Hillcrest Avenue

January 16, 2008

Mr. Paul Jacks
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 Larkspur, PA ID 041-40438-00
Hillcrest Avenue, FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 851

Dear Mr. Jacks:

This is in response to your letter dated October 3, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Larkspur (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision not to repair a slip-out on Hillcrest Avenue and to stabilize the adjoining slope.

On July 31, 2006, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 851 for emergency protective measures (category B). The scope of work included excavation of loose dirt at the top of the slope; construction of a retaining wall at the top of the slope; construction of a drainage system; a backfill wall; and re-pavement above the wall. FEMA obligated PW 851 for $0 because it determined that the disaster did not cause “damage” at the site. This determination was based upon the existence of vegetation growing in the longitudinal cracks in the scarp and the fact that a concrete retaining wall at the bottom of the slope was built 2 to 3 years prior to the disaster to protect private property from materials that might fall from the deteriorating escarpment. In addition, a Landslide Assessment Report dated August 14, 2006, stated that the slope failure appeared to be the result of a pre-existing condition and occurred before the incident period. A Preliminary Geotechnical Report, dated August 24, 2006, also stated that the slope had experienced ongoing slope failures.

In a letter dated December 20, 2006, the Applicant stated that FEMA erroneously prepared PW 851 as a category B project instead of identifying it as a category C project. It asked FEMA to prepare a version of the PW for the cost of the geotechnical report and the estimated road repair costs of $112,305. In a letter dated May 10, 2007, the Deputy Regional Administrator agreed that the requested project should be category C permanent road repair. However, since the road asphalt and sub-base were not damaged by the disaster event, the cost to repair the road was not eligible for reimbursement.

In a letter dated July 30, 2007, the Applicant filed its second appeal. With its second appeal, the Applicant submitted photographs stating that the cracks in the road were crescent shaped rather than alligator-type cracks that would indicate normal wear of the road. In its transmittal letter dated
October 3, 2007, the California Office of Emergency Services stated that the Applicant had agreed to a more cost-effective method of repair to eliminate a larger embankment failure. Specifically, the proposed repair consists of removal of the soil cornice and the installation of a metal beam guardrail on the outboard side of the road and grinding the road to a two percent slope to the inboard side and reestablishment of inboard side drainage. The estimated cost of the revised scope of work is $38,063. The proposed repairs address mitigation to prevent future slope failure rather than road damage. The Applicant did not provide documentation that demonstrates that the disaster damaged the road.

We have reviewed all the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrator’s decision on the first appeal is consistent with program regulations and policies. To be eligible, an item of work must be a direct result of the disaster. The Applicant has not submitted any documentation that demonstrates that the damage to the road is disaster related. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

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

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX