Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 037-91081; Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
DSR ID# 87851 and 87569; Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks; DSRs 87851 and 87569
Cross Reference: Codes and Standards; Structural Upgrades; Historic Preservation; Repair versus Replacement
Summary: As a result of the Northridge Earthquake, the Los Angeles Swim Stadium and adjacent Judges/Lifeguard/Storage (Judges) Building and pool (collectively, facilities) suffered architectural and structural damages. Subsequently, FEMA prepared DSRs 04918 and 04920 for architectural and engineering (A&E) studies to determine the work necessary to restore the facilities to pre-disaster condition. Based on site inspections and the findings of these studies, FEMA prepared DSR 87851 for $792,941 to cover restoration of the Stadium and pool and DSR 87569 for $52,510 to cover restoration of the Judges Building. The scopes of work included structural, plumbing and electrical repairs, demolition, and an allowance for design costs. In addition, DSR 87851 provided funding for mechanical repairs. The work included upgrades/repairs for ADA compliance and historic preservation requirements. In its first appeal, the subgrantee stated that the approved repairs would not restore pre-disaster conditions and that the work did not comply with prevailing building codes. They requested complete replacement of the facilities. Upon review, FEMA approved several adjustments to the scope of work for DSR 87851, including additional plumbing repairs and a 15% allowance for general conditions, overhead, and profit. Accordingly, FEMA prepared supplemental DSR 15210 for $66,575. In its second appeal, the subgrantee argues that further upgrades are required by prevailing codes and that the approved repairs do not conform to historic preservation requirements. In addition, they claim that FEMA should fund complete replacement of the facilities in accordance with the "50 Percent Rule."
Issues: 1. Do prevailing building codes require additional upgrades or replacement?2. Do historic preservation requirements mandate further repairs/upgrades?3. Should FEMA fund complete replacement for any of these facilities?
Findings: 1. No. The prevailing codes specifically provide that repairs may be made to an existing building without requiring that the entire building comply with code requirements, so long as the repair work itself conforms to applicable standards.2. No. Historic preservation requirements do not provide specific upgrading standards, but rather they "govern" the application of the prevailing code.3. No. Based on a calculation of the "50 percent rule," none of these facilities is eligible for complete replacement.
Rationale: FEMA will fund the restoration of a facility to perform its predisaster function with the same capability and designed capacity as before the disaster. Such repairs will be performed in accordance with all applicable codes and standards that meet the criteria identified in 44 CFR 206.226(b).