Hillside failure in Sierra Del Oro Subdivision
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA, CITY OF CORONA, DSR 94525
Cross Reference: Improved and Maintained Natural Feature, Immediate Threat
Summary: Heavy rains in January and February, 1995, caused landslides and mud slides in the Sierra Del Oro subdivision in the City of Corona. A portion of the hillside west of 4271 San Sebastian Circle failed. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 94525 was prepared for the restoration of the slope to its predisaster conditions. The DSR was denied, because a natural slope is not an eligible facility. The City's first appeal stated that the damaged hillside is a facility, as it is an irrigated fire protection buffer zone. The first appeal was denied, because there no documentation to indicate that the hillside had been improved and maintained on a regular basis. The City states in their second appeal letter that the damaged hillside is a facility, because the slope serves as a fire buffer. They have submitted maintenance records to support their claim that the slope has been landscaped and maintained since at least November 1992. Further, the City states that the slope failure poses an immediate threat to public safety and improved properties, because the failure impacts adjacent residences.
Issues:
Heavy rains in January and February, 1995, caused landslides and mud slides in the Sierra Del Oro subdivision in the City of Corona. The damage at issue in this case is the failure of a portion of the hillside west of 4271 San Sebastian Circle. The slope failure was approximately 40' wide by 60' high, averaging 5' deep. The failure was downslope of a private home's backyard (4271 San Sebastian Circle), and the head scarp was located approximately one foot away from the fence surrounding the private property. A ravine is located at the toe of the slope failure.
The damage site was inspected on March 3, 1995, and the inspection team prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 94525 for the restoration of the slope to its predisaster conditions. It should be noted that the repair scheme as described in the DSR includes work that would improve upon the predisaster condition of the slope. The DSR narrative explains that these improvements are necessary to rebuild the slope to the City's codes and standards; however, there is no documentation to justify the need for the improvements. This issue was not addressed during the review of the DSR, because the work was determined to be ineligible on the basis that the failure occurred in a natural slope. A natural slope is not eligible as a facility; therefore, the DSR was approved for $0 on July 28, 1995.
First Appeal
A first appeal of the eligibility determination was submitted by the State on behalf of the City of Corona on December 29, 1995. The City stated in their first appeal that the damaged hillside is a facility, as it is an irrigated fire protection buffer zone. They stated that the existence of irrigation demonstrates that the area is more than a natural area. The State did not support the City's first appeal, because there was a lack of documentation to support the City's claim.
The Regional Director (RD) denied the City's first appeal. The RD stated that "the four sprinkler heads that are located along the rim of the slope do not classify the entire hillside as an improved feature." In addition, there was no documentation to indicate that the hillside had been maintained on a regular basis. The slope failure "does not pose an immediate threat to public health, safety, or improved properties." Finally, the RD stated that there is no indication that the hillside "serves as an integral part of an eligible facility, since the irrigation system sustained no damage during the disaster."
Second Appeal
On August 29, 1996, the City submitted a second appeal to the State. The State submitted the second appeal to FEMA on October 23, 1996 and supported the City's appeal. The City states in their appeal letter that the damaged hillside is a facility, because the slope serves as a fire buffer. They have submitted maintenance records to support their claim that the slope has been landscaped and maintained since at least November 1992. Further, the City states that the slope failure poses an immediate threat to public safety and improved properties, because the failure impacts adjacent residences.
DISCUSSION
According to FEMA's Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, permanent earth repair that is not integral to the restoration of a public facility is not eligible for reimbursement. The City contends that the hillside is a facility, because it is an improved and maintained natural feature. They state that the "slope area along with the irrigation system and man-made landscape, is an integral system, which served as a fire buffer and should qualify as an improved facility." The City provided maintenance records; however, the documentation that his been submitted does not support the statement that the hillside has been improved.
An effort has been made to obtain additional information from the City regarding the improvements made to the natural hillside. The City was first contacted by phone, and a formal request for information was submitted to the State and copied to the City by letter dated May 14, 1997. The letter requested that the additional information be submitted no later than 30 days from the City's receipt of the letter. No additional information has been submitted.
Additionally, the information that has been submitted does not support the City's statement that there is an immediate threat to public safety. The head scarp was not located close enough to the private residence to constitute an immediate threat.
CONCLUSION
The City's second appeal of FEMA's ineligibility ruling on DSR 94525 is denied. No immediate threat to life or improved property exists. Also, the upper slope does not constitute a facility eligible for permanent restoration, nor is it integral to the restoration of a public facility.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | City of Corona |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 065-16350 |
| PW ID# | 94525 |
| Date Signed | 1997-07-16T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Improved and Maintained Natural Feature, Immediate Threat
Summary: Heavy rains in January and February, 1995, caused landslides and mud slides in the Sierra Del Oro subdivision in the City of Corona. A portion of the hillside west of 4271 San Sebastian Circle failed. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 94525 was prepared for the restoration of the slope to its predisaster conditions. The DSR was denied, because a natural slope is not an eligible facility. The City's first appeal stated that the damaged hillside is a facility, as it is an irrigated fire protection buffer zone. The first appeal was denied, because there no documentation to indicate that the hillside had been improved and maintained on a regular basis. The City states in their second appeal letter that the damaged hillside is a facility, because the slope serves as a fire buffer. They have submitted maintenance records to support their claim that the slope has been landscaped and maintained since at least November 1992. Further, the City states that the slope failure poses an immediate threat to public safety and improved properties, because the failure impacts adjacent residences.
Issues:
- Is the hillside an eligible facility as an improved and maintained natural feature?
- Is the work to repair the hillside eligible as an emergency protective measure?
- No. The hillside is not an improved and maintained natural feature.
- No. The slope failure does not pose an immediate threat to life or improved property.
Appeal Letter
July 16, 1997
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Field Office - Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue
West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your October 23, 1996, transmittal of the City of Corona's second appeal of DSR No. 94525 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting funding for the repair of a failed hillside in the Sierra Del Oro subdivision in the City of Corona.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have denied this appeal for the reasons explained in the attached appeal analysis. Briefly, the applicant has not shown that the hillside is an improved and maintained natural feature; therefore, the hillside is not an eligible facility. In addition, the failed hillside does not pose an immediate threat to public health, safety, or improved property. Accordingly, the work is not eligible as emergency work.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right of submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Field Office - Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue
West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your October 23, 1996, transmittal of the City of Corona's second appeal of DSR No. 94525 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting funding for the repair of a failed hillside in the Sierra Del Oro subdivision in the City of Corona.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have denied this appeal for the reasons explained in the attached appeal analysis. Briefly, the applicant has not shown that the hillside is an improved and maintained natural feature; therefore, the hillside is not an eligible facility. In addition, the failed hillside does not pose an immediate threat to public health, safety, or improved property. Accordingly, the work is not eligible as emergency work.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right of submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDHeavy rains in January and February, 1995, caused landslides and mud slides in the Sierra Del Oro subdivision in the City of Corona. The damage at issue in this case is the failure of a portion of the hillside west of 4271 San Sebastian Circle. The slope failure was approximately 40' wide by 60' high, averaging 5' deep. The failure was downslope of a private home's backyard (4271 San Sebastian Circle), and the head scarp was located approximately one foot away from the fence surrounding the private property. A ravine is located at the toe of the slope failure.
The damage site was inspected on March 3, 1995, and the inspection team prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 94525 for the restoration of the slope to its predisaster conditions. It should be noted that the repair scheme as described in the DSR includes work that would improve upon the predisaster condition of the slope. The DSR narrative explains that these improvements are necessary to rebuild the slope to the City's codes and standards; however, there is no documentation to justify the need for the improvements. This issue was not addressed during the review of the DSR, because the work was determined to be ineligible on the basis that the failure occurred in a natural slope. A natural slope is not eligible as a facility; therefore, the DSR was approved for $0 on July 28, 1995.
First Appeal
A first appeal of the eligibility determination was submitted by the State on behalf of the City of Corona on December 29, 1995. The City stated in their first appeal that the damaged hillside is a facility, as it is an irrigated fire protection buffer zone. They stated that the existence of irrigation demonstrates that the area is more than a natural area. The State did not support the City's first appeal, because there was a lack of documentation to support the City's claim.
The Regional Director (RD) denied the City's first appeal. The RD stated that "the four sprinkler heads that are located along the rim of the slope do not classify the entire hillside as an improved feature." In addition, there was no documentation to indicate that the hillside had been maintained on a regular basis. The slope failure "does not pose an immediate threat to public health, safety, or improved properties." Finally, the RD stated that there is no indication that the hillside "serves as an integral part of an eligible facility, since the irrigation system sustained no damage during the disaster."
Second Appeal
On August 29, 1996, the City submitted a second appeal to the State. The State submitted the second appeal to FEMA on October 23, 1996 and supported the City's appeal. The City states in their appeal letter that the damaged hillside is a facility, because the slope serves as a fire buffer. They have submitted maintenance records to support their claim that the slope has been landscaped and maintained since at least November 1992. Further, the City states that the slope failure poses an immediate threat to public safety and improved properties, because the failure impacts adjacent residences.
DISCUSSION
According to FEMA's Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, permanent earth repair that is not integral to the restoration of a public facility is not eligible for reimbursement. The City contends that the hillside is a facility, because it is an improved and maintained natural feature. They state that the "slope area along with the irrigation system and man-made landscape, is an integral system, which served as a fire buffer and should qualify as an improved facility." The City provided maintenance records; however, the documentation that his been submitted does not support the statement that the hillside has been improved.
An effort has been made to obtain additional information from the City regarding the improvements made to the natural hillside. The City was first contacted by phone, and a formal request for information was submitted to the State and copied to the City by letter dated May 14, 1997. The letter requested that the additional information be submitted no later than 30 days from the City's receipt of the letter. No additional information has been submitted.
Additionally, the information that has been submitted does not support the City's statement that there is an immediate threat to public safety. The head scarp was not located close enough to the private residence to constitute an immediate threat.
CONCLUSION
The City's second appeal of FEMA's ineligibility ruling on DSR 94525 is denied. No immediate threat to life or improved property exists. Also, the upper slope does not constitute a facility eligible for permanent restoration, nor is it integral to the restoration of a public facility.
Last updated