC. By delegation,

one person is designated as the Deputy Building Official (DBO) for that campus and its

other administrative locations. While the SRB is principally concerned with structural

issues related to design and modifications of new and existing buildings, design teams

must consider all 12 Parts.

When deemed necessary, the Building Official shall appoint a member of the SRB during

an emergency as an Emergency Designated Building Official (EDBO), see Section 6.

The EDBO is responsible for enforcing the requirements of CBSC to make the final

determination as it relates to structural and seismic safety when buildings or portions of

buildings at the campus can continue to be used or re-occupied. Another member of the

SRB may provide the technical review of the seismic aspects of projects and reports

findings to the EDBO, see Section 4.

CEBC Section 319.12 for existing state buildings states that, notwithstanding other

requirements of the code, voluntary modifications to the lateral force resisting system

are permitted under certain conditions. Among these is that:

5. A dangerous condition is not created.

CEBC Section 3.16.6 states that:

“… buildings in existence … may have the existing use or occupancy continued if such

occupancy was legal …, provided such continued use is not dangerous to life.”

The term dangerous is not defined as used in these sections within the CEBC. The 2022

CBC defines dangerous as any building structure or portion thereof that meets any of the

conditions described below:

1. The building or structure has collapsed, has partially collapsed, has moved off

its foundation, or lacks the necessary support from the ground.

2. There exists a significant risk of collapsed detachment or dislodgment of any

portion, member, appurtenance, or ornamentation of the building or structure

under permanent, routine, or frequent loads; under actual loads already in

effect; or under snow, wind, rain, flood, earthquake, or another environmental

load when such loads are imminent. (2022 edition, CBC Section 202)

CSU has determined that for its buildings undergoing seismic upgrades, this term is

defined as:

A building is deemed dangerous if it does not satisfy the ASCE 41 S-5 performance

criterion based on BSE-R.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 10

Such a dangerous building determination must be peer-reviewed for accuracy based on

Method B of CEBC Section 321. Method A may be used for the design of the voluntary

seismic upgrade.

3.6 Active Faults

Faults capable of rupture can traverse campuses where construction is planned. It is

recognized that the locations of future fault ruptures are not specifically known, but

locations of past ruptures are good indicators of where the fault rupture may occur.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) delineates earthquake study zones along known

active faults in California. An active earthquake fault is defined as one that has exhibited

surface displacement within Holocene time (about 11,000 years) as determined by the

CGS under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990, previously called the Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, or another authoritative source, federal, state, or local

governmental agency. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the location of new

structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and to mitigate

thereby the hazards associated with fault rupture. Zone boundaries are generally drawn

about 500 feet from major faults and 200 to 300 feet away from well-defined minor

faults.

State agencies, including CSU, with jurisdiction over sites within an earthquake fault

zone regulate the development of projects within these zones, and the Trustees will

withhold development permits for sites within these zones until geologic investigations

demonstrate those sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future

faulting. These maps are available online from the CGS web address given in

Attachment F. In the case of a fault not zoned by the CGS, CSU will determine whether

an individual fault is active when there is sufficient evidence of an active fault traversing

a campus, and it will apply the requirements for investigations pending evaluation by

CGS of its status. The SRB determines the sufficient level of evidence regarding possible

fault zones and maintains maps of zones determined to warrant treatment as a fault

hazard zone. Currently enforced additional seismic hazard zones are identified in Table

of Attachment B under the heading Active Fault Zone.

When an active fault traverses a campus within a defined seismic zone as determined by

CGS or by the SRB for the subject fault:

All planned construction within the Earthquake Fault Zone shall have

detailed geologic studies of the building site to determine if a fault trace

passes through, or is within

50 feet of, the building perimeter. Such studies

shall be completed under the peer review requirements of Section

The distance from a building to a fault is measured from the closest point of the

building, including its foundation, to the fault along a line normal to the plane of the

fault. No new building shall be constructed, or the existing building’s envelope

extended, where the closest portion of the building, including foundations, is less than

50 feet from an active fault. Where the geological assessment is determined to support

a smaller value than

50 feet, the SRB may approve the value on a case-by-case basis.

Campuses within a known active fault zone are identified in Table

of Attachment B.

The Building Official and SRB must approve the selection of the engineer for a site study

within a seismic zone before the initiation of the investigation. Once a geological study

is completed and the Seismic Peer Reviewer accepts the results, this study will provide a

basis for the design of the subject building for no more than five years after acceptance

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 11

of the report by the Seismic Peer Reviewer, or a new study must be completed to

determine findings for the site consistent with current scientific and field investigations.

Within an Earthquake Fault Zone, CEBC applies wherever the structure is to be modified

without regard to its extent or purpose, notwithstanding the allowances of CEBC Section

317.3. Normal building maintenance and repairs of mechanical systems do not

themselves trigger retrofit requirements unless the replacement unit outweighs the

original unit by more than 10% and/or the supporting structural elements are altered.

For new determinations or relocations of fault locations at a campus, the SRB shall

evaluate the incremental hazard posed to all existing buildings within an Earthquake

Fault Zone and include this hazard in their overall evaluation of the seismic risk of the

building.

Where a portion of the building is removed as a part of the building modifications, then

the new perimeter of the modified building shall be used to determine if these

conditions are met. Such actions will trigger CEBC consideration without consideration of

the allowances for the triggers of CEBC Section 317.5.1.

These procedures apply only to buildings that are occupied, and not to storage buildings

that are not occupied by staff except for placement or removal of stored materials;

buildings where maintenance functions or other work are performed do not qualify for

this exemption. Under no circumstances should such buildings house chemical or

hazardous substances that, if released, could pose a toxic threat to the area around the

building.

3.7 Peer Review for Small Projects

For projects with a total project cost of $3,000,000 or less, and for any amount of

building element replacements-in-kind, or repairs and maintenance projects, the CDBO

is obligated to evaluate the nature of the contemplated work, and they may self-certify

compliance with these requirements (see also Section

5.5 Projects Not Warranting Peer

Review). The CBDO will notify the Building Official in writing of this determination. If the

proposed work involves increases in weight from that in place or modifies the structural

system as stated by the designer-of-record, then peer review is not optional. This topic

is discussed in more detail in Section 4.

3.8 Peer Review Verification

Verification that the construction documents comply with the CSU Seismic

requirements, including an acceptable plan check for compliance with the CBC and/or

CEBC, is a prerequisite to construction initiation. Seismic peer review verification shall

be documented by a letter of concurrence signed by the Peer Review. The letter shall

include specific references to the document set reviewed (i.e., date, revision number,

sheets, identification of the Engineer-of-Record (EOR), etc.) sufficient to identify the

project and the specific document set considered in the peer review. As construction

continues, the Seismic Peer Reviewer shall review as appropriate any changes that occur

to the design to assure that they are consistent with the approved plans and with CSU

Policy.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 12

3.9 Engineer-of-Record

All aspects of the structural design of a CSU project shall be under the responsible

charge of one licensed California Architect, Civil Engineer, or Structural Engineer that

serves as the EOR for the project through the completion of construction. The EOR shall

be determined at the beginning of the design process and shall not be changed in the

course of construction without approval by CSU. The structural design includes the

design of the structural frame, lateral force-resisting system, foundations, structural

aspects of the building skin/façade, and support and anchorage of equipment, building

systems, and architectural features. The EOR has responsibility for the structural aspects

of the entire project and must sign and stamp all final documents, including deferred

submittals, see also Section 5.13.

3.10 Responsibility of Design Professionals during Construction

The CSU recognizes that regardless of the project delivery method employed, the

approved plans for each project may be modified or supplemented during the

construction process. The University expects each licensed design professional engaged

in the design to review and approve all such modifications proposed within their area of

responsibility as a professional obligation before its execution. CSU project management

team members do not have the authority to approve substantive changes during

construction without the approval of the design professional and, where necessary, the

Seismic Peer Reviewer. The CSU project manager will document these approvals in

writing if the design team has not done so.

To assure the structural seismic performance of its buildings is consistent with the

approved plans, CSU looks to the design professionals (including Structural-,

Component-, Mechanical-, and Geotechnical-Engineers of Record and

Architect-of-Record) to directly notify the CSU of potential construction changes or

modifications to the approved design documents that can substantively impact

expected seismic or gravity load response performance.

CSU requires the responsible EOR, or equivalent person (e.g. Component Engineers of

Records), to make the structural/seismic assessments and to directly contact the Seismic

Peer Reviewer for consideration of and concurrence in the changes as specific

conditions warrant. This is similar to the process described for Delegated Design and/or

Deferred Approvals in Section

5.13. CSU has determined that all substantive changes to

the foundation system, vertical load-bearing system, and/or lateral load-resisting

system require such notification. This responsibility is a non-delegable professional duty

of the EOR regardless of the project delivery contract employed.

In some cases, the EOR, and/or contractor may advise the CSU that the original Plan

Check Agency review documents that have altered plans for compliance with the

approved design and the CBSC; delegated and/or deferred items from the original

approved plans are in this category. This is consistent with the delegated and/or

deferred approval procedures unless the change involves the seismic force-resisting

system in which case the Seismic Peer Reviewer must be involved. CSU shall cause these

reviews to be performed when it deems them necessary, which is any modification that

could be questioned on its technical impact on the structural performance of the

building. Each member of the project team, including the contractor, design team

members, and CSU project manager, will have various schedule imperatives. It is

important that where review or further plan check review is deemed necessary, that it

be initiated promptly, and that sufficient time is allocated to complete the review.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 13

3.11 Special Inspections

Chapter 17 of the CBSC requires the design professional to prepare special inspection

and testing requirements for a proposed project, the Owner to confirm responsibility for

their completion, and the Building Official to approve the proposed plan. CBSC requires

these to be listed on the permit drawings. The materials sections of the CBSC and many

referenced standards therein contain requirements for inspection that must also be

considered in the development of the testing and inspection program for construction.

The Chancellor’s Office maintains model forms that can be used as the basis for

preparing the required Special Inspections Program. Where there are deferred

approvals items, the special inspection requirements specific to the deferred work must

be prepared and submitted with the design documents for each deferred item. Special

inspections do not constitute Structural Observation.

3.12 Structural Observations

Structures requiring structural observation are identified in CBC Chapter 17 and as

required by the Building Official in consultation with the Seismic Peer Reviewer.

As discussed in Seismic Requirements Section 3.1, many CSU projects will trigger this

requirement because they are Risk Category III structures. Some projects will involve

structural observation of nonstructural components and systems. With the concurrence

of the Seismic Peer Reviewer, the approved structural design shall specify structural

observations required by the CBC and those recommended by the design team and

required by the Building Official. Component engineers of record shall specify structural

observations applicable to their designs on their drawings. This concurrence shall be

obtained prior to initiating structural observations. Unless otherwise agreed to by the

Building Official, the structural observation shall be performed by the design professional

specifying the structural observation. Documentation of the structural observations and

a statement regarding the resolution of observed deficiencies shall be submitted to the

Building Official.

4. PEER REVIEW

Peer review is a mandatory part of the construction process of the California State University

system. The seismic peer review is independent of the plan check requirement of the CBSC whose

principal focus is conformance with the CBSC requirements, not necessarily the total building

seismic performance and its reliability. CSU performs both independent peer reviews for fire and

panic safety, Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) aspects of the design, as well as other

plan checks for Code compliance.

Peer review is to be performed for all building projects and all engineered structures, such as

trailers and bridges. Other construction activities may be referred for seismic peer review at the

discretion of the Building Official or CDBO. If the Seismic Peer Reviewer concludes that a seismic

peer review is not required, then a letter to this effect will be issued. This letter is an adequate

record of peer review of the project, provided the scope of the project does not change.

The purpose of peer review is to assure project quality, to provide a measure of additional

assurance regarding the performance and safety of the completed project, to provide advice on

methods and means, and to provide relevant specific campus information. When the peer

review of the design has been completed but aspects of the design are not complete because of

deferred submittals, discovered conditions, etc., then these should be identified in the reviewed

permit documentation and reviewed during the construction period when identified by the

EOR’s evaluation or the Seismic Peer Reviewer’s observations as having implications for the

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 14

seismic performance.

Peer review is not intended to and does not replace the design responsibilities of the EOR.

Peer review is not a plan check for detailed determination of the compliance of the developed

plans to the requirements of applicable codes and standards.

Peer review is an objective technical review by an independent, knowledgeable reviewer(s)

experienced in structural design, analysis, and performance issues. The reviewer(s) shall

examine the available information on the condition of the building, the basic engineering

concepts employed, and the recommendations for action. This may include any structural

issues, seismic and non-seismic, necessary to achieve adequate building structural performance.

The SRB has assigned individual Seismic Peer Reviewers for each campus (Attachment C) and

will assign Seismic Peer Reviewers for locations not listed as needed.

The principal Seismic Peer reviewer may assign one or more qualified individuals to provide

independent review under their direction. The SRB will periodically review such assignments.

A Seismic Peer Reviewer performs a different service than an organization’s internal technical

review, a Building Official’s plan review, or a third-party plan check review. The peer review

provides the EOR with a qualified technical opinion on the adequacy of the structural

engineering approaches used and the resulting design. The peer review is not intended to check

the project for code compliance or to validate computations or conduct a detailed examination

of the retrofit design. Any such actions by the Seismic Peer Reviewer will be limited to those

deemed required to complete her/his responsibilities. A peer review is not the same as value

engineering but may include elements of value engineering. The purpose of value engineering is

to suggest alternative systems, materials, and methods for a project to reduce its cost or

improve its seismic performance. The purpose of the peer review is to assure that the seismic

response characteristics of the building are well-considered, appropriate, and acceptable.

Because the Seismic Peer Reviewer is responsible to review the expected seismic performance

characteristics of the buildings, in light of the Trustees’ Seismic Requirements and specific CSU

policies adopted to achieve this purpose, the review may exceed minimum building code

requirements in assessing the performance of the overall structural system(s).

The Seismic Peer Reviewer is responsible and accountable solely to the SRB and CSU Trustees

for their actions. Although the Seismic Peer Reviewer may advise the CSU Deputy Building

Official and CDBO on seismic-related code compliance issues, it is the Building Official who

retains the responsibility and authority for code compliance determination.

4.1 Scope of Review

Documents submitted for review shall include available construction documents,

geotechnical reports, observations of the condition of the structure, all inspection and

testing reports (including methods of sampling), analyses prepared by the EOR and

consultants, and the retrofit or repair design. Peer review is both site- and

building-specific and considers proximity to faults, and soils/geologic conditions.

The expected seismic performance characteristics for each building include the

geometry of the building, the structural system(s) proposed, lateral and gravity load

paths, and whether these are supported by design, calculations, and detailing in the

project documents. The review shall include consideration of the proposed design

approach, methods, materials, and details.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 15

Peer review tasks include any or all of the following:

1. Assess appropriateness of analysis and provide additional assurance of a highly

reliable design performance under applicable environmental loads and

conditions;

2. Suggest additional design options, analysis perspectives, and provide knowledge

of experience in materials performance considerations;

3. Provide constructive comments on work-in-progress;

4. Assist in achieving consistency of design and design approach among different

CSU projects and in expected retrofit project seismic performance;

5. Aid in communication regarding local conditions;

6. Provide technical assistance for the resolution of technical problems

encountered in the design and construction;

7. Communicate with SRB on technical issues and concerns with system-wide

implications;

8. Offer positive engineering input where new and/or innovative design or analysis

procedures are proposed;

9. Confirm that the design of seismic protection of nonstructural components in or

on the building is appropriately addressed and consistent with CSU’s desire to

limit earthquake damage.

10. During the construction phase, review additions and modifications to approved

drawings that may impact the seismic performance of the building.

The EOR for the project and University project manager shall provide the Seismic Peer

Reviewer with all available information determined by the Seismic Peer Reviewer to be

necessary for the completion of the peer review.

The effort undertaken in peer review is commensurate with the size and complexity, or

lack thereof, of the project, but shall not be limited so as to compromise the technical

reliability of the process.

4.2 Timing of Peer Review

The Seismic Peer Reviewer should be engaged for the entire project, from concept to

final construction, and should participate during early structural design to ensure

concurrence with systems proposed for the specific project. The peer review is

completed when the construction is completed, and an occupancy permit is issued.

Where the delivery method is Design-Build, including collaborative Design-Build, the

Seismic Peer Reviewer’s effort begins when the RFP is prepared, see Section 5.

4.3 Reports

The peer reviewer(s) shall prepare written reports to the CSU Project Administrator and

CDBO describing all aspects of the review performed to date, including conclusions

reached by the reviewer. Reports shall be issued, as appropriate, after conceptual

design, schematic design, during design development, and at the completion of

construction documents, but before their issuance for a permit. On phased projects, a

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 16

report shall be issued after the completion of each phase. Such reports should include in

aggregate, as relevant, statements of the following issues:

1. Scope of engineering design peer review with limitations defined.

2. Status of the project documents at each review stage.

3. Design, performance, and loading criteria.

4. The ability of selected materials and framing systems to meet performance

criteria with given loads and the configuration.

5. Degree of structural system redundancy and the deformation compatibility

among structural and nonstructural elements.

6. Basic constructability of the retrofit or repair system.

7. Other recommendations as appropriate to the specific project.

8. Presentation of the reviewer’s conclusions identifying any areas needing

further review, investigation, and/or clarification.

9. Recommendations for actions.

The final report shall be prepared when all the peer review comments are resolved.

It shall indicate that in the Seismic Peer Reviewer’s opinion the design is appropriate for

construction. From time to time the design team may propose significant alterations to

the design during construction; the Seismic Peer Reviewer will assess their merits and

issue a letter reporting the recommended acceptance or rejection of the proposed

alterations. In those cases where they are accepted as is, a written acceptance note to

this effect should be sent.

4.4 Responses and Corrective Actions

The EOR shall develop corrective actions and other responses as appropriate, based on

the report submitted by the Seismic Peer Reviewer. Construction changes that affect the

seismic force-resisting system shall be reported to the reviewer in writing for review and

recommendations.

4.5 Distribution of Reports

Copies of reports, responses, and notices of corrective actions shall be submitted to the

University Project Manager for use and distribution, and the Building Official.

4.6 Design Professional Responsibility

Although the Seismic Peer Reviewer will exercise usual and customary professional care

in performing the seismic peer review, the responsibility for structural design is fully and

solely the responsibility of the design professional of record as outlined in the California

Business and Professional Code. The seismic peer review is undertaken to enhance the

quality of the design and to provide additional assurance regarding the performance of

the completed project consistent with the Board of Trustees’ direction of Section 1.

4.7 Resolution of Differences

If the EOR does not agree with the recommendation of the Seismic Peer Reviewer, then

the SRB shall resolve such differences. Peer review should be a cooperative process

between the structural EOR and project Seismic Peer Reviewer, both having the

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 17

objective to produce a quality project. Direct and free communication between the EOR

and the project’s Seismic Peer Reviewer is vital to avoid misunderstanding. Despite this,

honest differences may arise between the EOR and the project Seismic Peer Reviewer.

In such cases, the EOR and project Seismic Peer Reviewer may determine the issue

under consideration and the solution adopted may be controversial and would benefit

from examination by the full SRB. Such cases will be presented to the SRB for

consideration, evaluation, and resolution. All interested parties will have the

opportunity to present their technical arguments to the SRB for its consideration.

The project’s Seismic Peer Reviewer will not participate in these proceedings as a

member of the SRB. The decision of the SRB will be submitted to the Building Official

with a recommendation of disposition.

4.8 Peer Review Contract and Cost

The Chancellor’s Office maintains a fully executed, system-wide master enabling seismic

peer review agreement with each Seismic Peer Reviewer. Terms and conditions, including

specific services and fees, have been fixed in these agreements. Peer review fees normally

are based on total project construction costs and shall not be amended without both

University’s and Seismic Peer Reviewer’s concurrence. Copies of the agreements and

amendments are provided for reference on the CPDC website. To authorize services under

these Agreements, the University need only execute a Service Order to the reviewer

assigned to its University and specify the fee and other relevant particulars.

5. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

5.1 Private Buildings Constructed on CSU Land

When a private developer constructs a building on land owned or controlled by the

California State University or any of its foundations or entities, or the building is

expected to come under CSU control at a future date, the project shall be peer-reviewed

in accordance with the requirements of this document as recommendations made to the

design team as required for their considerations but not an expansion of CBSC

requirements for the project.

5.2 Geotechnical Investigations

Determination of the seismic loading conditions requires that the building site’s soils be

classified. Any geotechnical investigation conducted for a project shall include

consideration of all seismically induced site failure hazards, including liquefaction,

differential settlement, lateral spreading, land-sliding, and surface faulting.

Note that CSU has determined campus-specific seismic design ground motion

parameters to be used for new and modification of existing buildings that supersede

those in the CBC. These are given in Attachment B. The engineer preparing geotechnical

reports for projects at locations where the CSU values are prescribed need not do

additional site exposure work for determining CBC seismic design requirements unless

unique conditions are believed to exist.

5.3 EOR References to Geotechnical Investigation

Construction document directions to “see soils report” are not permitted on CSU

projects. The Engineer of Record, not the contractor, is the responsible party to take

from the geotechnical report the relevant information and then conveying it as a part of

the construction documents; the geotechnical engineer shall remain responsible for its

contents of the geotechnical report and recommendations.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 18

The geotechnical report itself shall not be portrayed as a part of the construction

documents. The construction documents may reference the geotechnical report as a

‘supporting document’ (providing name, title, author, date, etc.) for the contractor’s

reference and if desired, state that the geotechnical report was relied upon in the

development of the construction documents. The Seismic Peer Reviewer will request a

review by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that the design reflects the geotechnical

recommendations of the geotechnical report.

5.4 Changes and Additions to Published SRB Requirements

The SRB may establish additional requirements relating to the design and construction

of new buildings, and the retrofit or modification of existing buildings that have yet to

be incorporated into these CSU Seismic Requirements. The assigned Seismic Peer

Reviewer is responsible for informing the project manager and design team of these

additional requirements as appropriate at the initiation of a project.

5.5 Projects Not Warranting Peer Review

By Trustee policy, all construction, whether above or below grade, requires a seismic

review determination. Where the CDBO determines that there are no structural issues

warranting a seismic peer review, the University shall submit project documentation to

the Seismic Peer Reviewer for an initial determination. If the Seismic Peer Reviewer

concurs, the Seismic Peer Reviewer will provide a letter documenting this to the

University. This letter shall satisfy the requirements of peer review for this project.

There is no charge to the University for an initial determination.

The CDBO is authorized to make an initial determination for projects with a total project

cost of $3,000,000 or less, non-structural tenant improvements of any amount if they do

not impact the structural system, building element replacements-in-kind, or repairs and

maintenance projects. Should a peer review be deemed warranted, the University shall

issue a Service Order Authorization for a seismic review of the project.

• Special non-building capital project types that typically require peer review include

bridges, tanks, cellular towers, and field lighting that illuminates a surface 30 feet or

greater below the light fixture.

• Special project types not required to be submitted for peer review generally include

under 30-foot tall streetlight and traffic components installed consistent with

Green Book (or equivalent) standards, public utility elements installed by a public

utility, storm drainage elements, and tree/palm installations not supported by

above-grade structural elements.

• Student structures that are designed, constructed, and possibly used after

construction, whether by student labor or contractors, shall be peer-reviewed.

There is no charge for this peer review.

5.6 Demolition Projects

Demolition of existing facilities up to 45 feet total height from the lowest adjacent

ground plane generally does not require peer review. Taller structures and all planned

implosions require review. Even when not required, the SRB and campus Seismic Peer

Reviewer is available to the University to provide technical advice and counsel on such.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 19

5.7 Material Properties of Existing Buildings

Material properties (i.e., strength, stiffness, damping, mass) must be established on all

projects involving existing buildings where structural modifications are involved or

structural evaluations are required to determine load carrying capacity of structural

elements.

This may be established based on existing documentation (e.g., record drawings)

acceptable to the Engineer-of-Record and the Seismic Peer Reviewer or by a materials

testing program.

ASCE/SEI

41-16 prescribes the methodology for the degree of destructive and

non-destructive examination and testing to establish material properties and knowledge

factor (k) to be used in the analysis and design. Where testing is to be performed, the

Engineer-of-Record must define the destructive and non-destructive testing program

using the guidelines of ASCE/SEI

41. ASCE/SEI 41 Commentary states “Where a

destructive and non-destructive testing program is necessary to obtain as-built

information, it is prudent to perform preliminary calculations on key selected locations

or parameters before establishing a detailed testing program.” The ASCE standard for

this notes the importance of obtaining this “knowledge at a reasonable cost and with as

little disruption as possible of construction features and material properties at

concealed locations”.

CSU encourages the EOR to use engineering judgment and experience and a preliminary

evaluation to establish a cost-effective testing program. In developing a testing

rogram, the following shall be considered:

• Fewer tests may be justified based on the confidence conference level of

available information, uniformity of test results, and seismic or other loading

demands on the existing structural elements.

• Phasing the testing program and using the results of the initial phase to qualify

the number of locations in a subsequent phase.

• Focus the tests on critical structural elements.

• Utilize different appropriate testing procedures (i.e., cores, Schmidt Hammer

tests, etc.).

The methods used to determine the material values must be approved by the Seismic

Peer Reviewer.

5.8 Design Build and CM at Risk Projects

Collaborative Design Build, Design-Build, Construction Manager at Risk, and other

project delivery systems (collectively called Design-Build) projects pose a special set of

issues for the application of the CSU Seismic Requirements.

As noted in Section

4.2, seismic peer review of a project shall be initiated by the

University when the project requirements and goals are in development, that is, well

before the request for proposals or qualifications is issued to potential performers.

CPDC maintains model procurement and contract language for use in Design-Build

procurement to assure that CSU seismic requirements are incorporated in the

procurement and implementation process. The intent is to ensure an adequate review

of the seismic requirements for the project when the specifications are written.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 20

The specifications shall clearly define the code requirements and seismic performance

requirements for the project, thus reducing the potential for additional charges in the

event of disputes regarding code interpretation and peer review.

The requirements for Design-Build projects include provisions that peer review, plan

check, and testing and inspection services are paid for and under the direction of CSU.

The contract may contain a provision that the contractor shall reimburse the University

under the contract for these services. In such case, it is agreed that their duties for the

project are to the University as representative of the Trustees, and not to the

contractor.

5.9 Moment Frame Structural Systems

The following requirements apply when special moment frame structural systems are

used. They apply to all moment frame structures, including concrete, masonry, and

steel:

1. Where rigid elements, such as ramps, exist in the structure, a detailed assessment of

the interaction of the ductile frame and rigid element shall be completed to assure

adequate post-yielding behavior of the structural system at the maximum expected

deformation.

2. Columns with variable, unsupported height shall be detailed to be ductile. As an

alternate, double-column support systems can be used to accommodate sections at

breaks in elevation, with seismic separations between the columns and slabs.

3. For parking structures, all concrete columns shall include confinement reinforcing,

even if they are not part of the designated moment frame lateral load-resisting

system of the structure. Ramps are to be included in the structural model used for

analysis, and the interaction effects and deformation compatibility requirements

must be included in the design of the structural system.

5.10 Post-tensioned Structural Elements

CSU Guidelines for post-tensioned concrete structures are found in Attachment E.

The Guidelines are not intended as direction to the design team, but as alerts to

important technical performance issues in the design that are likely to be of concern

during the peer review.

5.11 Alternate Methods of Construction

Construction assemblies not specified in the CBSC may be used provided that:

1. They have been accepted for use by the ICC Evaluation Service (ICCES), IAPMO, the

State Architect (DSA), or the Department of Health Care Access and Information

(DHCAI) and are used in accordance with the referenced research report or

approved memorandum for application.

2. The Building Official approves the application for alternate materials, alternate

design, and methods of construction under Part I, Chapter 1.2.3. The Building

Official may engage the responsible Seismic Peer Reviewer to examine technical

materials submitted in support of requests for alternate methods of construction

that have implications on the seismic performance of the resulting construction.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 21

5.12 Use of Engineered Wood Products

1. The use of equivalently rated oriented strand board (OSB) as an alternative to

plywood in shear walls and diaphragms is prohibited.

Exception: The use of OSB may be used in areas where exposure to moisture is

prevented during construction and use. Examples of where OSB shall not be

used include roof sheathing, exterior wall sheathing, and floor sheathing under

bathrooms and kitchens. Examples of where OSB may be acceptable include

interior wall sheathing and floor sheathing except beneath kitchens and

bathrooms.

2. Plywood used as a part of the seismic load-resisting systems shall be at least

15/32 inches thick.

3. Construction documents shall require the Contractor to protect OSB and plywood

during construction from exposure to water during construction and use. If OSB or

plywood deteriorates due to exposure to moisture, the material shall be replaced

unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Engineer-of-Record and

Seismic Peer Reviewer that no loss of strength has occurred.

4. CSU supports the consideration of mass timber and variations of heavy timber

construction on an alternate means basis.

5.13 Delegated Design and/or Deferred Approvals

The CSU permits delegated design. The Architect and/or Engineer-of-Record (AOR or

EOR) shall identify the delegated scope of work on the drawings. Delegated design is

typically confined to specialty items such as pre-engineered metal buildings, proprietary

structural components or foundation systems, precast concrete, exterior cladding,

skylights, steel stairs, and mechanical, electrical, and sprinkler and plumbing anchorage

and bracing.

If a delegated design or other portion of the design is not submitted at the time of permit

application, it becomes a deferred approval. Deferred approvals are discouraged by the

CSU, and advance permission to defer approval must be obtained from the CDBO or the

Building Official.

To establish responsibility for the overall design and component design, the EOR has the

following responsibilities:

1. The EOR’s drawings shall list all delegated designs and/or deferred approvals that

require EOR review. This list shall be reviewed by the Seismic Peer Reviewer.

2. The EOR shall establish component design criteria. These criteria shall be reviewed

by the Seismic Peer Reviewer before approval of the project. The criteria shall be

placed on the EOR’s drawings. If criteria are detailed in the specifications, the

drawings shall reference the relevant specification section.

3. The Component Engineer of Record (CEOR) shall provide, at a minimum, the

following:

A. Calculations indicating design criteria, applicable loads, properties, and

deformation analysis as required by the construction documents.

B. Plans and details indicating all structural elements of the component,

including appropriate profiles, connections, welding, bracing, and

attachments to elements designed by others.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 22

C. Statement of required testing, special inspection, and structural observation

of each component design shall be listed on the component drawings.

Note that the Building Official and CDBO reserve the right to require

additional testing, inspection, and structural observation.

4. The EOR shall review all delegated designs and/or deferred submittals listed on the

EOR’s drawings and consider all structural modifications to the approved plans that

are proposed during construction. At the beginning of the construction phase, the

Peer Reviewer and EOR will determine the conditions that warrant Peer Review. The

EOR review shall confirm conformance with the component design criteria and

coordination with the overall structural design including the ability of the structure

to support all component loads. The Peer Reviewer shall review all structural

modifications presented by the EOR that warrant review to confirm that the

modifications are appropriate. The Peer Review in conjunction with the responsible

CSU Project Manager shall determine if and when the modifications warrant

independent plan review or not.

5. The EOR shall issue a signed and stamped letter confirming that the design satisfies

the component design criteria, building code requirements, and applicable design

standards. It shall confirm that the component design has been coordinated with the

overall structural design and that structure is capable of supporting all component

loads. A shop drawing stamp is not an acceptable alternative to this letter.

The following is a typical stamp for this purpose:

6. The EOR shall annotate the component drawings to clarify work done under their

responsible charge, if this is the case.

7. Responsibilities of the EOR and CEOR during construction shall be as described in

Section 3.10.

5.14 Pre-engineered Structures

Pre-engineered structures frequently, used without alteration, may have certificates

from ICCES or other certification authorities. These are provided in place of

project-specific engineering calculations demonstrating adequate seismic performance

for the project for a specific level of seismic demand. These and the vendor’s technical

documents usually contain requirements for installation that must be followed for the

certificated performance to be achieved. Other pre-engineered structures have

project-specific designs.

The following requirements apply to such pre-engineered structures, which may include

“Butler”-style buildings, awnings, bridges, and antennas. All such structures must have

design documents signed and stamped by a California professional engineer.

When the pre-engineered structure is free-standing, with an acceptance certificate

applicable to the site’s seismic coefficients, then the structure may be accepted for CSU

use without peer review of the seismic characteristics of the structure itself.

The structure shall be consistent with the size and framing depicted on the certificate,

The EOR has reviewed the components engineered by others for

conformance with the component design criteria and has verified that

the structure can support the components as detailed. The EOR

established the component design criteria but was not in responsible

charge of the component design.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 23

and there shall be no applied loads to the structure other than its self-weight and

resulting environmental loads. This precludes adding floors or mezzanines to such

structures or replacing storage racks or equipment that are braced to, or supported by,

the structure. Piping, lighting, and similar elements may be attached to the structure

only insofar as the manufacturer’s specifications allow. Where the proposed structure

has mezzanines, added floors above grade, or there is a basement below the structure,

then the structure shall be peer-reviewed.

When the pre-engineered structure is not free-standing, such as an environmental cover

on a roof, an awning, a cellular antenna, or similar addition to an existing building, and

the element has a certificate applicable to the site’s seismic coefficients, then the

element may be used without peer review of its seismic performance provided the

design limitations of the certificate are met and the structure to which it is attached is

verified to be able to accommodate the applied gravity, wind, and seismic loads. If the

pre-engineered structure’s certificate of approval does not specify for foundations or

anchorage to other structures, such as for a cellular antenna, the foundation design

shall be peer-reviewed. Submittals shall include the acceptance certificate for the

structure appropriate to the seismic environment of the site and structural calculations

and design documents from a licensed California Professional Engineer The calculations

shall confirm the ability of the structure to support loads imposed by the pre-engineered

structure.

Trailers or other transportable structures subject to Caltrans, not Title 24, regulations

are considered to be pre-engineered structures and peer review is not required. When a

trailer is placed and either the wheels are removed and/or are not in contact with the

ground, then CSU seismic requirements apply. The peer review shall focus on the lateral

bracing of the installation and not the unit itself, except as required to verify the

capacity of the anchor points to transfer applied lateral loads.

If the structure’s certificate of approval does not specify foundation requirements, such

as for a cellular antenna, the foundation design shall be peer-reviewed. Submittals shall

provide the ICCES or equivalent certificate for the structure appropriate to the seismic

environment of the site and a report from a licensed California Professional Engineer

that the foundations are capable of performing acceptably under the applied seismic

loads, and these documents shall be peer-reviewed.

Structures with attachment requirements to other structural elements of existing or

new construction, such as an entrance cover, or for a portable classroom (trailer), shall

have the attached documents peer reviewed. The construction documents shall provide

information applicable to the site’s seismic coefficients, and a report from a California

licensed architect or a civil or a structural engineer that the structure to which

attachment is made is capable of performing acceptably under the applied seismic loads

and these shall be peer-reviewed.

Pre-engineered metal buildings (PEMB) without acceptance certificates shall be

peer-reviewed. Foundations for this type of building are nearly always designed by

another professional engineer using loads provided by the PEMB engineer.

The foundations shall be peer-reviewed. Submittals for both peer reviews shall include

structural calculations and design documents from a California Professional Engineer.

The PEMB engineer shall also submit a letter confirming that the correct loads have been

used in the foundation design.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 24

PEMB design drawings shall be complete, shall present the structural information

required by CBC Section 1603.1 and AISC 341 Section A4, and shall represent the

structure independent of shop drawings or piece drawings. Foundation loads are to be

shown on the PEMB drawings and foundation drawings. Details, elevations, and sections

shall be properly referenced, and symbols used on the drawings shall be clearly defined

in the design drawings. All distributed and point loads shall be shown on the drawings

and be included in the design, including suspended lights, ceilings, MEP units, storage

areas, as well as any other loads the structure is to support. Components of these

buildings must be acceptable per the CBC (e.g., materials and connectors must have

ASTM or AWS designations and/or ICC approvals), or test results prepared by an

independent testing laboratory must be submitted to justify values used in the structural

design.

A PEMB designed by the manufacturer that does not comply with the first four

paragraphs of this section is to be reviewed by the Seismic Peer Reviewer.

Foundations for this type of building are often designed by an independent structural

engineer. As there can only be one structural engineer of record for the building per

Section 3.9, the Structural Engineer of Record (either the independent structural

engineer or the engineer responsible for designing the PEMB) must take responsibility for

the overall design and must review and sign all the design drawings. This responsibility is

normally, but not necessarily, taken on by the structural engineer responsible for the

design of the foundations.

5.15 Designated Seismic Systems

Most CSU projects do not include Designated Seismic Systems (DSS), as defined in

CBC Chapter 2 and ASCE 7 Chapter 13, e.g., emergency generators, critical switchgear,

etc. For those that do, and for all buildings designated Risk Category IV, the DSS shall be

identified within the construction documents by the Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing

Engineer with concurrence by the EOR. The DSS seismic qualification requirements of

ASCE 7 Chapter 13 apply. Qualifications must be at or above the BSE-1 ground motion

level of ASCE 7 for mechanical and electrical elements.

In addition to project-specific qualification, the CSU will permit the use of a DSS if it

satisfies the requirements of Section 5.11.1, and the intended use of the equipment is

consistent with the DSS certificate of compliance.

5.16 Phased and Voluntary Retrofit

Voluntary lateral-force-resisting system modifications allow seismic enhancements to

buildings to be implemented when CBC 317.3 and CSU Seismic Requirements do not

require a seismic retrofit. Projects on Priority List 1 and List 2 buildings may have partial

or phased retrofit corresponding to the requirements of the CEBC with the restriction

that a date (Section 317.6) approved by the Building Official is given for the completion

of the total retrofit. Notwithstanding the allowances for seismic retrofit actions, other

CBC requirements for the specific project, e.g., accessibility, fire, and life safety issues,

must be completed before the seismically modified building may be lawfully occupied.

If the approved date is not met, then at their discretion, the CSU Building Official can

direct the building to be vacated until such work is completed and a certificate of

occupancy issued.

Buildings not on List 1 or List 2

may have voluntary seismic retrofits consistent with the

requirements of CEBC Section 319.12

. All phased retrofits require written concurrence

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 25

from CPDC. The request shall be signed by the University Vice President for

Administration. A confirming letter from the CPDC Assistant Vice Chancellor and

co-signed by the Building Official shall be required for such a plan to be considered

approved. The construction documents shall indicate how the work shown thereon

corresponds to the approved phased retrofit.

5.17 Final Approval

Acceptance and completion of a construction project is contingent, in part, upon the

written representation by the Architect/Engineer that the permitted plan has been

implemented and that changes or deferred approvals for the project were completed

with her/his written approval. A written statement will be provided by the Seismic Peer

Reviewer that the reviews have been performed and that issues raised during

construction and brought to the Seismic Peer Reviewer’s attention were satisfactorily

resolved. A written statement will be provided by the CSU project manager that issues

raised during construction were satisfactorily resolved.

5.18 Earthquake Soil Pressures

Lateral pressures on the basement or retaining walls, as well as other below-grade

structures or elements, shall be designed and reviewed for loadings due to earthquake

ground motion based on established procedures. The following shall be considered:

a. The horizontal pseudo-static acceleration shall be taken as ½ (one-half) of the

Site-Class adjusted BSE-2N (MCE

) peak ground acceleration value (PGA

) for

new buildings and ½ (one-half) of the Site-Class adjusted BSE-C peak ground

acceleration value for existing buildings from Table

1 of Attachment B of the

CSU Seismic Requirements. The vertical pseudo-static acceleration shall be

taken as zero.

b. The applicable lateral soil pressure is the active total earth pressure, including

the static active earth pressure and seismic increment. These earth pressure

components should include consideration of sloping ground conditions adjacent

to the wall or below-grade structure, as well as long-term surcharge loads

present within the active earth pressure zone of influence. The lateral load, H, is

a result of this total active earth pressure.

Soil pressure applied to structures or elements of structures due to differential ground

deformations shall also be considered in the design if the geotechnical evaluations of

site conditions suggest that there is the potential for seismically-induced geo-hazards

(e.g., settlement, lateral spreading, etc.) to be experienced at the site during earthquake

ground shaking. Such consideration may include the loss or increase of lateral or vertical

support due to ground movements.

Passive lateral resistance provided by below-grade soils against elements of the

foundation (e.g., footings, grade beams, piles and pile caps, walls, etc.) or subsurface

utility pipes, tunnels, or appendages structurally connected to the structure in analyses

of a structure shall be evaluated based on deformation compatibility of the foundation

elements.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 26

5.19 Temporary Use of Buildings and Structures

The CBC defines temporary in relationship to buildings as follows:

TEMPORARY: Buildings and facilities intended for use at one location for not more

than one year and seats intended for use at one location for not more than 90 days.

For seismic evaluation purposes, CSU defines temporary use for a period of not more

than 14 days. The CDBO may choose to define temporary as less than 14 days for other

environmental loads.

When a building has been designed based upon a specific [structural] Risk Category, I, II,

III, or IV, this limits occupancy of a building to its approved occupancy type and numbers

until other Code-based actions are taken to change it (i.e., A Special Event permit).

From time to time, a University may temporarily wish to use a building space in a way

non-conforming to its approved normal occupancy. When such is proposed, then the

CBDO shall make a determination that the hazard and risk posed by this use are

acceptable and consistent with the direction of CBC Section

108.2. For the temporary

use to be allowed, the CDBO must approve in writing the planned use, which shall

specify the occupancy type and occupancy load compared to the approved use and

propose, where appropriate, the specific mitigation steps to be taken to manage the

risk; such steps may include fire watches during occupancy, pre-notification or

positioning of emergency responders, etc. For terms exceeding seven days, a specific

evaluation by a registered structural engineer must be made to determine the extent of

the risk posed by this use for review by the CDBO in deciding to authorize such

use.

When the temporary structure is a membrane structure, including tents of all types, to

be used for a specific temporary purpose, there are special requirements that must be

met. The California Fire Code (CFC) has prescriptive requirements in Sections 3104 and

3105 that govern the use of tents that extend beyond just fire hazards. They characterize

temporary as 180 days or less use. The CFC references the CBC for structural issues, but

they are the principal focus of regulations of temporary structures such as tents and

stages, covered or not.

It is CSU Policy that whenever a tent or stage, whether covered or not, is to be used as a

temporary use structure, then the use of that tent is regulated by CFC Section 3104

(tents) and 3105 (temporary stage canopies) and that to receive a temporary use permit

for 45 or fewer days requires submission of the documentation requirements of

Section 3105.5 to the Fire Marshal and the responsible CDBO for review and approval.

Note that the Fire Code applies these sections to 3105 structures only, but that CSU

requires the same reporting requirements for Section 3104 structures.

For CSU applications, the design documents and design calculations are to include

structural and inspection requirements, including the reliability of the building for

gravity and wind loadings. CSU requires that documentation be provided to verify these

performance issues for both Sections 3104 and 3105 applications. Where hold-down

devices are used to stabilize the structure, then special inspection of the installation is

consistent with CBC code requirements for such elements.

5.20 Suspended Ceilings

CSU adopts CBC Section 1617.11.16, Item 3, requirements for (metal) lay-in panels, and

Item 4 requiring lateral force bracing for suspended ceilings 144 square feet (SF) in area

or larger.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 27

6. POST-EARTHQUAKE REVIEWS

When an earthquake occurs near a CSU campus or facility, there is need for evaluation of the

safety of buildings and facilities at the campus. Under Section 3.5, an assigned EDBO is

responsible for the University’s safety reviews. After any significant seismic event, the EDBO will

contact the University to determine if damage occurred at the campus. From authority from the

Building Official and the Chancellor’s Office, the EDBO has been authorized to evaluate the

safety of buildings on campus and make recommendations for additional engineering

investigations to determine the condition and appropriate actions to repair individual buildings.

When so notified, the University Police will restrict occupancy or entry of all buildings on

campus to those authorized by the EDBO to enter buildings to determine their structural safety.

Following evaluation, all campus buildings will be posted as:

•

Safe for lawful occupancy (Green);

•

Restricted entry (Yellow), with the limitations on entry explicitly stated on the

placard; or

•

Unsafe for entry (Red). If warranted, the assessor shall give notice to the University

Police to enforce compliance with no-entry if the building may pose a collapse hazard

under gravity loads or in aftershocks.

These designations shall be enforced to limit the risk to occupants until such time as the placard

is modified or removed. In some cases, the reason for a red tag may be that the building is not

to be entered or used until an inspection is completed to assess the appropriate tagging.

The safety designation of any building may only be altered by the EDBO who posted the building

or by the Building Official. From time to time, it is expected that re-postings may increase or

decrease the rating of the building, depending on new information or possibly additional

damage occurring.

The restoration of the University and campus facilities shall be completed to the requirements

of CEBC and these CSU Seismic Requirements. Plans for all repairs shall be approved for

implementation by the EDBO or the Building Official. The plans shall be peer-reviewed as

determined by the EDBO. With suitable record keeping, the reviews and plans may be

developed and implemented rapidly with appropriate approvals. Where emergency shoring is

required to stabilize a building to prevent its further deterioration, the scheme and plans for

shoring shall be peer-reviewed. Upon peer review acceptance, under such situations, such

designs are approved for construction. After a suitable period, as determined by the

Chancellor’s Office, the CDBO will reassume the responsibility for review and approval of the

repair of damaged buildings.

The SRB has determined that welded steel moment frame (WSMF) buildings constructed to

engineering procedures used prior to

1995 may be subject to significant damage that is not

readily apparent without detailed investigation. When an earthquake occurs, all CSU WSMF

buildings permitted before 1995 in the region of strong motion exceeding 0.20g peak horizontal

acceleration or a WSMF that has been reported damaged nearby shall be inspected to determine

the conditions of their welded connections, even if the building shows no outward signs of

damage. At the direction of the EDBO, such investigations shall be completed for all WSMF

buildings assessed to have been subjected to ground motions sufficient to have potentially

caused WSMF connection damage.

During the post-earthquake period, it may be necessary for a building to be condemned because

its structural system is deemed in such a condition that repair is not practical or that the building

poses an unacceptably high seismic threat to other buildings. The EDBO has the authority to

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 28

condemn buildings subject to concurrence by the Building Official. Condemned buildings shall be

demolished as soon as practical; in the interim period, the University shall take reasonable

actions necessary to limit the possibility of injury to the public.

7. CSU SEISMIC BUILDING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

Seismic risk management decisions depend on risk assessments based on professional

judgments. Some judgments are predictive and can be verified when the outcome becomes

known in a short to medium time period. However, many judgments are unverifiable in part

because of the period over which they apply. Determining the acceptable seismic performance of

a building falls in this latter category. The quality of such judgments can be assessed only by the

quality of the thought process and information that produced them. The seismic risk

management program for the CSU building stock has been underway since 1993 and was

modified in 2022, to formalize the procedures and to institute a program to systematically assess

and reassess buildings regularly. The objective is to provide prudent, legally defensible, and

transparent risk management decisions. The goal is to distinguish seismically Good from Bad

buildings quickly, with limited information and great uncertainty, and then determine how

limited resources should be used to the greatest advantage by distinguishing really bad buildings

from those that are so-so Bad. The procedure is based on modified FEMA P-154 as discussed in

Attachment G. When a building is evaluated, the results can be several:

based on the evaluation

results and its reliability rating of the assessment as evaluated by the SRB, a building can be

assigned to one of three dispositions representing the priority assessed for dealing with the

seismic hazard posed:

CSU has used for over 20 years a system of identifying building hazards as follows:

List 1: A building posing a significant risk that warrants detailed seismic assessment and

retrofit to be implemented as soon as funds are available to do so.

List 2: A building posing a sufficient risk to warrant detailed seismic assessment when any

work requiring a permit is undertaken at the owner’s initiative, whether the

applicable Building Code requires it or not.

No List assignment for a building that has a seismic vulnerability that does not warrant

assignment to Lists 1 or 2. When any work requires a permit where a trigger limit

applies for evaluation and retrofit.

The new procedure allows the assignment to these lists the following Decision Rule:

Decision Rule: The decision on List assignment for an assessed building is to be made

based on allowing an R(t, , 

2

) acceptable upper bound limit as follows:

1. If the reliability of the building’s quality assessment is less than 0.30, then the

SL2 assessment is provisionally not prudent for decisions, and a more reliable

assessment needs to be performed. This can be done by improving the methods

or information available to the assessor to achieve at least a 0.30 rating and/or

by performing a more reliable engineering assessment procedure (e.g., detailed

building investigation and engineering analyses).

2. If the building’s Risk Class is I, II, or III (if not housing CEBC-restricted quantities

of hazardous materials) and the quality of the assessment’s performance is 0.30

or better, then provisionally:

• Assign to List 1 if SL2 ≤0.3. This is equivalent to establishing a priority that

the building is seismically assessed and retrofitted to meet CEBC Section 3.17

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 29

requirements as soon as practical, notwithstanding whether any other work

is to be done.

• Assign the building to List 2 if 0.3≤ SL2< 0.7. This means that the CEBC

Section 3.17 trigger limits do not apply. If work requiring a permit is

proposed, then it is required to seismically assess and retrofit the building to

meet CEBC requirements.

• Do not assign to a list if SL2 ≥ 0.7; This is equivalent to letting CEBC Section

3.17 control seismic improvement based on permit applications and whether

any of the threshold’s triggers requiring seismic assessment and related

retrofit have been exceeded.

3. If the building’s Risk Class is III and the reliability of the building’s quality

assessment performance is 0.30 or better, then the following score limits apply

only for those buildings having Risk Category III hazardous materials storage:

• Assign the building to List 1 if SL2 ≤0.7. This is equivalent to establishing a

priority that the building is seismically assessed and retrofitted to meet CEBC

Section 3.17 requirements as soon as practical, notwithstanding whether

any other work is to be done.

• Assign the building to List 2 if 0.7≤ SL2< 1.0. This means that CEBC Section

3.17 does not allow any option other than to seismically assess and retrofit

the building to meet CEBC requirements.

• Do not assign the building to a list if SL2 ≥ 1.0; This is equivalent to letting

CEBC Section 3.17 control seismic improvement based on permit applications

and whether any of the threshold triggers have been exceeded, which

requires assessment.

4. If the building’s Risk Class is IV and SL2 ≤2.0 and the reliability of the building’s

quality assessment performance is 0.30 or better, then provisionally assign the

building to List 1, unless 1.5<SL2<2.0, then assign it to List 2.

5. The Building Official will consider the results of this assessment process and its

basis and consider whether the provisional dispositions are appropriate or not.

According to its professional judgment, the CB will assign the final score and

recommend the appropriate Priority List to the Chancellor’s Office.

The full text of the Assessment Procedure and its application can be found in papers by

Thiel and Zsutty (https://juniperpublishers.com/cerj/pdf/CERJ.MS.ID.555857.pdf, and

https://juniperpublishers.com/cerj/pdf/CERJ.MS.ID.555858.pdf) of how the assessments

are done, and the technical basis of how the methods were developed. It is important to

note that the FEMA 154 approach has been significantly modified and that the CSU has

included a formal method of evaluating whether the assessment procedure used is

technically adequate and appropriately applied. The application of the method results in

one of three assignments: List 1, List 2, or No List. Experience suggests that since there is

no mandate for the steps that need to be taken to make the hazard incurred more

obvious. The following actions become necessary:

1. When a building is newly assigned to List 1, then the Chancellor’s Office shall

sponsor a detailed engineering evaluation of the building’s expected

performance when funds become available. The intent is to determine the type

and extent of retrofit work required to meet the CEBC seismic requirements.

In essence, this proposed additional requirement is to serve to develop a

provisional approach to retrofit such that the University can have a clear

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 30

understanding of the amount of work necessary to make the building seismically

safe. Such a study should be conducted under the review of the SRB and be

completed within no more than two years of the date the building is assigned to

List 1. Although desirable for planning, no such additional evaluation work

would be required for buildings on List 1 that predate the approval of this

assessment process, or for those buildings placed on List 2.

2. When a building has been on List 2 for 20 years since its assignment, it shall be

moved to List 1. This suggests that the probability of collapse is less than or

equal to 2% and more than 0.8% in the prior 20 years and in 30 years if nothing

is done less than or equal to 4.9% and more than 2%. A 2.0% minimum

probability is deemed unacceptable. In the intervening time, there may have

been a CEBC evaluation completed as CEBC requires, then one of two conclusions

could have been reached: the building is not hazardous, in which the SRB would

have removed it from List 2, or, the University has chosen not to implement the

planned permit modifications. Promotion of the building to List 1 does not

require assessment and retrofit; it means that a permit is required for a

modification if the CEBC requires it. By placement on List 2, the building has been

identified as one that needs seismic performance attention as a priority.

Action should not be delayed until there are other programmatic needs to

modify the building.

3. We understand that the Chancellor’s Office has recently initiated the

incorporation of the List 1 and List 2 status of campus buildings into its annual

capital allocation including consideration of seismic safety as one of several

considerations for making allocations. The SRB endorses this and urges that

University Planners use their SRB seismic reviewer as a resource in

understanding the consequences of how allocations are made.

The Seismic Review Board regularly evaluates the buildings on each campus and

off-campus facilities to determine if changes in the understanding of seismic hazards

and/or structural performance warrant specific actions to moderate the seismic risk of

specific buildings.

It should be noted that prior lists of buildings on which the current lists were based were

determined by different procedures in the past from those now used. In time all CSU

buildings will be assessed using the new procedures.

8. PROJECT PLANNING

8.1 Priority Lists

The Chancellor’s Office maintains a seismic three-priority list of buildings identified by

the Seismic Review Board for which there are additional seismic retrofit requirements

above and beyond the seismic requirements of the CBC. These are:

List 1: These buildings are a priority for seismic retrofit and should be retrofitted as

soon as resources are available without regard to other modifications of the

building. The list is in two parts, those that are occupied and those that are not:

Part A (CSU – Seismic Priority List 1A) are buildings that are in use and regularly

occupied. For these buildings, CSU has administratively determined that whenever

any work which is betterment, that is, not maintenance or repair, is performed to

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 31

the building that a CEBC seismic evaluation shall be performed and the building

retrofitted to CBC seismic performance requirements notwithstanding the CEBC

triggers of Section 3.17, which may allow nonmandatory seismic evaluation.

Seismic Priority List 1A designation does not necessarily require that the building

be placed in limited or restricted use; however, the final determination will be

made by the Building Official based on recommendations from the SRB. In addition

to the CBC requirements, CSU has administratively determined that whenever any

work, excluding routine maintenance or minor repair exempt from a permit as

listed in the California Building Code (CBC), is performed on a Seismic Priority List

1A building, a seismic evaluation shall be performed and the building retrofitted to

satisfy California Existing Building Code (CEBC) seismic performance requirements

and CSU Policy.

Part B (CSU – Seismic Priority List 1B) are buildings whose seismic risk has been

mitigated by not allowing permanent occupancy by any staff in the building and

by limiting their use to storage and where the building's failure would not cause

potential injuries to those outside the building. Occupancy is limited to the

occasional entrance to place or retrieve stored items, with no office functions

performed. (This may be achieved by fences and other means.) Seismic Priority

List 1B designation indicates a building that can be used for storage, not

including any toxic materials that could pose a threat to people outside the

building. A CEBC seismic compliant retrofit consistent with the CSU Seismic

Requirements must be completed prior to any additional type of use of the

building. Whenever any work, including routine maintenance or minor repair,

and/or including work exempt from a permit as listed in the CBC, is performed

on a Seismic Priority List 1B building, a seismic evaluation shall be performed,

and the building retrofitted to satisfy CEBC seismic performance requirements

and CSU Policy.

Once designated, the building cannot be used by occupants as a normal building

without demonstrating that the building has been modified to the safety

requirements of these CSU requirements to allow occupancy.

List 2: (CSU – Seismic Priority List 2) are those buildings that must be evaluated and

retrofitted if non-compliant with CEBC requirements when a major capital

project is allocated to the building, notwithstanding an allowance from CEBC to

not do so. For these buildings, CSU has administratively determined that the

seismic evaluation of Section 317.5 is required, notwithstanding whether the

Section 3417.3 triggers are exceeded. Seismic Priority List 2 designation

indicates a building that, when a major capital project is allocated to the

building, must be seismically evaluated for compliance with CEBC seismic

performance requirements if its detailed engineering analysis indicates such is

required, regardless of whether or not the project exceeds the code triggers.

If the evaluation indicates the building does not satisfy the code requirements,

then the necessary seismic improvements must be included in the project.

These lists are regularly updated and maintained on the CPDC website.

Seismic evaluations and retrofit for buildings not on these lists may be required by the

CEBC.

The Chancellor’s Office has recently initiated incorporating the Lists 1 and 2 buildings in

its annual capital allocation inclusion process for consideration of seismic safety as one

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 32

of several considerations of making allocations.

Changes in the use of an existing building trigger the seismic evaluation by CEBC of an

existing building. Where a portion or all of a List 1 or 2 building’s use is proposed to be

changed and there are no structural modifications of the building, then the following

information shall be required for consideration in the approval of the altered use plan:

1. Determination by the Building Official whether the proposed change triggers

under the CEBC whether a seismic evaluation is required by Section 3.7A of these

CSU requirements. If it does, have it completed as part of the review.

2. The total number of rooms and their total square footage are affected by the

changes, in relation to the building's total SF.

3. A detailed listing of the proposed changes, including items to be removed and

the nature of the subsequent repairs and patching.

4. Confirmation that the proposed change of use (such as conversion from lab use

to lecture/classroom use) will not result in an increase in the building's

assignable square footage or occupant load, or individual room occupant

loading exceeding the existing occupancy or 50, whichever is greater.

5. Confirmation that the proposed changes and/or change of use do not trigger

associated fire protection or accessibility requirements or improvements.

The CDBO shall consult with and receive concurrence from the Building Official before

approval.

8.2 Project Considerations

All planned projects shall meet the specific technical requirements of the CBC and/or

where applicable, CBEC, as detailed in previous sections of this document. A building

meets the CSU requirements for seismic performance if it provides essential life safety

to its occupants as required by these CSU requirements.

The requirements of the CBC, including Chapter

16 for new buildings, and CEBC Part 10

for modification of existing buildings, provide the minimum standards for construction.

In many cases, modification of an existing building may not trigger seismic improvements

to meet the requirements of CEBC or other structural provisions of Title

24.

Some occupancies for buildings under the CBC required higher than standard seismic

performance (e.g., educational facilities having over 5,000 occupants, emergency

operations centers, buildings with significant quantities of highly hazardous materials,

etc.) and must be designed and constructed to achieve the required performance levels

consistent with the assigned CBC Risk Category.

The Trustees’ Seismic Requirements require that all projects shall include consideration

of the projects’ seismic safety implications and shall evaluate the practicality and cost of

protective measures against the severity and probability of injury resulting from seismic

occurrences. This applies to all projects, including those that do not trigger

CEBC-mandated evaluations of the structural system.

Planning for all capital projects, regardless of size, shall address potential options

considered to improve seismic performance beyond minimally required code

conformance. The University shall document in writing the basis for the determination

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 33

of the option selected for implementation.

It is important to note that meeting the seismic design and construction practices

described herein does not provide protection of property or equipment from

earthquake destruction or provide for the rapid restoration or maintenance of the

building’s functions or use after an earthquake.

9. SEISMIC SAFETY STANDARDS FOR ACQUIRING BUILDING AND SPACE

It is the Standard of California State University (CSU) to acquire buildings and/or spaces in

buildings owned by others that provide adequate seismic life safety to their occupants.

“Acquire building and/or space in a building” as used in this Standard refers to a right to occupy

buildings or space resulting from a purchase, lease, license, transfer title, or other means.

The requirements for meeting this Standard are set forth below.

All evaluations performed under this Standard are to consider the whole building and all its

structural sections. Where a seismic hazard to the subject building clearly is posed by adjacent

buildings, e.g., an elevated unreinforced masonry wall that may collapse onto the subject

building, these hazards are to be included in the assessment required below. It is not the intent

of this standard to require detailed analyses of adjacent buildings. (See also Section

5.1 Private

Buildings Constructed on CSU Land.)

9.1 Types of Acquisitions

A. Acquire by Lease or License

Newly leased or licensed space may be occupied only if it satisfies the seismic safety

requirements of this Standard at the time the lease or license is executed, which can

be established by one of the following:

1. A

Waiver Letter that justifies the determination that it is safe consistent with

CSU Seismic Requirements, see Section 9

.2.B, or

2. A FEMA Evaluation Report that indicates the building is not expected to pose a

seismic safety risk, see Section 9

.2.B, or

3. A Certificate of Applicable Code indicates the building was designed to modern

Code requirements and does not have characteristics known to be hazardous,

see Section 9

.2.C, or

4. An Independent Review Report states that the building has an earthquake

damageability Level of IV or better, as defined in the table Earthquake

Performance Levels for Existing Buildings, see Attachment D.

The documents establishing any one of these may be produced by the University,

the building owner, or the building owner’s technical agent, and will be accepted

subject to the review of the CSU as detailed in Section 9

.2. The documents resulting

from the requirements of items

3, or 4, above, remain valid for 12 months from

the date of their original issuance. This term can be extended for up to two years

provided that a letter, signed and, where applicable, stamped by the author of the

report or certificate, certifies that there have been: (i) no material changes in the

structural system, either as part of building modifications, or as the result of

accidents, and (ii) no changes in the standards of evaluating buildings that would

change the report’s or certificate’s conclusions, and (iii) no seismic or wind events

that could change the report’s or certificate’s conclusions.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 34

B. Acquire by Purchase or Title Transfer

Whenever a building is acquired by purchase or other title transfer (e.g., exchange,

gift), the due diligence examination of the property shall include a signed and

stamped independent review report from a structural engineer licensed in the

State of California or the state in which the property is located that meets the

requirements of Section 9

D, Independent Review Report, below. It is advisable

that the campus Seismic Peer Reviewer review these documents to determine if they

meet the CSU Seismic Requirements. As an alternative in lieu of Section 9.2.D

requirements, the campus Seismic Peer Reviewer with agreement from the SRB Chair

and Vice Chair may elect that the property meet the requirements of Section 9.2.B if

the building was compliant with the 1998 or subsequent editions of the CBC (1997

Uniform Building Code, as amended). See also Earthquake Performance Levels for

Existing Buildings in Attachment D.

Before the acquisition of a building(s), CSU shall evaluate the building(s) and report

on its seismic damageability. By Standard, a newly acquired building that has an

evaluation of Level IV or better seismic performance may be occupied or continue

to be occupied. A building with a Level V rating may be occupied or continue to be

occupied only if the comprehensive and feasible budget and retrofit plan are in

place at acquisition to retrofit it to achieve a Level IV within five years. A building

with Level VI or poorer ratings must be seismically retrofitted to achieve a Level IV

or better rating before it may be occupied. If the hazard classification depends on

the seismic performance of adjacent structures, then mitigation can be achieved

either by modification of the adjacent building hazard or by protecting the subject

building from the consequences of the adjacent building’s seismic performance.

Any retrofit work undertaken as part of a purchase to meet an assigned Level must

be independently peer-reviewed by the campus Seismic Peer Reviewer.

The peer review shall be of the retrofit or modification design prior to construction

and continue through the completion of construction for conformance with the

asserted Level. See also Earthquake Performance Levels for Existing Buildings given

in Attachment D.

The requirements of this section may be waived if the building is unoccupied, will

remain unoccupied after purchase, is to be demolished, will be sold without

occupancy, or is a one or two-story, wood-framed single-family residence on a level

site.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 35

9.2 Acceptable Evaluation Documents

A. Waiver Letter

The requirements for seismic evaluation under the Seismic Requirements may be

waived under the following limited conditions:

1. The space will be occupied for less than two years, and CSU does not

currently occupy space in the building, or

2. The area of the space to be occupied by CSU is

3,000 SF or less, and the space

is not to house pre-school age children, or

3. The building is a one-story, wood-framed building, or a one- or two-story,

wood-framed single-family residence on level site, or

4. The building is subject to the regulatory authority of the Health Care Access

and Information (HCAI) or is a schoolhouse regulated by the Division of the

State Architect, or

5. The space to be occupied is within a structure currently occupied by and

previously evaluated and accepted under this method by any of the named

entities, or

6. The space must be occupied because of administrative requirements beyond

the control of CSU as certified by a policy-level person. Each CSU

organizational unit shall designate the person(s) authorized to make such

waivers.

Any Waiver Letter issued under one or more of the above allowances must be in

writing by the person making such determination and reviewed and approved by

the campus Seismic Peer Reviewer to be acceptable.

For any building not qualifying for a Waiver Letter, proceed to Section 9.2.C below,

FEMA Evaluation report.

B. Certificate of Applicable Code

A Certificate of Applicable Code (Certificate) may be provided if the entire building

was constructed under a permit approved by the local jurisdiction and was designed

to meet one of the following requirements:

1. Not located in a designated active seismic fault zone by CGS or CSU, in a CGS or

designated seismic hazard zone (faulting, liquefaction, and other seismically

induced hazard zones), or a FEMA high-risk flood zone.

2. Compliant with 1998 or subsequent editions of the CBC (1997 Uniform Building

Code, as amended) or the indicated trigger lower-bound editions of the Code

years indicated in ASCE 41’s most current edition Benchmark Buildings List for

the applicable structural types used in the building. Where several types of

structural systems were used, then the most restrictive trigger date applies.

C. FEMA P-154 Evaluation Report

Seismic compliance may be met by an evaluation using the FEMA P-154

methodology (Rapid Visual Screening) that results in a score higher than the Basic

Hazard Score provided in the FEMA handbook, see Section III for references.

The FEMA P-154 benchmark years for building types in Table 2-2 are replaced by

Table QX Benchmark Buildings List for different building types. All campuses are to

be in areas of seismicity consistent with P-154 definitions based on the ground

motions of the building site, which determines the form to be used. The P-154 Level 1

and 2 evaluations must be completed by a licensed structural engineer. A building

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 36

with SL2 ≥ 2.0 is potentially acceptable if the SRB campus assessor approves the

conclusion.

For any building not qualifying for a favorable FEMA P-154 report, proceed to

Section 9.2.D below.

D. Independent Review Report

An Independent Review Report of the entire building and its critical nonstructural

components shall be prepared by a structural engineer licensed by the State of

California or the state in which the property is located, who has had no prior

involvement in the building’s design or evaluation and has no ownership interest in

the property.

As a matter of policy, all acquisitions by Purchase or other Title Transfer (see Section

9.1.A. above) require an Independent Review Report. The CSU will not approve for

occupancy a newly leased building having a seismic performance level of V or

poorer. See the attached table titled Earthquake Performance Levels for Existing

Buildings given in Attachment D.

The Independent Review Report and its preparation, at a minimum, shall include the

following:

1. A visit to the building to observe its condition and characteristics;

2. A review of available design drawings and soil reports for the original

construction and subsequent modifications;

3. An assessment shall be given based on an ASCE 41 Tier 1 or higher-level

assessment, or some other procedure approved by the SRB. In addition, a

qualitative (and quantitative, if needed) evaluation of the building’s gravity

systems shall be completed;

4. A qualitative (and quantitative, if needed) evaluation of the likelihood of

earthquake-induced site failure that could cause damage to the facility, that

is, the building is in the vicinity of earthquake faults listed in the State of

California Earthquake Zones Act of

1990 (previously Alquist-Priolo) or

liquefaction susceptibility zone as identified by the local jurisdiction, or the

building site is subject to failure due to earthquake-induced landslide risk;

5. Identification of any potential falling hazards in areas that will be occupied

or common areas within the building that poses a life-safety threat to the

building occupants during an earthquake;

6. An evaluation of the earthquake damageability Level of the building using

the definitions of the attached table, Seismic Earthquake Performance

Levels for Existing Buildings, given in Attachment D;

7. A list of the documents, plans, and other materials examined.

If the assessment is done by an SRB member and the procedures of Section 7 are

followed, then the Section 7-style report shall be reviewed by the SRB and the

building leased if it meets them.

For leases, if a landlord intends to complete modifications to bring a building into

compliance with the required Level (minimum), the landlord shall certify that the

work to be completed will meet the requirements of this section, and (ii) describe

the work in sufficient detail to allow CSU’s technical review and approval. In either

case, confirmation that the completed modifications meet the requirements of this

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 37

section shall be done by the landlord’s structural engineer.

The Independent Review Report must be signed and stamped by the professional

who certifies that the evaluation was Level IV or better before occupancy occurs,

then the landlord’s structural engineer must state that the work was done by this

person or under this person’s direct supervision, that they have no prior

involvement in the building’s design or evaluation, and the firm or individuals of the

firm have no ownership interest in the property. CSU may have the Independent

Review Report prepared to meet Section 8.2 requirements peer-reviewed to

confirm its technical reliability prior to acceptance of the report’s conclusions and

reliance upon it in the execution of the real estate transaction.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 38

Attachment A

California State University Seismic Review Board

The following persons are members of the CSU SRB:

•

Charles C. Thiel Jr., Ph.D., Chairman; President, Telesis

•

K. Dirk Bondy, S.E., President, Seneca Structural Engineers, Inc.

•

Debra Murphy, C.E., Consulting Civil Engineer - Geotechnical

•

Barry Schindler, S.E., Partner, John A. Martin and Associates, Inc.

•

Richard Niewiarowski, S.E., Consulting Structural Engineer

•

Maryann Phipps, S.E., President, Estructure, Inc.

•

Thomas Sabol, Ph.D., S.E., Principal, Englekirk Institutional, Inc.

•

John A. Martin Jr., S.E. (Emeritus); retired, President, John A. Martin and Associates, Inc.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 39

ATTACHMENT B

CSU Seismic Requirements values for use on all projects subject to the 2022 edition

of the California Building Code

Seismic Coefficients for CSU Campus Locations

Seismic ground motion parameters for CSU campuses are given in Table 1 below for Site Class

designations corresponding to reference rock Site Class BC (V

S30

= 760 m/s) as utilized by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) in developing the U.S. Seismic Design Maps, as well as Site Class C (very dense

soil and soft rock), Site Class D (stiff soil), and Default Site Class D.

Site Class definitions are as given in ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 20; if soil and/or rock properties information is

not available in adequate detail to designate the Site Class per ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 20, then Default D

Site Class values shall be used, unless the site geotechnical report indicates that an exception should be

made, and the Seismic Peer Reviewer’s concurs.

As noted in Section 3.3, these values are to be used for all projects on the University’s campus.

Use of the seismic ground motion parameters given in Table 1 supersedes the provisions of ASCE/SEI 7

Chapter 11, Section 11.4.8, requiring site-specific ground motion hazard and/or site response analyses

for structure locations at CSU campuses with Site Class D ground conditions. Site-specific ground motion

hazard and/or site response analyses may still be required for Site Classes E and F ground conditions

unless the exceptions of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Supplement 3 (adopted by the CBC) are met. Site-specific ground

motion hazard and/or site response analyses are permitted for any Site Class if warranted by the nature

or special characteristics of a project; however, the need for such site-specific analyses, as well as the

methodology for these analyses and analysis results, shall be subject to peer review by the geotechnical

member of the CSU Seismic Review Board. The value of S1 used to determine the Seismic Design

Category in ASCE 7 corresponds to the SM1 value for Site Class BC in Table 1.

If there is a known active fault that traverses the campus as determined by the California Geological

Survey or the Seismic Review Board, then it is so indicated, see Section 3.6. CSU has not implemented

the CBC Latest edition allowance to reduce the BSE-C and/or BSE-R if they exceed the BSE-2N (MCE

)

and BSE-1N (DE)values; the values determined below apply without modifications. If there is a known

California Geological Survey liquefaction map that includes portions of the site that are subject to

liquefaction, they have been noted. Note that some local jurisdictions publish supplemental liquefaction

maps that should be referenced if they apply. The liquefaction and faulting annotations of the Table are

intended to alert the University for planning purposes. The soils report for all projects should address

whether the specific site exhibits these hazards as well as other soil movement and densification

characteristics to assure that the design considers them.

In addition, for investigations that are undertaken specifically to investigate the occurrence of geologic

and geotechnical seismic hazards (e.g., faulting, liquefaction, land sliding), as well as site-specific ground

motion hazard and/or site response analyses, the CSU Geotechnical Peer Reviewer shall be the peer

reviewer for all locations within the CSU systems.

The Seismic Review Board should be contacted through the campus assigned Seismic Peer Reviewer for

assignment of the appropriate values for sites not listed or a site that is not a part of the contiguous

campus.

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 40

Table 1 - CSU Campus Seismic Ground Motion Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Parameters

(Table revision date: March 5, 2020)

Campus

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

Bakersfield No

White Wolf ≈ 34

San Andreas ≈

52 km

0.41 0.38 0.95 0.35 0.27 0.25 0.63 0.23 0.31 0.29 0.72 0.26 0.16 0.15 0.37 0.13

C 0.49 0.45 1.13 0.52 0.33 0.30 0.76 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.88 0.40 0.20 0.19 0.48 0.20

0.49 0.42 1.06 0.68 0.33 0.28 0.71 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.88 0.55 0.24 0.22 0.55 0.31

Default

0.49 0.45 1.13 0.68 0.33 0.30 0.76 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.88 0.55 0.24 0.22 0.55 0.31

Bakersfield

Antelope

Valley

San Andreas ≈

10 km

BC 0.67 0.61 1.52 0.62 0.44 0.40 1.01 0.42 0.56 0.57 1.43 0.58 0.25 0.24 0.60 0.22

0.80 0.73 1.82 0.87 0.53 0.49 1.21 0.58 0.67 0.68 1.71 0.82 0.30 0.30 0.76 0.33

0.73 0.61 1.52 1.06 0.49 0.40 1.01 0.71 0.62 0.57 1.43 1.00 0.34 0.32 0.79 0.48

Default

0.73 0.73 1.82 1.06 0.49 0.49 1.21 0.71 0.62 0.68 1.71 1.00 0.34 0.32 0.79 0.48

Cal Maritime

Academy

Franklin ≈ 1¼ km,

West Napa ≈ 11

km, Green Valley

≈ 11 km, &

Hayward ≈ 14 km

BC 0.50 0.60 1.50 0.60 0.33 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.65 0.68 1.69 0.60 0.35 0.35 0.88 0.30

0.60 0.72 1.80 0.84 0.40 0.48 1.20 0.56 0.78 0.81 2.03 0.84 0.43 0.42 1.05 0.45

D 0.55 0.60 1.50 1.02 0.37 0.40 1.00 0.68 0.72 0.68 1.69 1.03 0.44 0.40 1.01 0.60

Default

0.55 0.72 1.80 1.02 0.37 0.48 1.20 0.68 0.72 0.81 2.03 1.03 0.44 0.42 1.05 0.60

Chancellor’s

Office

Compton ≈ 1½

km,

Newport-

Inglewood

≈ 5 km,

Palos Verdes ≈

5¼ km

Yes

0.72 0.65 1.63 0.59 0.48 0.43 1.09 0.40 0.49 0.48 1.19 0.42 0.23 0.21 0.54 0.18

C 0.87 0.78 1.96 0.84 0.58 0.52 1.30 0.56 0.59 0.57 1.43 0.63 0.28 0.28 0.69 0.27

0.80 0.65 1.63 1.01 0.53 0.43 1.09 0.68 0.54 0.49 1.22 0.79 0.32 0.29 0.74 0.41

Default

0.80 0.78 1.96 1.01 0.53 0.52 1.30 0.68 0.54 0.57 1.43 0.79 0.32 0.29 0.74 0.41

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 41

Campus

continued

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

Channel

Islands

Simi-Santa Rosa

≈ 8 km,

Oak Ridge ≈ 15

Yes

0.64 0.59 1.49 0.54 0.43 0.40 0.99 0.36 0.45 0.45 1.13 0.40 0.23 0.22 0.54 0.19

C 0.77 0.71 1.78 0.79 0.51 0.48 1.19 0.53 0.54 0.54 1.35 0.60 0.28 0.28 0.70 0.28

D 0.70 0.59 1.49 0.95 0.47 0.40 0.99 0.64 0.52 0.47 1.18 0.76 0.32 0.30 0.74 0.42

Default

0.70 0.71 1.78 0.95 0.47 0.48 1.19 0.64 0.52 0.54 1.35 0.76 0.32 0.30 0.74 0.42

Chico No

Cascadia

Subduction Zone

≈ 125 km

BC 0.34 0.31 0.77 0.32 0.23 0.21 0.51 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.57 0.23 0.12 0.11 0.26 0.11

C 0.41 0.37 0.92 0.47 0.27 0.25 0.62 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.72 0.35 0.15 0.14 0.34 0.16

0.43 0.37 0.92 0.63 0.29 0.24 0.61 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.76 0.49 0.18 0.17 0.42 0.25

Default

0.43 0.37 0.92 0.63 0.29 0.25 0.62 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.76 0.49 0.18 0.17 0.42 0.25

Dominguez

Hills

Newport-

Inglewood

< 1 km,

Compton ≈ 8¾

km,

Palos Verdes ≈

11 km

BC 0.75 0.70 1.74 0.62 0.50 0.46 1.16 0.41 0.52 0.51 1.29 0.45 0.26 0.24 0.60 0.20

0.90 0.83 2.09 0.87 0.60 0.56 1.39 0.58 0.62 0.62 1.54 0.67 0.31 0.30 0.76 0.30

D 0.83 0.70 1.74 1.06 0.55 0.46 1.16 0.70 0.57 0.51 1.29 0.83 0.34 0.32 0.79 0.44

Default

0.83 0.83 2.09 1.06 0.55 0.56 1.39 0.70 0.57 0.62 1.54 0.83 0.34 0.32 0.79 0.44

East Bay

Concord

Concord/Green

Valley ≈ 3 km

BC 0.94 0.93 2.33 0.69 0.62 0.62 1.56 0.46 0.75 0.77 1.92 0.65 0.39 0.38 0.95 0.31

1.12 1.12 2.80 0.97 0.75 0.75 1.87 0.65 0.90 0.92 2.31 0.91 0.47 0.46 1.14 0.47

D 1.03 0.93 2.33 1.18 0.69 0.62 1.56 0.78 0.83 0.77 1.92 1.11 0.47 0.43 1.06 0.62

Default

1.03 1.12 2.80 1.18 0.69 0.75 1.87 0.78 0.83 0.92 2.31 1.11 0.47 0.46 1.14 0.62

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 42

Campus

continued

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

East Bay

Hayward

Yes,

Hayward

Hayward < 1 km

Yes,

Landslide

Zone

0.97 0.92 2.30 0.88 0.64 0.61 1.54 0.59 0.95 0.98 2.45 0.89 0.49 0.49 1.22 0.42

1.16 1.11 2.76 1.23 0.77 0.74 1.84 0.82 1.14 1.17 2.94 1.25 0.59 0.58 1.46 0.63

1.06 0.92 2.30 1.50 0.71 0.61 1.54 1.00 1.05 0.98 2.45 1.51 0.55 0.49 1.23 0.79

Default

1.06 1.11 2.76 1.50 0.71 0.74 1.84 1.00 1.05 1.17 2.94 1.51 0.55 0.58 1.46 0.79

Fresno No

Great Valley ≈ 72

San Andreas

≈ 115 km

0.24 0.22 0.56 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.37 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.40 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.20 0.09

0.29 0.28 0.71 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.47 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.52 0.25 0.12 0.11 0.27 0.14

0.33 0.30 0.75 0.48 0.22 0.20 0.50 0.32 0.25 0.24 0.59 0.37 0.15 0.13 0.33 0.22

Default

0.33 0.30 0.75 0.48 0.22 0.20 0.50 0.32 0.25 0.24 0.59 0.37 0.15 0.13 0.33 0.22

Fullerton No

Puente Hills Blind

Thrust < 1 km

Whittier ≈ 6 km

Yes

BC 0.72 0.67 1.69 0.59 0.48 0.45 1.12 0.40 0.51 0.50 1.26 0.43 0.26 0.24 0.61 0.21

C 0.87 0.81 2.02 0.83 0.58 0.54 1.35 0.56 0.62 0.60 1.51 0.65 0.31 0.31 0.77 0.31

D 0.80 0.67 1.69 1.01 0.53 0.45 1.12 0.67 0.56 0.50 1.26 0.81 0.35 0.32 0.80 0.45

Default

0.80 0.81 2.02 1.01 0.53 0.54 1.35 0.67 0.56 0.60 1.51 0.81 0.35 0.32 0.80 0.45

Humboldt

Yes,

Fickle

Hill

Fickle Hill < 1 km,

Little Salmon ≈ 9

km,

Cascadia

Subduction Zone

≈ 18 km

BC 0.99 0.98 2.44 1.07 0.66 0.65 1.63 0.72 0.99 0.91 2.27 0.91 0.43 0.37 0.92 0.34

C 1.19 1.17 2.93 1.50 0.80 0.78 1.95 1.00 1.18 1.09 2.72 1.28 0.52 0.44 1.11 0.51

D 1.09 0.98 2.44 1.82 0.73 0.65 1.63 1.22 1.08 0.91 2.27 1.55 0.50 0.42 1.04 0.66

Default

1.09 1.17 2.93 1.82 0.73 0.78 1.95 1.22 1.08 1.09 2.72 1.55 0.50 0.44 1.11 0.66

Humboldt

Marine Lab

Trinidad

Trinidad ≈ 1¼

km,

Mad River ≈ 4

km,

Cascadia

Subduction Zone

≈ 16 km

BC 1.21 1.08 2.71 1.10 0.81 0.72 1.81 0.73 0.92 0.80 2.01 0.85 0.36 0.31 0.78 0.29

C 1.46 1.30 3.25 1.54 0.97 0.87 2.17 1.02 1.10 0.97 2.41 1.19 0.43 0.37 0.93 0.43

D 1.34 1.08 2.71 1.86 0.89 0.72 1.81 1.24 1.01 0.80 2.01 1.45 0.45 0.37 0.92 0.58

Default

1.34 1.30 3.25 1.86 0.89 0.87 2.17 1.24 1.01 0.97 2.41 1.45 0.45 0.37 0.93 0.58

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 43

Campus

continued

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

Long Beach No

Newport-

Inglewood

≈ 1½ km

Compton ≈ 6½

Yes

BC 0.67 0.62 1.55 0.56 0.45 0.41 1.03 0.37 0.46 0.45 1.12 0.39 0.22 0.21 0.53 0.18

C 0.81 0.74 1.86 0.80 0.54 0.50 1.24 0.54 0.55 0.54 1.35 0.59 0.27 0.27 0.68 0.27

D 0.74 0.62 1.55 0.97 0.49 0.41 1.03 0.65 0.52 0.47 1.18 0.75 0.31 0.29 0.73 0.40

Default

0.74 0.74 1.86 0.97 0.49 0.50 1.24 0.65 0.52 0.54 1.35 0.75 0.31 0.29 0.73 0.40

Los Angeles No

Upper Elysian

Park

< 1 km

BC 0.87 0.80 2.01 0.72 0.58 0.54 1.34 0.48 0.61 0.61 1.53 0.53 0.29 0.28 0.69 0.23

C 1.04 0.96 2.41 1.01 0.69 0.64 1.61 0.67 0.73 0.73 1.83 0.78 0.35 0.34 0.85 0.35

D 0.95 0.80 2.01 1.23 0.64 0.54 1.34 0.82 0.67 0.61 1.53 0.94 0.38 0.34 0.86 0.50

Default

0.95 0.96 2.41 1.23 0.64 0.64 1.61 0.82 0.67 0.73 1.83 0.94 0.38 0.34 0.86 0.50

Monterey Bay

East

Reliz ≈ 1¼

km&San Andreas

≈ 28 km

0.60 0.59 1.47 0.53 0.40 0.39 0.98 0.35 0.45 0.45 1.12 0.40 0.26 0.26 0.64 0.22

C 0.72 0.71 1.77 0.78 0.48 0.47 1.18 0.52 0.54 0.54 1.35 0.60 0.32 0.32 0.80 0.32

D 0.66 0.59 1.47 0.93 0.44 0.39 0.98 0.62 0.52 0.47 1.18 0.76 0.35 0.33 0.83 0.47

Default

0.66 0.71 1.77 0.93 0.44 0.47 1.18 0.62 0.52 0.54 1.35 0.76 0.35 0.33 0.83 0.47

Monterey Bay

West

Reliz ≈ 3 km

San Andreas ≈

31 km

0.58 0.57 1.41 0.51 0.39 0.38 0.94 0.34 0.43 0.43 1.07 0.39 0.25 0.24 0.60 0.21

0.70 0.68 1.70 0.76 0.47 0.45 1.13 0.51 0.51 0.52 1.29 0.58 0.30 0.30 0.76 0.31

0.64 0.57 1.41 0.91 0.43 0.38 0.94 0.61 0.50 0.46 1.15 0.74 0.33 0.32 0.79 0.45

Default

0.64 0.68 1.70 0.91 0.43 0.45 1.13 0.61 0.50 0.52 1.29 0.74 0.33 0.32 0.79 0.45

Moss Landing

Marine

Laboratories

San Andreas ≈

19 km

0.68 0.67 1.69 0.61 0.46 0.45 1.12 0.41 0.53 0.53 1.31 0.47 0.32 0.31 0.77 0.26

0.82 0.81 2.02 0.85 0.55 0.54 1.35 0.57 0.63 0.63 1.58 0.71 0.38 0.37 0.92 0.38

0.75 0.67 1.69 1.04 0.50 0.45 1.12 0.69 0.58 0.53 1.31 0.86 0.41 0.37 0.91 0.53

Default

0.75 0.81 2.02 1.04 0.50 0.54 1.35 0.69 0.58 0.63 1.58 0.86 0.41 0.37 0.92 0.53

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 44

Campus

continued

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

Northridge No

Santa Susana ≈ 7

km,

Northridge Hills

≈ 1 km,

Mission Hills ≈

3¾ km

BC 0.80 0.78 1.96 0.68 0.54 0.52 1.31 0.45 0.69 0.70 1.75 0.60 0.37 0.35 0.88 0.28

C 0.96 0.94 2.35 0.95 0.64 0.63 1.57 0.64 0.83 0.84 2.10 0.84 0.45 0.42 1.06 0.42

D 0.88 0.78 1.96 1.16 0.59 0.52 1.31 0.77 0.76 0.70 1.75 1.02 0.46 0.41 1.01 0.57

Default

0.88 0.94 2.35 1.16 0.59 0.63 1.57 0.77 0.76 0.84 2.10 1.02 0.46 0.42 1.06 0.57

Pomona

Yes,

San

Jose

San Jose < 1 km,

Chino ≈ 7½ km,

Sierra Madre ≈ 8

Yes

BC 0.73 0.69 1.72 0.62 0.49 0.46 1.14 0.41 0.52 0.52 1.31 0.47 0.27 0.26 0.65 0.23

C 0.88 0.82 2.06 0.87 0.58 0.55 1.37 0.58 0.62 0.63 1.57 0.70 0.33 0.32 0.81 0.34

D 0.80 0.69 1.72 1.05 0.54 0.46 1.14 0.70 0.57 0.52 1.31 0.85 0.36 0.33 0.84 0.48

Default

0.80 0.82 2.06 1.05 0.54 0.55 1.37 0.70 0.57 0.63 1.57 0.85 0.36 0.33 0.84 0.48

Pomona

Campus

South

(Lanterman)

San Jose ≈ 2½

km,

Chino ≈ 6 km,

Sierra Madre ≈

10 km

Yes

0.75 0.70 1.75 0.63 0.50 0.47 1.17 0.42 0.53 0.53 1.34 0.47 0.28 0.27 0.66 0.23

C 0.90 0.84 2.10 0.88 0.60 0.56 1.40 0.58 0.64 0.64 1.60 0.71 0.33 0.33 0.82 0.34

D 0.82 0.70 1.75 1.06 0.55 0.47 1.17 0.71 0.59 0.53 1.34 0.86 0.37 0.34 0.84 0.49

Default

0.82 0.84 2.10 1.06 0.55 0.56 1.40 0.71 0.59 0.64 1.60 0.86 0.37 0.34 0.84 0.49

Sacramento No

Great Valley

(Midland) ≈ 38

San Andreas ≈

130 km

0.22 0.21 0.53 0.24 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.39 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.22 0.10

0.27 0.27 0.68 0.36 0.18 0.18 0.45 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.51 0.28 0.12 0.11 0.28 0.15

0.30 0.29 0.73 0.51 0.20 0.19 0.48 0.34 0.25 0.23 0.58 0.41 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.24

Default

0.30 0.29 0.73 0.51 0.20 0.19 0.48 0.34 0.25 0.23 0.58 0.41 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.24

San

Bernardino

San Andreas

≈ 1½ km

San Jacinto ≈ 4½

1.03 0.96 2.39 1.02 0.69 0.64 1.60 0.68 0.96 0.97 2.42 0.96 0.48 0.46 1.15 0.40

1.24 1.15 2.87 1.43 0.82 0.77 1.92 0.95 1.15 1.16 2.90 1.35 0.58 0.55 1.38 0.60

1.13 0.96 2.39 1.73 0.76 0.64 1.60 1.15 1.05 0.97 2.42 1.63 0.54 0.48 1.20 0.76

Default

1.13 1.15 2.87 1.73 0.76 0.77 1.92 1.15 1.05 1.16 2.90 1.63 0.54 0.55 1.38 0.76

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 45

Campus

continued

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

San

Bernardino

Palm Desert

San Andreas ≈ 6

BC 0.77 0.72 1.81 0.74 0.52 0.48 1.20 0.49 0.65 0.66 1.64 0.63 0.32 0.31 0.77 0.26

C 0.93 0.87 2.17 1.04 0.62 0.58 1.45 0.69 0.78 0.79 1.97 0.88 0.39 0.37 0.92 0.39

D 0.85 0.72 1.81 1.26 0.57 0.48 1.20 0.84 0.71 0.66 1.64 1.06 0.41 0.37 0.92 0.54

Default

0.85 0.87 2.17 1.26 0.57 0.58 1.45 0.84 0.71 0.79 1.97 1.06 0.41 0.37 0.92 0.54

San Diego No

Rose

Canyon/Newport-

Inglewood ≈ 10

BC 0.40 0.37 0.91 0.32 0.27 0.24 0.61 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.69 0.24 0.13 0.12 0.31 0.12

C 0.48 0.44 1.10 0.48 0.32 0.29 0.73 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.84 0.36 0.17 0.16 0.40 0.17

D 0.48 0.41 1.04 0.64 0.32 0.28 0.69 0.43 0.37 0.34 0.86 0.51 0.20 0.19 0.48 0.27

Default

0.48 0.44 1.10 0.64 0.32 0.29 0.73 0.43 0.37 0.34 0.86 0.51 0.20 0.19 0.48 0.27

San Diego

Imperial

Valley

Brawley

Brawley Seismic

Zone <1 km

Imperial ≈8 km

BC 0.55 0.60 1.50 0.60 0.37 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.808 0.84 2.11 0.74 0.48 0.48 1.20 0.38

C 0.66 0.72 1.80 0.84 0.44 0.48 1.20 0.56 0.937 1.01 2.53 1.03 0.56 0.58 1.44 0.58

D 0.61 0.60 1.50 1.02 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.68 0.873 0.84 2.11 1.25 0.54 0.49 1.22 0.74

Default

0.61 0.72 1.80 1.02 0.40 0.40 1.20 0.68 0.873 0.84 2.11 1.25 0.54 0.49 1.44 0.74

San Diego

Imperial

Cerro Prieto ≈ 9½

Imperial ≈ 10 km

0.54 0.60 1.50 0.60 0.36 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.67 0.70 1.76 0.64 0.39 0.40 0.99 0.33

0.65 0.72 1.80 0.84 0.43 0.48 1.20 0.56 0.80 0.84 2.11 0.90 0.47 0.47 1.19 0.50

0.59 0.60 1.50 1.02 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.68 0.73 0.70 1.76 1.09 0.47 0.44 1.09 0.66

Default

0.59 0.72 1.80 1.02 0.40 0.48 1.20 0.68 0.73 0.84 2.11 1.09 0.47 0.47 1.19 0.66

San Diego

Mission

Valley

Rose

Canyon/Newport-

Inglewood ≈ 7¼

0.48 0.43 1.07 0.37 0.32 0.29 0.71 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.78 0.27 0.14 0.13 0.32 0.12

0.57 0.51 1.29 0.56 0.38 0.34 0.86 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.94 0.40 0.17 0.17 0.42 0.18

0.54 0.46 1.15 0.72 0.36 0.31 0.77 0.48 0.40 0.37 0.93 0.55 0.21 0.20 0.50 0.28

Default

0.54 0.51 1.29 0.72 0.36 0.34 0.86 0.48 0.40 0.38 0.94 0.55 0.21 0.20 0.50 0.28

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 46

Campus

continued

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

San

Francisco

San Andreas ≈

4¼ km

Yes

BC 0.87 0.81 2.03 0.84 0.58 0.54 1.35 0.56 0.72 0.74 1.86 0.75 0.33 0.32 0.81 0.29

C 1.05 0.97 2.44 1.17 0.70 0.65 1.62 0.78 0.87 0.89 2.23 1.05 0.40 0.39 0.97 0.44

D 0.96 0.81 2.03 1.43 0.64 0.54 1.35 0.95 0.80 0.74 1.86 1.28 0.42 0.38 0.95 0.59

Default

0.96 0.97 2.44 1.43 0.64 0.65 1.62 0.95 0.80 0.89 2.23 1.28 0.42 0.39 0.97 0.59

San

Francisco

Tiburon

San Andreas ≈

16 km

Hayward ≈ 13 km

BC 0.50 0.60 1.50 0.60 0.33 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.53 0.54 1.35 0.52 0.30 0.29 0.73 0.26

C 0.60 0.72 1.80 0.84 0.40 0.48 1.20 0.56 0.64 0.65 1.62 0.77 0.36 0.35 0.88 0.39

D 0.55 0.60 1.50 1.02 0.37 0.40 1.00 0.68 0.58 0.54 1.35 0.93 0.39 0.35 0.89 0.54

Default

0.55 0.72 1.80 1.02 0.37 0.48 1.20 0.68 0.58 0.65 1.62 0.93 0.39 0.35 0.89 0.54

San José No

Hayward ≈ 9 km,

Calaveras ≈ 11

km,

San Andreas ≈

20 km

Yes

0.58 0.60 1.50 0.60 0.38 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.66 0.71 1.77 0.65 0.40 0.41 1.02 0.35

C 0.69 0.72 1.80 0.84 0.46 0.48 1.20 0.56 0.80 0.85 2.13 0.91 0.48 0.49 1.22 0.52

D 0.63 0.60 1.50 1.02 0.42 0.40 1.00 0.68 0.73 0.71 1.77 1.10 0.48 0.44 1.11 0.68

Default

0.63 0.72 1.80 1.02 0.42 0.48 1.20 0.68 0.73 0.85 2.13 1.10 0.48 0.49 1.22 0.68

San José

South

Hayward ≈ 8½

km,

Calaveras ≈ 11

km,

San Andreas ≈

20 km

Yes

0.56 0.60 1.50 0.60 0.37 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.66 0.71 1.77 0.64 0.40 0.41 1.02 0.35

0.67 0.72 1.80 0.84 0.45 0.48 1.20 0.56 0.80 0.85 2.12 0.90 0.48 0.49 1.22 0.52

0.62 0.60 1.50 1.02 0.41 0.40 1.00 0.68 0.73 0.71 1.77 1.09 0.48 0.45 1.11 0.67

Default

0.62 0.72 1.80 1.02 0.41 0.48 1.20 0.68 0.73 0.85 2.12 1.09 0.48 0.49 1.22 0.67

San Luis

Obispo

Oceanic-West

Huasna ≈ 3½

km&Hosgri ≈ 25

0.48 0.43 1.08 0.40 0.32 0.29 0.72 0.26 0.32 0.31 0.77 0.28 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.13

0.57 0.52 1.29 0.59 0.38 0.34 0.86 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.92 0.43 0.19 0.18 0.45 0.19

0.54 0.46 1.15 0.75 0.36 0.31 0.77 0.50 0.41 0.37 0.92 0.58 0.23 0.21 0.53 0.30

Default

0.54 0.52 1.29 0.75 0.36 0.34 0.86 0.50 0.41 0.37 0.92 0.58 0.23 0.21 0.53 0.30

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 47

Campus

continued

Active

Fault

Zone

Closest

UCERF3

Faults

for Deterministic

Ground Shaking

Considerations

Located in a

Mapped

Liquefaction

Zone

Site

Class

BSE-2N [MCER] (g)

BSE-1N [Design] (g)

BSE-C (g)

BSE-R (g)

PGAM SM0 SMS SM1 PGAD SD0 SDS SD1 PGAC SC0 SCS SC1 PGAR SR0 SRS SR1

San Marco No

Rose

Canyon/Newport-

Inglewood ≈ 20

BC 0.39 0.36 0.89 0.33 0.26 0.24 0.59 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.68 0.25 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.13

C 0.46 0.43 1.07 0.49 0.31 0.29 0.71 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.83 0.37 0.19 0.18 0.45 0.19

D 0.47 0.41 1.02 0.65 0.31 0.27 0.68 0.43 0.37 0.34 0.85 0.52 0.22 0.21 0.53 0.30

Default

0.47 0.43 1.07 0.65 0.31 0.29 0.71 0.43 0.37 0.34 0.85 0.52 0.22 0.21 0.53 0.30

Sonoma No

Rodgers Creek-

Healdsburg ≈ 3½

BC 0.87 0.82 2.06 0.79 0.58 0.55 1.37 0.53 0.69 0.71 1.77 0.66 0.33 0.32 0.80 0.29

C 1.04 0.99 2.47 1.11 0.69 0.66 1.65 0.74 0.83 0.85 2.12 0.92 0.40 0.39 0.96 0.43

D 0.95 0.82 2.06 1.35 0.64 0.55 1.37 0.90 0.76 0.71 1.77 1.12 0.42 0.38 0.95 0.58

Default

0.95 0.99 2.47 1.35 0.64 0.66 1.65 0.90 0.76 0.85 2.12 1.12 0.42 0.39 0.96 0.58

Sonoma

Los Guilicos

Preserve

Rodgers Creek-

Healdsburg ≈ 9

West Napa ≈ 11

0.66 0.63 1.56 0.60 0.44 0.42 1.04 0.40 0.61 0.64 1.60 0.58 0.32 0.32 0.80 0.28

C 0.79 0.75 1.88 0.84 0.53 0.50 1.25 0.56 0.73 0.77 1.92 0.83 0.39 0.38 0.96 0.42

D 0.72 0.63 1.56 1.02 0.48 0.42 1.04 0.68 0.67 0.64 1.60 1.00 0.41 0.38 0.94 0.57

Default

0.72 0.75 1.88 1.02 0.48 0.50 1.25 0.68 0.67 0.77 1.92 1.00 0.41 0.38 0.96 0.57

Stanislaus No

Great Valley

(Orestimba)

≈ 32 km

0.28 0.26 0.66 0.26 0.18 0.18 0.44 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.49 0.20 0.12 0.11 0.27 0.11

0.33 0.33 0.82 0.39 0.22 0.22 0.54 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.64 0.30 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.17

0.36 0.34 0.84 0.55 0.24 0.22 0.56 0.36 0.29 0.28 0.69 0.44 0.18 0.17 0.43 0.27

Default

0.36 0.34 0.84 0.55 0.24 0.22 0.56 0.36 0.29 0.28 0.69 0.44 0.18 0.17 0.43 0.27

Stanislaus

Stockton

Great Valley

(Midland)

≈ 29 km

0.30 0.29 0.72 0.28 0.20 0.19 0.48 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.54 0.22 0.13 0.12 0.30 0.12

0.36 0.35 0.87 0.42 0.24 0.23 0.58 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.69 0.32 0.16 0.15 0.38 0.18

0.39 0.35 0.88 0.57 0.26 0.23 0.59 0.38 0.31 0.29 0.73 0.47 0.20 0.18 0.46 0.29

CSU Seismic Requirements D5 SRB Edits based on review comments Page 48

Notes:

The active fault zones are indicated by the appropriate fault zone special studies map issued by the California Geological Survey (CGS).

The earthquake fault zone for the San Jose fault is indicated on the map prepared for and issued by the CSU Seismic Review Board. These are also

available on the Web at the site

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/, where liquefaction, landslide and flood plain requirements are

determinable by site address.

Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R.,

Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y., 2013, Uniform California earthquake rupture

forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165, 97 p., California Geological

Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/.

Liquefaction Zonation is based on CGS maps from 1998 to 2005. Locations where a map was not available are indicated by "--".

As defined per ASCE/SEI 7-16, ASCE/SEI 41-17, 2019 California Building Code (CBC).

For sites underlain by Site Class E or F ground conditions, site-specific ground motion hazard and/or site response analyses shall be performed to

determine appropriate horizontal response spectral acceleration parameters, unless the exceptions of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Supplement 3 (adopted by the

CBC) are met.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 49

ATTACHMENT C

California State University Campus Assignments of Seismic Peer Reviewers

The following Seismic Peer Reviewers are assigned for the respective campuses of the California State

University and associated locations. All seismic peer reviews for the indicated campuses or their off-campus

locations are to be performed by the named individuals or their designees. For other locations, the CSU

Seismic Review Board will assign the Seismic Peer Reviewer. In addition, for investigations that are undertaken

specifically to investigate the occurrence of geologic and geotechnical seismic hazards (e.g., faulting,

liquefaction, land sliding), Debra Murphy shall be the Seismic Peer Reviewer for all locations within the CSU

system. For the updated and current list, see the link:

Seismic Peer Reviewers are assigned to individual

campuses of the CSU

Campus Principal Seismic Peer Reviewer

Name

Bakersfield

Dirk Bondy

Bakersfield – Antelope Valley

Dirk Bondy

California Maritime Academy

Maryann Phipps

Chancellor’s Office

Barry Schindler

Channel Islands

Barry Schindler

Chico

Maryann Phipps

Dominguez Hills

Thomas Sabol

East Bay - Concord

Richard Niewiarowski

East Bay – Main Campus

Richard Niewiarowski

Fresno

Maryann Phipps

Fullerton

Barry Schindler

Humboldt

Maryann Phipps

Humboldt - Trinidad

Maryann Phipps

Long Beach

Dirk Bondy

Los Angeles

Thomas Sabol

Monterey Bay-East Campus

Richard Niewiarowski

Monterey Bay- West Campus

Richard Niewiarowski

Northridge

Thomas Sabol

Pomona

Barry Schindler

Pomona - South

Barry Schindler

Sacramento

Maryann Phipps

San Bernardino

Dirk Bondy

San Bernardino-Palm Desert

Dirk Bondy

San Diego

Barry Schindler

San Diego-Brawley

Barry Schindler

San Diego-Imperial

Barry Schindler

San Diego-Mission Valley

Barry Schindler

San Francisco

Charles Thiel

San Francisco-Tiburon

Charles Thiel

San José

Richard Niewiarowski

San José South Campus

Richard Niewiarowski

SJSU - Moss Landing

Richard Niewiarowski

SJSU - Marine Laboratory

Richard Niewiarowski

San Luis Obispo

Thomas Sabol

San Marcos

Dirk Bondy

Sonoma

Maryann Phipps

Sonoma - Los Guilicos Preserve

Maryann Phipps

Sonoma - Fairfield Osborn Preserve

Maryann Phipps

Sonoma- Galbreath Wildland Preserve

Maryann Phipps

Stanislaus

Richard Niewiarowski

Stanislaus-Stockton

Richard Niewiarowski

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 50

ATTACHMENT D

Seismic Performance Levels for Existing Buildings

(Table revision date: July 1, 2023)

Determination of expected seismic performance based on level of current CEBC Structural compliance,

Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations:

Definitions based upon California Existing Building Code (CEBC) requirements for seismic evaluation of

buildings using performance criteria in CEBC Table 317.5

Rating

Level 1

A building evaluated as meeting or exceeding the requirements of CEBC for Risk Category IV

performance criteria with BSE-1 and BSE-2 hazard levels without MCE

capping replacing BSE-R and

BSE-C respectively as given in CEBC. Alternatively, a building meeting the CBC requirements for a

new building

of this Category.

A building evaluated as meeting or exceeding the requirements of CEBC for Risk Category IV

performance criteria. Alternatively, a building meeting the CBC requirements for a new building

of this

Category.

A building evaluated as meeting or exceeding the requirements of CEBC for Risk Category I-III

performance criteria with BSE-1 and BSE-2 hazard levels without MCE

capping replacing BSE-R and

BSE-C respectively as given in CEBC. Alternatively, a building meeting the CBC requirements for a

new building

III

A building evaluated as meeting or exceeding the requirements of CEBC for Risk Category I-III

performance criteria.

A building evaluated as meeting or exceeding the requirements of CEBC for Risk Category I-III

performance criteria only if the BSE-R and BSE-C values are reduced to 2/3 of those specified for the

site.

A building evaluated as not meeting the minimum requirements for Level V designation and not

requiring a Level VII designation.

A building evaluated as posing an immediate life-safety hazard to its occupants under gravity loads.

The building should be evacuated and posted as dangerous until remedial actions are taken to assure

the building can support CBC prescribed dead and live loads.

VII

Indications of Implied Risk to Life and Implied Seismic Damageability

Rating Level 1,5

Historic Risk Ratings of 6

Implied Risk to Life 3

Implied Seismic Damageability 4

DSA/SSC

(In a BSE-1 Event)

Negligible

0% to 10%

Insignificant

0% to 15%

III

Good

Slight

5% to 20%

Fair

Small

10% to 30%

Poor

Serious

20% to 50%

Very Poor

Severe

40% to 100%

VII

Dangerous

100%

Notes:

1. Earthquake damageability levels are indicated by Roman numerals I through VII. Assignments are

to be

made following a professional assessment of the building’s expected seismic performance as

measured by

the referenced technical standard and earthquake ground motions.

Equivalent Arabic numerals, fractional

values, or plus or minus values are not to be used.

These assignments were prepared by a task force of

state agency technical personnel, including

California State University, University of California, Department

of General Services, Division of the

State Architect, and Administrative Office of the Courts. The ratings

apply to structural and

non-structural elements of the building as contained in CEBC

requirements. These definitions

replace those previously used by these agencies.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 51

2. The current edition of the CEBC, regulates existing buildings. It uses and

references the American

Society of Civil Engineers Standard Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,

ASCE-41.

All earthquake ground motion criteria are specific to the site of the evaluated building. The CEBC

and CBC

definitions for earthquake ground motions to be assessed are paraphrased below for

convenience:

- BSE-2, the 2,475-year return period earthquake ground motion, or the 84

percentile of

the Maximum Considered Earthquake ground motion for the site, whichever is lower.

- BSE-C the 975-year return period earthquake ground motion.

- BSE-1, two-thirds of the BSE-2, nominally, the 475-year return period earthquake ground

motion.

- BSE-R the 225-year return period earthquake ground motion. Risk Category is defined in

the CBC

Table 1604.5.

- The Risk Category sets the level of required seismic building performance under the CBC.

Risk Category IV includes acute care hospitals, fire, rescue and police stations and

emergency

vehicle garages, designated emergency shelters, emergency operations

centers, structures containing

highly toxic materials where the quantities exceed the

maximum allowed quantities, among others.

Risk categories I-III include all other building

uses that include most state-owned buildings.

3. Implied Risk To Life is a subjective measure of the threat of a life-threatening injury or death that

is expected

to occur in an average building in each Rating Level following the indicated technical

requirements. The terms

negligible through dangerous are not specifically defined but are

linguistic indications of the relative degree

of hazard posed to an individual occupant.

4. Implied Damageability is the level of damage expected to the average building in each Rating Level

following the

indicated technical requirements when a BSE-1 level earthquake occurs. Damage is

measured as the ratio

of the cost to repair the structure divided by the current cost to reconstruct

the structure from scratch. Such

assessments are to be completed to the requirements of ASTM

E-2557, where the damage ratio is the

Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) in the BSE-1 earthquake

ground motion evaluated at Level 1 or higher in

order to be considered appropriate.

5. The Engineer assessing the Earthquake Performance Level using the noted requirements may

conclude that the expected seismic performance is consistent with a rating one-level higher or

lower than the one assigned by the Table for Levels III, IV or V. An alternative rating may only be

assigned if an independent technical peer reviewer concurs in the evaluation that it is a better

representation of the seismic risk of the building than that determined by these definitions.

The peer review must be completed consistent with the requirements of CEBC. Note that peer

review is unlikely to improve buildings rated as VI or VII because they have fundamental seismic

system flaws. The ratings for I and II are unchanged because the performance increment between

levels is so large, and it is highly unlikely that revision could be justified.

6. Historically the University of California has used the terms good, fair, poor and very poor to

distinguish the

relative seismic performance of buildings. The concordance of values is

approximate; the former rating

procedures did not specify specific performance levels as is done

herein but were sentence fragments for

qualitative performance. For reference the historically

used Division of the State Architect and Seismic

Safety Commission levels correspond

approximately to the new numerical values.

7. For the alternative of meeting the CBC requirements for Level 3 to apply, the building must meet

all of the requirements of the CBC; this includes all requirements, including ground motions,

analysis procedures, and detailing limitations.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 52

ATTACHMENT E

Technical Guidelines

The CSU Seismic Requirements details requirements for CSU construction projects in addition to those that are

contained within the CBC and CEBC. The CSU Seismic Review Board (SRB) maintains guidelines on selected

topics that provide the design team additional technical details on issues that are important to the execution

of projects and represent areas of concern to the SRB. These are intended to inform the EOR so that when the

situation is encountered, the EOR can know what the SRB expects. These are not directions, but express issues

that in the experience of the SRB need to be resolved for the project to meet CSU’s objectives. They are not

intended as direction, but as alerts to important technical performance issues in the design that are likely to

be of concern in the peer review. These are intended for use for California State University construction but

may also be used by others.

1. Requirements and Recommendations for Post-Tensioned Concrete Structures

In addition to satisfying all of the requirements listed in the CSU Seismic Requirements and the applicable

sections of the California Building Standards Code, the design and construction of all post-tensioned

concrete structures shall conform to all requirements of:

• American Concrete Institute ACI 318-14 for post-tensioned concrete design,

• Post-Tensioning Institute - 6th Edition's recommendations for post-tensioned structures,

• Additional standard of care and practice for post-tensioned structures described in this document.

A post-tensioned concrete designer shall discuss with the Seismic Peer Reviewer, at a minimum, the

recommendations in this document and comply with the intent of these requirements, unless there are

good technical reasons for not doing so.

A. American Concrete Institute 318 Requirements

1. All post-tensioning tendons shall be encapsulated in compliance with ACI 318-14 Section 20.6.3.1

through 20.6.3.3. Specifications or details that show or indicate exposed strand are not permitted.

Closure strip/pour strip details shall not show tendon tails extending into the delay strip.

2. Integrity tendons at the columns shall be clearly indicated on the structural drawings in

compliance with ACI 318-14 Section 8.7.5.6.1.

3. Minimum average of 125 psi for one- and two-way slabs and plates shall be provided in

compliance with ACI 318-14 Section 8.6.2.1.

4. Pre-compression from unbonded prestressing reinforcement, as described in ACI 318-14 Section

12.5.1.4, shall be utilized where possible to resist seismic diaphragm forces to minimize

congestion from mild reinforcement in chords and collector elements.

5. In podium structures and post-tensioned mat foundation structures where the balanced load

exceeds 100% of the concrete weight, the calculations shall clearly demonstrate that the transfer

stresses in ACI 318-14 Table 24.5.3.2 are not exceeded using a concrete compressive strength f'

not greater than 75% of the 28-day compressive strength.

B. Post-Tensioning Institute Recommendations

1. Lateral curvature in banded groups of tendons should be minimized and should satisfy Section

6.3.1.3.4 and Figure 6.14 of the Post-Tensioning Manual - 6th Edition, except that the minimum

extension of straight tendon layout past an opening shall be 4'-0". The maximum lateral curvature

for banded tendon groups of 20 tendons or less shall be 1:6, with hairpin reinforcement required

for curvatures exceeding 1:12. The maximum lateral curvature for banded tendon groups in excess

of 20 tendons shall be 1:12, with hairpin reinforcement required for curvatures exceeding 1:20.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 53

Lateral curvature of banded groups of tendons is prohibited in areas of the slab where the

concrete top or bottom cover over the tendons is less than 2".

In general, uniformly spaced tendons should be placed orthogonally to the banded tendons.

Lateral curvature of uniform tendons should be minimized and shall satisfy Section 6.3.1.3.4 and

Figure 6.14 of the Post-Tensioning Manual - 6th Edition. When curving uniform tendons around

openings and other obstructions, tendon layout shall not exceed the maximum tendon spacing of

5'-0" or 8 times the slab thickness, whichever is smaller.

2. The seismic system layout shall adhere to the "favorable" arrangement depicted in Figure 6.2 of

the Post-Tensioning Manual - 6th Edition. The schematic layout of the seismic system shall be

provided to the Seismic Peer Reviewer at the onset of the project for a compliance review.

3. Closure strips/pour strips shall be provided in structures where significant restraint-to-shortening

exists. A minimum pour delay of 30 days from the time of the 2nd pour shall be specified for

structures with plan dimensions less than or equal to 250', and 60 days for structures with a larger

plan dimension. In structures where the plan dimensions exceed 350', a permanent expansion

joint is required.

4. Closure strips/pour strips should be limited to 30"-36" in width as stated in the Post-Tensioning

Institute document "Restraint Cracks and Their Mitigation in Unbonded Post-Tensioned Building

Structures".

5. Slab and beam thicknesses should meet or exceed the recommendations of Table 9.3 of the

Post-Tensioning Manual - 6th Edition.

C. California Building Standards Code

1. Comply with minimum fire cover as required in Table 721.1(1)4. Interior bays may be considered

restrained as described in Note k. Exterior bays shall be considered unrestrained.

D. Recommended Standards of Care & Practice

1. Unless specifically designated otherwise, when closure strips/pour strips are used, it shall be made

clear to the contractor through notes and details that the open pour strip bay is incapable of

supporting any load, including its own. Unless a greater number of bays is required by calculation,

shores shall be provided and designed such that for every open pour strip bay, a minimum of four

closed and cured bays are required for support below if the shoring does not continue to the

ground. It is recommended that all re-shores in closure/pour strip bays extend to the foundation

level.

2. When closure strips/pour strips and construction joints are used, they should be located to

minimize uneven floors, column deformations, and related construction costs. The Seismic Peer

Reviewer will want to review the basis for their locations to assure good technical performance of

the resulting structure.

3. The average compression in flat plates and flat slabs should be limited to a maximum of 250 psi,

with 150-175 psi considered optimum. Stresses may be higher in localized areas.

4. Calculations shall demonstrate the amount of dead load balanced by the post-tensioning system.

A minimum of 65% of the concrete weight shall be balanced. Balanced loads shall not exceed

125% of the concrete weight for uniformly loaded members not carrying additional floors.

5. Tendons less than 125' in length may be stressed from one end only. Tendons greater than 125' in

length shall have a "lift-off" performed at the 2nd stressing end. The maximum length of a

two-way pull is 250 feet.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 54

6. Every tendon shall be stressed to their full extent (one occurrence) and never partially stressed

and then restressed. This requirement is not intended to prohibit staged stressing.

7. Requiring de-tensioning of tendons should be avoided. This is a very dangerous operation for the

contractor, and alternate solutions should be thoroughly explored before de-tensioning is

proposed.

8. Care should be taken to minimize the amount and diameter of conduit placed in the decks.

Congested runs of conduit should be surface mounted below the decks. All conduits shall be

independently chaired and not supported by the post-tensioning tendons.

9. Care should be taken to minimize penetrations near column supports and tendon anchorages.

Penetrations within a 45-degree angle compression zone of post-tensioning anchors, and within

4'-0" of an anchor shall require Schedule 40 steel sleeves. PVC sleeves are not permitted in this

zone.

10. Shear stud reinforcement should be used at two-way slab banded tendon anchorages in lieu of

hairpin reinforcement to minimize congestion near anchorages.

11. In flat plates and two-way slabs, provide a minimum of #4 continuous (lapped) bottom

reinforcement, spaced not more than 30" apart each way.

12. Shot pin embedment shall be limited to 1/8” less than the cover of the concrete over the tendons.

13. Drilling into the post-tensioned slab is prohibited unless tendon locations are marked in advance,

the slab has been x-rayed, or the post-tensioning has been recorded through drone or other

photography methods. Cast-in-place non-prestressed reinforcement, bolts, plates, etc. shall be

specified in lieu of post-installed items.

14. For structures utilizing moment frames, a thorough analysis of punching shear using the story

drifts occurring during the maximum considered earthquake story drifts shall be completed.

15. Slabs 10” thick or greater should utilize column caps in lieu of shear studs for punching shear

reinforcement.

16. Floor systems shall be required to be stressed within 3-5 days of the concrete pour to minimize

shrinkage cracking.

17. Deck forms shall remain in place until the deck is poured and stressed completely. Re-shores shall

be used in non-pour strip bays to distribute the weight of the wet concrete floor to cured and

stressed floors below (3 floors minimum) such that the design live load at any floor is not

exceeded. Details reflecting these requirements shall be provided on the structural design

drawings.

18. Where significant modifications over the life of the structure are anticipated, the designer should

specify a method for locating tendons, such as permanent marking on the slab, digitized

photography, etc.

Document history: First issued: November 16, 2017

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 55

ATTACHMENT F

References

ASCE 7. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,

Virginia, ASCE/SEI Standard 7-16, 2016.

ASCE-41. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia,

ASCE/SEI Standard 41-17, 2016.

ASTM E2557-16a. “Standard Practice for Probable Maximum Loss Evaluations for Earthquake Due Diligence

Assessments,” ASTM International, Conshohocken, PA, June 2007.

California Building Standards Code, California Code Regulations, Title 24, California Building Standards

Commission, Sacramento, California. Current Edition.

California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Regulatory Maps (faults, landslides, liquefaction)

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shp

Code of California Regulations, Chapter 7.5 California Resources Code.

FEMA 352. Recommended Post-earthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment Frame

Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C., July 2000.

FEMAP-154. Rapid Visual Screening of Building for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, Third Edition,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D. C, 2013.

CSU Seismic Requirements

February 15, 2024

Page 56

Document history

1/15/2024

Revised Section 4.1, (10) for Scope of Review

Revised Section 5.13, (4) for Delegated Design and/or Deferred Approvals

Both Section are indicated by blue italicized text.

7/15/2023

The CSU Seismic Requirements document has been updated in its entirety including but not

limited to the following: Clarification of specific compliance requirements for the Seismic

Priory Lists; the addition of a new section for the New Seismic Assessment process;

clarifies 25% Exception in the California Existing Building Code, Section 317.3.1; clarified

sections - structural observation, pre-engineering, metal buildings & delegated design;

updated References based on new reference editions; standardizes terms and acronyms;

corrected punctuation, grammar, and spelling. All substantial revisions are indicated with

blue italicized text.

7/1/2023

All references to Seismic Policy were renamed Seismic Requirements for consistency.

The requirements were entirely edited to revise and modify many prior requirements. It is

advised that the familiar carefully reread these requirements to assure they detect the now

requirements fully. Section 5.16 on Parking structures was moved to Section 3.1. Sections

3.12 (Structural Observation was added), 5.14 (Pre-Engineered Buildings had major

additions), Section 7 (CSU Seismic Building Assessment was reorganized and the newly

adopted assessment program is discussed), Section 7 (CSU Seismic Building Assessment

Procedures) is new, Section 9 (Seismic Safety Standard for Acquired Buildings and Space)

has been modified, and Section 9.1.A changes the method of evaluation of a proposed

building to be leased.

4/30/2020

Revised Attachment C Campus Assignments for Seismic Peer Reviewers.

3/5/2020

Selected editorial change

Revised Section 3.0 with clarification of California Code of Regulations Part 2 and Part 10.

Revised Section 3.3 for Campus Seismic Coefficients.

Revised Section 3.4 with clarification of California Code of Regulations Part 10.

Revised Section 5.19 for Earthquake Soil Pressures.

Omitted Section 5.21 for Use of ASCE 7 Site Modification Factors Fa and Fv.

Revised Section 7.2 with clarification of CEBC.

Revised Attachment B and Seismic Design Table, Table 1.

Revised Attachment C Campus Assignments for Seismic Peer Reviewers.

Revised Attachment F References (to ASCE 7 & 41).

6/25/2019

Requirements for temporary structures modified to specifically apply to tents and other

temporary use structure, modification of requirements for peer review, and other items.

10/15/2018

Attachment D Table modified; added Attachment E on Post-tensioning; other minor editing;

clarification of use changes in List 1 and 2 buildings.

11/1/2016

Revises selected items and references to the new CEBC applying to existing building that

was formerly included in Part 2 Sections 3417-23.

9/10/2015

Corrected editorial items and provided accidentally deleted text.

8/11/2014

Section 5-8 First line of 3

Paragraph change Design-Building to Design-Build;

Section 5-17 Change all CBC 3417 references to CEBC 3419

7/14/2014

December 21, 2011 Document Edit - 7/14/2014 Revision Issued

There are versions of the CSU Seismic Requirements that pre-date 2014.

401 Golden Shore, Long Beach CA 90802