alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Français. Visit the Français page for resources in that language.

City Hall

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1505-DR
ApplicantCity of Atascadero
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#079-03064-00
PW ID#NA
Date Signed2010-03-26T04:00:00

SECOND APPEAL BRIEF
FEMA-1505-DR-CA
City of Atascadero; PA ID 079-03064-00
City Hall, Project Worksheet 229

Citation:     FEMA-1505-DR-CA, City of Atascadero, City Hall, Project Worksheet (PW) 229

Cross
Reference:
  Buildings, Codes and Standards
 
Summary:    The December 22, 2003, San Simeon earthquake caused structural and nonstructural damage to the Atascadero City Hall (City Hall).  The City of Atascadero (Applicant) claimed that the earthquake caused the building foundation to settle differentially and caused extensive cracking of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls.  The building has not been occupied since the earthquake and unrepaired exterior walls have allowed access by pigeons and moisture.  The HVAC system was not operated or maintained because the building has been red-tagged or yellow-tagged since the earthquake, which impeded maintenance personnel from servicing, maintaining, or draining the existing equipment.  Funding was approved on Project Worksheet (PW) 229 in the amount of $15,816,218; $4,628,602 for repairs to restore City Hall to pre-disaster condition, $10,830,863 for hazard mitigation, and $356,753 for architectural and engineering (A&E) services.  In its appeal, the Applicant claimed that strengthening of URM walls and foundations, currently approved as mitigation on PW 229, should be funded as eligible repair work.  Additional costs were claimed due to settlement of the building, wall repairs, painting, guano and mold abatement, A&E, project/construction management (PM/CM), fencing, netting and brick storage, as well as damage to floors, roof drains, lavatories, lighting, landscaping, the HVAC system, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.  The Applicant requested total funding of $27,388,322; $21,199,446 for repair, $1,724,523 for mitigation, and $4,463,453 for A&E services.

Issues:  1) Did the Applicant provide sufficient documentation to support its claim that approved hazard mitigation should be recharacterized as eligible repair?

            2) Did the Applicant provide sufficient documentation to support its claim for additional disaster-related damage and funding?

Findings: 1) No.

                 2) No.
 
Rationale:     Section 406(e) of the Stafford Act, 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.226.

Appeal Letter

March 26, 2010

 

 

Mr. Frank McCarton

Governor’s Authorized Representative

Governor’s Office of Emergency Services

Response and Recovery Division

3650 Schriever Avenue

Mather, California 95655

 

Re:  Second Appeal–City of Atascadero, PA ID 079-03064-00, City Hall, FEMA-1505-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 229

 

Dear Mr. McCarton:

 

This letter is in response to your letter dated June 18, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Atascadero (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the decision of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding funding for damages to the Atascadero City Hall (City Hall) resulting from the December 22, 2003 San Simeon earthquake.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that strengthening of the unreinforced masonry walls and foundations at City Hall are appropriately funded as hazard mitigation.  I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.  Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.

 

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

 

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Disaster Assistance Directorate

 

Enclosure

 

cc:   Nancy Ward

       Regional Administrator, Region IX

Appeal Analysis

SECOND APPEAL ANALYSIS

FEMA-1505-DR-CA

City of Atascadero; PA ID 079-03064-00

City Hall, Project Worksheet 229

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Atascadero City Hall (City Hall) was constructed between 1914 and 1918 using local resources, including bricks made from local clay.  The building was designed and constructed as a Greek Cross in plan and has two separate and distinct rotunda spaces on the first and fourth floors at the center of the building.  Below the fourth floor the structural system consists of cast-in-place reinforced concrete floors and columns.  Unreinforced brick masonry (URM) walls are infilled between the columns on the exterior walls.  On the fourth and fifth floors the structural systems consist primarily of wood floor and roof framing with URM bearing walls and steel columns on the interior.  It is reported that the foundations consist of shallow spread footings.  The structure was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977 and was made a California Registered Historical Landmark in 1984.

 

The December 22, 2003, San Simeon earthquake caused structural and nonstructural damage to City Hall.  The City of Atascadero (Applicant) claimed that the earthquake caused the building’s foundations to settle differentially and caused extensive cracking of the URM walls.  The building has not been occupied since the earthquake and unrepaired exterior walls have allowed access by pigeons and moisture resulting in pigeon guano accumulation and mold intrusion.  The heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system was not operated or maintained because the building has been red-tagged or yellow-tagged since the earthquake, which impeded the maintenance personnel from servicing, maintaining, or draining the existing equipment.  The city water and gas to the building were shut-off.  The plumbing systems were drained.  The water source heat pump loop was left full with presumably chemical treated water.  The condenser water-circulating loop consists of un-insulated copper piping.  The air conditioning system consists of water source heat pumps located throughout the City Hall building and a remote central condenser water plant located across the street in a partially enclosed structure that had no reported earthquake damage.

 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved funding to repair damage to City Hall, restore it to pre-disaster condition, and provide appropriate hazard mitigation.  On October 22, 2007, FEMA approved $15,816,218 on Project Worksheet (PW) 229-1 - $4,628,602 for repairs to restore City Hall to pre-disaster condition, $10,830,863 for hazard mitigation, and $356,753 for architectural and engineering (A&E) services.

 

First Appeal

 

The Applicant submitted its first appeal of PW 229 to the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) in a letter dated February 1, 2008.  CalEMA forwarded the appeal to FEMA in a letter dated March 13, 2008.  In its appeal, the Applicant claimed that strengthening of URM walls and foundations should be funded as eligible repair work rather than hazard mitigation as approved on PW 229.  The Applicant requested additional costs due to settlement of the building, wall repairs, painting, guano and mold abatement, A&E, project/construction management (PM/CM), fencing, netting and brick storage, as well as damage to floors, roof drains, lavatories, lighting, landscaping, the HVAC system, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems.  The Applicant requested total funding of $25,818,914 - $21,076,749 for repairs, $1,724,783 for mitigation, and $3,017,381 for A&E services.

 

FEMA determined that the Applicant was eligible for an additional $166,738, for wall repairs, HVAC, MEP, painting, and roof drains.  FEMA re-categorized $5,372 that was previously approved for mitigation as a repair due to the level of damage.  However, re-categorization and additional funding for other work was denied because the work was not required by code, FEMA-eligible, earthquake-related and/or adequately documented.  FEMA also determined that other items, including A&E, PM/CM, guano and mold, fencing and netting, were eligible costs that FEMA would consider funding at project closeout.

 

Second Appeal

 

The Applicant submitted its second appeal to CalEMA in a letter dated February 9, 2009.  CalEMA forwarded the appeal with its recommendations to FEMA on June 18, 2009.  The Applicant submitted additional documentation in a letter dated June 26, 2009, to supplement its claim regarding URM structural damages and repairs.  In its second appeal, the Applicant reiterated its claim for additional repair funding on 14 specific issues that were raised in the first appeal.  Each of these items is addressed in the “Discussion” section below.  The Applicant requested total funding of $27,388,322 - $21,199,446 for repair, $1,724,523 for mitigation, and $4,463,453 for A&E services.  CalEMA generally supported the Applicant’s appeal position, with minor exceptions noted.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Applicable Building Code

 

The Applicant requested that FEMA acknowledge that the City’s building code satisfies the criteria in 44 CFR § 206.226 (d), Standards, and is the applicable code for repair of City Hall.  Therefore, the repair of earthquake damage required by the code is eligible for reimbursement.

 

The applicable building codes for repair of City Hall are the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) and Title 8 Building Regulations of the Atascadero Municipal Code.  As a registered historic building, repairs to City Hall are also governed by the 2001 California Historic Building Code (CHBC).  According to the Applicant, the applicable codes provide that repairs may be made without requiring the entire building to comply with all requirements of the code, provided the repair conforms to that required for a new building.  The Applicant claimed that strengthening of the URM walls and foundations, characterized by FEMA as hazard mitigation, is required by code in order to complete disaster-related repair and should be reimbursed as eligible repair work.