Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 081-65070; City of San Carlos
DSR ID# N/A; San Carlos City Hall
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; City of San Carlos; FEMA-845-DR-CA; PA #081-65070
Cross Reference: Additional Damages; Time limitations
Summary: As a result of the Loma Prieta earthquake (DR-845), the City of San Carlos (subgrantee) contends that several roof trusses in the San Carlos City Hall (facility) were damaged. The subgrantee did not identify the facility as disaster-damaged when the joint Federal/State inspection team visited the City of San Carlos on November 8, 1989. Based on its receipt of the Final Inspection Report (FIR) for the subgrantee, FEMA advised the grantee, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), in its letter dated January 29, 1997, that it considered the subgrantee's application for this disaster closed. Subsequently, by letter dated February 25, 1997, OES forwarded the subgrantee's request for a FEMA/OES joint inspection of the facility. This request was prompted by the subgrantee's discovery of damaged roof truss members in November 1996 when it began renovating the facility. FEMA denied this request because of the "extreme lateness" of the subgrantee's request for an inspection and the absence of "extenuating circumstances." The Regional Director upheld the determination upon first appeal. In the second appeal, the subgrantee asserts that because it did not observe any "indicators of damage" during its post-disaster inspection of the facility, the subgrantee did not examine the area above the undamaged suspended ceiling where the damaged trusses were located. According to the subgrantee, the failure to identify hidden damages represents an extenuating circumstance beyond its control.
- Were the damages reported within the regulatory deadline?
- Is an extension of the 60-day regulatory time period for reporting additional damages warranted?
- The roof damages were not reported during the initial site inspection. In addition, the subgrantee did not report the damages until approximately seven years after the initial site visit, well after the sixty-day regulatory period for reporting additional damages.
- The subgrantee has not established that extenuating circumstances beyond its control prevented it from reporting additional damages to FEMA within the regulatory time period, therefore, an extension of this time period is not warranted.
Rationale: Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 206.202(d)(1) and 206.202(f).