Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 081-54806-00; City of Pacifica
PW ID# Project Worksheet 3664; Slope Failure at 639 Big Bend Drive
FEMA-1628-DR-CA, City of Pacifica (Applicant), Slope Failure at 639 Big Bend Drive, PW 3664Cross-reference:
Emergency Protective Measures, LandslidesSummary:
During the winter storms of December 17, 2005, through January 3, 2006, heavy rains caused a landslide on the hillside above a residence at 639 Big Bend Drive. The slide produced a debris flow approximately 60 feet upslope from the toe of the slope. The toe of the debris flow clogged a city-owned storm drain inlet and damaged private property at 635 and 639 Big Bend Drive. The Applicant originally requested $98,000 for a Geobrugg Debris Flow Barrier to eliminate the threat posed by the remaining loose material. FEMA initially denied the request because it determined that there was no immediate threat to life, public health and safety, or improved property, and prepared a zero dollar Category B Project Worksheet.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on October 25, 2006. In its appeal, the Applicant requested funding for emergency protective measures and provided a supplemental geotechnical report that stated a significant potential [existed] for additional debris flow events to impact the downslope properties. The Applicant requested $298,575 for the cost of three Geobrugg barriers to eliminate the threat posed by the remaining loose material. After a May 10, 2007 joint site visit by FEMA, OES, and the Applicant, and subsequent submittals, the Deputy Regional Administrator determined that an immediate threat existed and partially approved the appeal, funding $172,845 for a 575 cubic-yard capacity Geobrugg barrier.
On October 2, 2007, the Applicant filed a second appeal reiterating the position presented in its first appeal. The Applicant included a supplemental geotechnical study that concluded To substantially reduce protective capacity below the current 1,200 cubic yard design level will in our opinion, result in a substantial reduction to the safety of local residents.
The Applicant requested an additional $125,730 for the expansion of the barrier to a 1200 cubic-yard capacity. Issues:
Did the Applicant establish that additional capacity is required to provide an
effective emergency protective measure? Findings:
FEMA Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities
(August 17, 1999); 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1), General Work Eligibility.