Demolition of portable classrooms
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; William S. Hart Union High School; DSRs 21722, 21725, 21726, 21727, 21728
Cross Reference: Portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b
Summary: The Main Gymnasium and the Girls' Shower and Locker room (Gym) of William S. Hart Union High School sustained structural damage from an earthquake and were declared unsafe for occupancy. A FEMA/OES inspection team visited the site and prepared DSR 37335 to replace and expand the Gym for $4.624 million, increasing the Gym area from the existing 19,297 sq. ft. to 29,079 sq. ft. to meet expanded enrollment. The subgrantee was advised that this project would be considered an improved project should it proceed with their plans to expand the Gym. The subgrantee cancelled the expansion plan and elected to rebuild in kind. FEMA voided DSR 37335 on December 27, 1994, and approved DSR 50012 for the replacement of the original Gym (19,297 sq. ft.) for $2.609 million.
Portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b were located close to the original Gym but did not incur any damages from the earthquake. The subgrantee originally requested that FEMA fund the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms away from their current location in order to make room for the new Gym and the resulting construction activity. DSR 21722 was prepared to cover the demolition of the three classrooms for $6,480; however, because the earthquake did not damage the portable classrooms, their demolition was ineligible for funding and the DSR was denied.
DSRs 21725, 21726 and 21727 were each prepared for $33,115 to fund the replacement of buildings T-1, T-2a, and T-2b respectively. DSR 21728 was prepared for the electrical and utility hookup of these classrooms in the amount of $14,530. With the approval of DSR 50012, the DSRs were ruled ineligible and were not funded. The applicant appealed, claiming that the existing classrooms would not be in compliance with that portion of the 1991 Uniform Building Code that addresses spacing between buildings. The appeal requests funds of $119,875 for the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms.
Issues: Are the portable classrooms eligible for funding in order to meet current the 1991 Uniform Building Code for the reconstruction of the Gym?
Findings: No. In order to receive funding from FEMA the item of work must be required as the result of the major disaster event. The portable classrooms did not sustain damage from the disaster event, and were too close to the Gym before the disaster.
Rationale: The reason the replacement Gym would not be in conformance with the 1991 UBC is not disaster related. Code-required upgrades are eligible only if they relate to the restoration work required by the disaster.
The Main Gymnasium and the Girls' Shower and Locker room (Gym) of William S. Hart Union High School sustained structural damage from an earthquake and were declared unsafe for occupancy. A FEMA/OES inspection team visited the site and prepared DSR 37335 to replace and expand the Gym for $4.624 million, increasing the Gym area from the existing 19,297 sq. ft. to 29,079 sq. ft. to meet expanded enrollment. The subgrantee was advised that this project would be considered an improved project in accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.203(d)(1), should they proceed with their plans to expand the Gym. The subgrantee cancelled the expansion plan and elected to rebuild in kind. FEMA voided DSR 37335, and approved DSR 50012 for the replacement of the original Gym (19,297 sq. ft.) for $2.609 million.
Portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b were located in close proximity to the original Gym, but did not incur any damages from the earthquake. The subgrantee originally requested that FEMA fund the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms away from their current location in order to make room for the construction activity related to the new gym. DSR 21722 was prepared in the amount of $6,480 to cover the demolition of the three classrooms; however, since the earthquake did not damage the portable classrooms, their demolition was ineligible for funding and the DSR was denied.
Simultaneously, DSRs 21725, 21726 and 21727 were each prepared for $33,115 to fund the replacement of buildings T-1, T-2a and T-2b respectively. DSR 21728 was prepared for the electrical and utility hookup of these classrooms in the amount of $14,530. These DSRs were suspended pending a final decision of funding for the Gym. With the approval of DSR 50012, those DSRs were ruled ineligible and were not funded.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted the first appeal to this determination of ineligibility on May 4, 1995, stating that it was more cost effective to demolish and replace the portables to allow space for the demolition and reconstruction of the Gym than to work around them. The subgrantee did not document any earthquake-related damages, nor substantiate the cost savings achieved through demolishing and then replacing the portable classrooms.
After reviewing this information, FEMA determined that the least expensive alternative would be to fund temporary classrooms throughout the reconstruction period and keep the portable classrooms in place. Accordingly, DSR 78314 was prepared in the amount of $38,530 to fund the temporary classrooms. DSR 21722 was denied because the demolition was not required as a result of the earthquake.
Second Appeal
The subgrantee submitted the second appeal on June 22, 1997, stating that the three portable classrooms, T-1, T-2a and T-2b, next to the site of the reconstructed Gym, would not have been in conformance with the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The subgrantee asserts the UBC code requires a minimum of 20 feet between the portable classrooms and the reconstructed Gym, while the space at present is only 17 feet. In reconstructing the Gym to meet the current building codes, the subgrantee contends that FEMA should fund the most cost effective way of meeting the codes: demolish the portable classrooms and build new ones at another location on the campus. The subgrantee stated that providing temporary facilities is unacceptable because this would have resulted in leaving the portable classrooms in their current location, a violation of the UBC.
DISCUSSION
Building the replacement Gym in its original location, and not having it conform to the 1991 UBC is not disaster related. The portable classrooms were too close to the Gym before the disaster occurred. A decision to demolish the old portable classrooms and provide new classrooms rests with the subgrantee; however, such actions are not eligible for FEMA funding.
CONCLUSION
The portable classrooms had no substantiated damage related to the disaster event, and the subgrantee did not justify that the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms was necessary for the reconstruction of the Gym. The first appeal response adequately addressed the concern about loss of classroom space during the reconstruction period. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1008-DR |
| Applicant | William S. Hart Union High School |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-91183 |
| PW ID# | 21722,21725,21726,21727,21728 |
| Date Signed | 1998-04-10T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b
Summary: The Main Gymnasium and the Girls' Shower and Locker room (Gym) of William S. Hart Union High School sustained structural damage from an earthquake and were declared unsafe for occupancy. A FEMA/OES inspection team visited the site and prepared DSR 37335 to replace and expand the Gym for $4.624 million, increasing the Gym area from the existing 19,297 sq. ft. to 29,079 sq. ft. to meet expanded enrollment. The subgrantee was advised that this project would be considered an improved project should it proceed with their plans to expand the Gym. The subgrantee cancelled the expansion plan and elected to rebuild in kind. FEMA voided DSR 37335 on December 27, 1994, and approved DSR 50012 for the replacement of the original Gym (19,297 sq. ft.) for $2.609 million.
Portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b were located close to the original Gym but did not incur any damages from the earthquake. The subgrantee originally requested that FEMA fund the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms away from their current location in order to make room for the new Gym and the resulting construction activity. DSR 21722 was prepared to cover the demolition of the three classrooms for $6,480; however, because the earthquake did not damage the portable classrooms, their demolition was ineligible for funding and the DSR was denied.
DSRs 21725, 21726 and 21727 were each prepared for $33,115 to fund the replacement of buildings T-1, T-2a, and T-2b respectively. DSR 21728 was prepared for the electrical and utility hookup of these classrooms in the amount of $14,530. With the approval of DSR 50012, the DSRs were ruled ineligible and were not funded. The applicant appealed, claiming that the existing classrooms would not be in compliance with that portion of the 1991 Uniform Building Code that addresses spacing between buildings. The appeal requests funds of $119,875 for the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms.
Issues: Are the portable classrooms eligible for funding in order to meet current the 1991 Uniform Building Code for the reconstruction of the Gym?
Findings: No. In order to receive funding from FEMA the item of work must be required as the result of the major disaster event. The portable classrooms did not sustain damage from the disaster event, and were too close to the Gym before the disaster.
Rationale: The reason the replacement Gym would not be in conformance with the 1991 UBC is not disaster related. Code-required upgrades are eligible only if they relate to the restoration work required by the disaster.
Appeal Letter
April 10, 1998
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your September 8, 1997, submittal of the William S. Hart Union High School's second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 21722, 21725, 21726, 21727 and 21728 under FEMA-1008-DR-CA. These DSRs were prepared to fund the demolition of portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b; the purchase of three new portable classrooms; and the required utility hookups.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted in support of the appeal, I have found no basis to overturn our previous determination of ineligibility. The items on the appealed DSRs suffered no damage as a result of the earthquake. FEMA's obligation to meet codes and standards applies to the repair or restoration of the eligible damaged facility and not to the building spacing requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code. Please refer to the enclosed appeal analysis for more detail.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The subgrantee may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your September 8, 1997, submittal of the William S. Hart Union High School's second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 21722, 21725, 21726, 21727 and 21728 under FEMA-1008-DR-CA. These DSRs were prepared to fund the demolition of portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b; the purchase of three new portable classrooms; and the required utility hookups.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted in support of the appeal, I have found no basis to overturn our previous determination of ineligibility. The items on the appealed DSRs suffered no damage as a result of the earthquake. FEMA's obligation to meet codes and standards applies to the repair or restoration of the eligible damaged facility and not to the building spacing requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code. Please refer to the enclosed appeal analysis for more detail.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The subgrantee may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDThe Main Gymnasium and the Girls' Shower and Locker room (Gym) of William S. Hart Union High School sustained structural damage from an earthquake and were declared unsafe for occupancy. A FEMA/OES inspection team visited the site and prepared DSR 37335 to replace and expand the Gym for $4.624 million, increasing the Gym area from the existing 19,297 sq. ft. to 29,079 sq. ft. to meet expanded enrollment. The subgrantee was advised that this project would be considered an improved project in accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.203(d)(1), should they proceed with their plans to expand the Gym. The subgrantee cancelled the expansion plan and elected to rebuild in kind. FEMA voided DSR 37335, and approved DSR 50012 for the replacement of the original Gym (19,297 sq. ft.) for $2.609 million.
Portable classrooms T-1, T-2a and T-2b were located in close proximity to the original Gym, but did not incur any damages from the earthquake. The subgrantee originally requested that FEMA fund the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms away from their current location in order to make room for the construction activity related to the new gym. DSR 21722 was prepared in the amount of $6,480 to cover the demolition of the three classrooms; however, since the earthquake did not damage the portable classrooms, their demolition was ineligible for funding and the DSR was denied.
Simultaneously, DSRs 21725, 21726 and 21727 were each prepared for $33,115 to fund the replacement of buildings T-1, T-2a and T-2b respectively. DSR 21728 was prepared for the electrical and utility hookup of these classrooms in the amount of $14,530. These DSRs were suspended pending a final decision of funding for the Gym. With the approval of DSR 50012, those DSRs were ruled ineligible and were not funded.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted the first appeal to this determination of ineligibility on May 4, 1995, stating that it was more cost effective to demolish and replace the portables to allow space for the demolition and reconstruction of the Gym than to work around them. The subgrantee did not document any earthquake-related damages, nor substantiate the cost savings achieved through demolishing and then replacing the portable classrooms.
After reviewing this information, FEMA determined that the least expensive alternative would be to fund temporary classrooms throughout the reconstruction period and keep the portable classrooms in place. Accordingly, DSR 78314 was prepared in the amount of $38,530 to fund the temporary classrooms. DSR 21722 was denied because the demolition was not required as a result of the earthquake.
Second Appeal
The subgrantee submitted the second appeal on June 22, 1997, stating that the three portable classrooms, T-1, T-2a and T-2b, next to the site of the reconstructed Gym, would not have been in conformance with the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The subgrantee asserts the UBC code requires a minimum of 20 feet between the portable classrooms and the reconstructed Gym, while the space at present is only 17 feet. In reconstructing the Gym to meet the current building codes, the subgrantee contends that FEMA should fund the most cost effective way of meeting the codes: demolish the portable classrooms and build new ones at another location on the campus. The subgrantee stated that providing temporary facilities is unacceptable because this would have resulted in leaving the portable classrooms in their current location, a violation of the UBC.
DISCUSSION
Building the replacement Gym in its original location, and not having it conform to the 1991 UBC is not disaster related. The portable classrooms were too close to the Gym before the disaster occurred. A decision to demolish the old portable classrooms and provide new classrooms rests with the subgrantee; however, such actions are not eligible for FEMA funding.
CONCLUSION
The portable classrooms had no substantiated damage related to the disaster event, and the subgrantee did not justify that the demolition and replacement of the portable classrooms was necessary for the reconstruction of the Gym. The first appeal response adequately addressed the concern about loss of classroom space during the reconstruction period. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Last updated