Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 085-00000; Santa Clara County
DSR ID# 75198; Gist Road Landslide
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Santa Clara County, DSR 75198, Gist Road Landslide
Cross Reference: Disaster-Related Damages, Other Federal Agencies
Summary: As a result of the 1995 winter storms, a landslide occurred downslope of Gist Road, affecting 70 linear feet of the road. State Route 35, a federal-aid road, is located about 15 ft. upslope of Gist Road. An old timber cribwall, about 104 feet in length, is built into the upslope of Gist Road, within the Route 35 right-of-way. No disaster damages to the cribwall or Route 35 were observed by FEMA. To repair the function of Gist Road, the subgrantee proposed construction of two retaining walls. The lower wall would be constructed within the downslope of Gist Road. However, due to limited space restrictions, it was found that it would be necessary to excavate into the upslope side of Gist Road, such that a second wall would be necessary in the upslope, replacing a portion of the existing cribwall. In addition, the subgrantee proposed construction of a new guard rail and an additional drainage system. FEMA concurred with the method of repair but concluded that the upper wall was eligible only to the extent necessary to construct the lower wall, and that the guard rail, additional drainage and other miscellaneous items were not present prior to the disaster and not required by codes and standards or other engineering requirements, and were therefore ineligible. Funding was provided in DSR 75198 in the amount of $425,851. The subgrantee appealed this determination stating that the two wall system was the best engineering solution and most-cost effective method. They asserted that the cribwall and Route 35 pavement were also damaged by the disaster, thus requesting replacement of the full length of the existing cribwall and associated pavement repairs. The Disaster Recovery Manager denied the appeal stating that the additional work was not required as a result of the declared disaster event, and represented an improvement over the pre-disaster condition of the site. The second appeal again requests funding for the additional completed work, for a cost of $584,318, on the basis that the work was performed to repair disaster-related damages.
Issues: Are the additional scope items eligible for disaster assistance?
Findings: No. It is found that State Route 35 is a federal-aid road, such that repair of the road and the cribwall, are not eligible for Public Assistance funding, regardless of the cause of the damages. Other requested additional work items are found to not be required as a result of the disaster.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1); 44 CFR 206.226(a)