alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Slope Failure at 639 Big Bend Drive

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1628-DR
ApplicantCity of Pacifica
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#081-54806-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 3664
Date Signed2008-08-08T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1628-DR-CA, City of Pacifica (Applicant), Slope Failure at 639 Big Bend Drive, PW 3664

Cross-reference: Emergency Protective Measures, Landslides

Summary: 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: Yes.

Rationale: FEMA Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities (August 17, 1999); 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1), General Work Eligibility.

Appeal Letter

August 8, 2008

Frank McCarton
Acting Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655

Re: Second Appeal–City of Pacifica, PA ID 081-54806-00, Slope Failure at 639 Big Bend Drive, FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 3664

Dear Mr. McCarton:

This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated November 7, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on the behalf of the City of Pacifica (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding for the increase in the size of the debris flow barrier at the slope failure above 639 Big Bend Drive.
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 Applicant originally requested $98,000 for a three-layer Geobrugg Debris Flow Barrier to eliminate the threat posed by the remaining loose material. FEMA prepared a zero dollar Category B PW because it determined that there was no immediate threat to life, public health and safety, or improved property. On December 29, 2006, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal dated October 25, 2006.

In its first appeal, the Applicant requested funding for emergency protective measures and provided a geotechnical report prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates (CSA) dated
July 5, 2006. The report recommended the installation of a Geobrugg Debris Flow Barrier designed to contain 1,200 cubic yards of debris as an emergency protective measure. On
May 10, 2007, FEMA, OES and the Applicant visited the site and provided a revised estimate of $298,575. Based upon the site visit and subsequent follow-up submittals, the Deputy Regional Administrator for Region IX determined that an immediate threat existed but that the extent of the immediate threat was less than that represented by the Applicant.
On July 20, 2007, the Deputy Regional Administrator responded to the first appeal, stating that the slope failure posed a threat to improved public or private property. In addition, the Deputy Regional Administrator determined that the installation of a 73-foot Geobrugg Debris Flow
Barrier or one designed to contain approximately 575 cubic yards of debris was sufficient to protect against a 5-year event. FEMA revised PW 3664 for $172,845 for the installation of a Geobrugg Flow Barrier system of that size.

The Applicant submitted a second appeal on October 2, 2007, stating that a three-level barrier system to contain 1,200 cubic yards of debris flow is a cost-effective emergency protective measure. In support of that claim, the Applicant provided supplemental geotechnical considerations from CSA. CSA found that “The position of the recent failure in Swale B results in an undermining condition and the potential for significantly larger failures. 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.”

I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant has provided information sufficient to support its claim that a barrier of 1200 cubic- yard capacity is an appropriate response that will protect public and improved property from the threat of additional damage from a landslide or slope failure. Therefore, the Applicant’s second appeal is granted. By copy of this letter, I request that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this decision.

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

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX