Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 079-03064-00; City of Atascadero
PW ID# NA; City Hall
SECOND APPEAL BRIEF
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
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.
Rationale: Section 406(e) of the Stafford Act, 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.226.