Belvedere Park Gymnasium

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1008-DR
Applicant	Los Angeles County Municipal Services Dept.
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	037-91036
PW ID#	33007
Date Signed	1999-04-27T04:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1008-DR, PA 037-91036DSR # 33007. Second Appeal by Los Angeles County Municipal Services Department for seismic upgrading of the Belvedere Park Gymnasium as justified by provisions of the California Building Code.

Cross-Reference: Subject: Stafford Act Section 406(e)(1): Codes and Standards; Northridge Earthquake FEMA/OES Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); local building official.

Summary:The County claims that section 3403 of the LA County Building Code (UBC with Amendments) (LACBC) requires that damaged elements must be upgraded to the current code requirements for new construction, including current force levels. The County also claims that, because of this requirement, the LACBC includes a "trigger" and thus the MOU does not apply, and that the MOU is invalid because it was not adopted following the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The County also raised other technical issues, and included in defense of their case, statements that certain of the buildings had lost a substantial amount of their lateral capacity.

Issues:

1. Does the language of the UBC and LACBC mandate that repaired elements be upgraded when repaired?
2. If so, is this a "trigger" as defined by the MOU,
3. Is the MOU's adoption valid under the APA? and (4) is the use of epoxy grout an appropriate code-conforming repair to predisaster condition?

Findings:

1. The UBC and LACBC language provides that the repair must be done according to the Code. It does not require that the repaired element be redesigned and reconstructed to meet the requirements for new buildings under the building code. Thus, there is no upgrade "trigger."
2. Because there is no "trigger," the MOU will be used for FEMA grant determination.
3. The MOU is valid under the APA for several reasons including that because it does not apply Agency-wide, but rather to Public Assistance projects in only one disaster.
4. The use of epoxy grouting for the repair of reinforced concrete shear walls is a widely accepted code-conforming method for restoring the strength of those walls to pre-disaster levels.

Rationale: The Stafford Act Sec. 406(e) provides that the net eligible cost includes only the cost of repairing.a public facility.in conformity with current applicable codes. This section does not provide that the repaired facility itself, or even that the element being repaired must be in conformity with the codes, only that the repairs must be done in conformity with the codes. In addition, FEMA has determined that the opinions and actions of the local building official may not be used by the Agency as a basis for eligibility determinations because the Agency has sole responsibility for the awarding of grants.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

The County's second appeal includes no description of the subject building other than to identify it as a "pre-1976 concrete tilt up" building. The appeal addresses only the code application and trigger issues raised in the other twelve LA County second appeals, on which a single consolidated decision was signed February 23, 1999 ("Twelve Appeals"), with particular reference to the particular weaknesses characteristic of tilt-up buildings in general.

THE DAMAGE:
The County identifies the damage to the building as "moderate," and describes it briefly in their appeal. The damage included hairline cracking and occasional spalling of the concrete frames and between the panels in the building.

DSRs WRITTEN:
DSR 12070 was obligated on October 7, 1994, for $3,069 to cover the costs of the preparation of an Architecture and Engineering (A&E) report. Following the completion of the A&E Report, and a FEMA/OES reinspection, a DSR for repairs was obligated on June 30, 1997. This DSR was for $9,873 to cover the repairs determined to be eligible. The amount was based on actual costs "documented by the `contract payment request." The work consisted of crack repairs and painting.

SECOND APPEAL REQUEST:
The second appeal request is for approval of extensive seismic upgrade work based on the County's position that the County Building Code contains a seismic upgrade "trigger" which qualifies the upgrade work be included with the repairs as eligible work. Apart from the brief description of damage and identification of the "tilt-up" construction at the beginning of the appeal, no specific reference to this particular structure was included in the appeal. Only the general programmatic and code interpretation arguments were put forward which were identical to the "Twelve Appeals."

DISCUSSION

Since this appeal is based on the same factors as the "Twelve Appeals," the discussion and decision arrived at for those others applies here as well. As for the specific concerns over the "tilt-up" form of construction, and its known vulnerability to earthquake damage, there is no evidence that the damage to this particular structure was sufficient to make a finding that it could not be repaired to its pre-disaster condition. It probably goes without question that improved ties are advisable so that the future earthquake performance of the structure is improved. However, FEMA Public Assistance funding is intended primarily for disaster recovery, not the improvement of facilities known to be deficient.

CONCLUSIONS

The appeal is denied. The appeal response to the Twelve County Appeals on the issues is attached and incorporated into this appeal response by reference.