This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Stunt Ranch Restoration Project
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1005-DR-CA, P.A. 000-92040, University of California-Los Angeles, DSRs 44709/09789, 44710/09790, 44711/09791, 17198, 44708/09788 and 83713/09792, Stunt Ranch Restoration Project
Cross reference: Time Extension, Project Performance
Summary: Stunt Ranch was a five-building complex that was destroyed by fire during the 1005-DR event. The DSRs listed above were prepared to provide funding to restore the pre-disaster design and function of the complex. In the approximately 5.5 years that have passed since the disaster, there has been a change in subgrantees, modifications to the scope of work and corresponding adjustments to eligible estimated funding, and various appeals. However, the eligible disaster-related work has remained substantively unchanged. By letter dated May 21, 1998, the University requested a time extension until the spring of 1999. On August 31, 1998, FEMA advised the University that its request was not sufficiently supported, but provided an opportunity to submit additional documentation. The University submitted its first appeal on
September 30, 1998, summarizing its efforts to obtain FEMA funding for various site alterations and improvements at the Stunt Ranch location and discussing geotechnical concerns affecting the site. Instead of submitting plans and specifications as requested, the University included a construction cost model and a generic project schedule indicating that construction would begin in the summer of 1999. On November 4, 1998, FEMA notified the University that its request for a time extension was not justified. The University submitted its second appeal on March 30, 1999. It claims that FEMA caused delays in project performance.
Issues: Has the University sufficiently supported its request for a time extension based on extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond its control?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.204(d)
Stunt Ranch was a five-building complex originally developed by the Stunt family as a homestead in the late 1880s. All five buildings were destroyed during the 1005-DR fire event declared on October 28, 1993. At the time of the disaster, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MCRA), a special district, was legally responsible for operating the Stunt Ranch property. Following inspection, the Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) listed below were prepared to address the disaster damage.
Transfer of Facilities and Funding
Prior to any disaster-related construction at the site, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) acquired the Stunt Ranch property. On March 15, 1995, OES transmitted the University's request that FEMA "transfer" federal disaster assistance funding for the Stunt Ranch facilities from MCRA to UCLA. FEMA informed the University, on August 16, 1995, that funding would be transferred upon receipt of necessary applicant information (e.g., Notice of Interest). In October 1995, the University acquired title to the 67-acre Stunt Ranch parcel from MCRA. On March 11, 1996, OES requested that FEMA prepare new DSRs to reflect the transfer of funding. Because no work had been performed and both MCRA and UCLA were eligible applicants, FEMA deobligated the previous MCRA DSRs and prepared the UCLA DSRs listed below.
In the course of preparing these DSRs, FEMA determined that the cabins were not in active use at the time of the disaster and, therefore, did not approve associated funding. Additionally, funding was adjusted to account for factors such as the pre-disaster use of the facility and existing foundations that would not need to be replaced. FEMA advised UCLA of these determinations on October 10, 1996.
On January 14, 1997, UCLA submitted its first appeal of FEMA's determinations. The appeal focused on the eligibility of the facilities and scopes of work. The University indicated that it planned to rebuild the cabins as part of an "outdoor laboratory and field study/educational center." UCLA stated that at the time of the disaster, the cabins "were used intermittently as guest houses and support to the Cold Creek Docent programs." On January 14, 1998, FEMA granted the subgrantee's appeal to reinstate funding for the 1919 Cabin and the Homestead Cabin, although at lower amounts. FEMA also partially approved the subgrantee's appeal to increase the amount of funding provided under DSRs 44710, 44711, and 44713, to include additional work items that would be necessary to reconstruct the facilities. The following supplemental DSRs were prepared:
Soil, Engineering, and Historic Evaluations - DSR Request
On December 12, 1996, the University asked for an additional DSR to fund soil, engineering and historic evaluations on the Stunt Ranch property. OES submitted this request on April 25, 1997. The University conducted these studies at a cost of $7,995. FEMA denied this request on
May 8, 1997, because it determined that these studies were not required as a direct result of the disaster, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223. UCLA did not submit an appeal of this decision.
Time Extension Request
On May 21, 1998, UCLA requested a time extension for the Stunt Ranch facilities. The appeal stated that "[b]ased on current available information, it is expected that these projects will not be completed until the spring of 1999." On August 31, 1998, FEMA advised the University that its request was not sufficiently supported, but provided an opportunity to submit additional documentation. Specifically, FEMA requested that UCLA provide (1) a detailed justification for the delay, (2) construction plae ompletion date.
The University submitted its first appeal of the time extension denial on September 30, 1998. It summarized its efforts to obtain FEMA funding for various site alterations and improvements at the Stunt Ranch location and addressed geotechnical concerns affecting the site. Instead of submitting plans and specifications as requested, the University included a construction cost model "based on schematic architectural drawings for a Museum Building." The project schedule submitted by UCLA based its start date on the resolution of FEMA appeals and indicated that construction would begin in the summer of 1999. It also stated, "we request that this project be considered an improved project."
FEMA denied the appeal on November 4, 1998. It upheld the previous determination that the request for a time extension was not justified. FEMA noted that the documentation provided indicated that the University was still in the preliminary planning stage and that it appeared to be developing a project that expanded upon and altered the pre-disaster use of the Stunt Ranch facility. Finally, FEMA noted that the nature of the facilities that the University intended to construct was not clear. At this time, all funding was deobligated.
SECOND APPEAL
UCLA submitted its second appeal on March 30, 1999. The University claims that it could not begin construction until it was able to determine the funding available from FEMA. It says, "the University was unable to move forward with construction until the DSR appeal was resolved." It also claimed that FEMA's denial of funding for soil, historical, and engineering evaluations created a delay. It states, "the major delays in the start of construction have been the result of lack of timely action on the part of FEMA, over which the University had no control." In its transmittal letter, OES states, "based on the information provided by the subgrantee, OES believes the subgrantee had sufficient time to complete all work within the timeframe granted under OES authority." OES does not support the appeal.
DISCUSSION
The history of the subgrantee's actions with respect to the Stunt Ranch facilities indicates that it is still in the process of project development. In fact, the proposed project described in the March 30, 1999, appeal is different from the project described in the September 30, 1998, appeal. UCLA indicates it is now planning to install modular structures on the site, it has preliminary designs, and it is "ready to proceed to the construction phase." In its appeal, the University has included a project schedule reflecting a 24-month time period, but does not indicate what stage(s) it has completed. UCLA indicates in its appeal that it showed its preliminary design drawings and construction cost estimate to a FEMA inspector. As noted however, the proposed project now differs from that cited in the original time extension request. The University has not provided any additional information concerning the status of its currently proposed project.
The grantee extended the initial project completion deadline of 18 months up to the four-year limit of its authority. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.204(d)(2), requests for time extensions must include a detailed justification for the delay and a projected completion date. As noted in the Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 286/September 1996), the justification should be based on extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond the control of the subgrantee. A subgrantee's decision to appeal FEMA eligibility determinations does not constitute extenuating circumstances beyond its control. In addition, the University cites delays caused by historical, soil and engineering evaluations. These evaluations were not necessary to return the facility to pre-disaster condition, and were not disaster-related. The major portion of the delay (two years) was the result of the voluntary change in ownership, which was not a result of the disaster. Together, these factors do not constitute justifiable reasons for a delay in project completion.
CONCLUSION
FEMA has provided the University with ample opportunity to justify its request for a time extension. Despite this effort, UCLA has failed to establish that its delay in completing or initiating the project results from extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond its control as required by 44 CFR 206.204(d). Additionally, it is noted that the University has not demonstrated any substantive progress since acquiring the Stunt Ranch in late 1995. For these reasons, the subgrantee's appeal for additional time to undertake and complete the project is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1005-DR |
| Applicant | University of California Los Angeles |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 000-92040 |
| PW ID# | Multiple |
| Date Signed | 1999-11-08T05:00:00 |
Cross reference: Time Extension, Project Performance
Summary: Stunt Ranch was a five-building complex that was destroyed by fire during the 1005-DR event. The DSRs listed above were prepared to provide funding to restore the pre-disaster design and function of the complex. In the approximately 5.5 years that have passed since the disaster, there has been a change in subgrantees, modifications to the scope of work and corresponding adjustments to eligible estimated funding, and various appeals. However, the eligible disaster-related work has remained substantively unchanged. By letter dated May 21, 1998, the University requested a time extension until the spring of 1999. On August 31, 1998, FEMA advised the University that its request was not sufficiently supported, but provided an opportunity to submit additional documentation. The University submitted its first appeal on
September 30, 1998, summarizing its efforts to obtain FEMA funding for various site alterations and improvements at the Stunt Ranch location and discussing geotechnical concerns affecting the site. Instead of submitting plans and specifications as requested, the University included a construction cost model and a generic project schedule indicating that construction would begin in the summer of 1999. On November 4, 1998, FEMA notified the University that its request for a time extension was not justified. The University submitted its second appeal on March 30, 1999. It claims that FEMA caused delays in project performance.
Issues: Has the University sufficiently supported its request for a time extension based on extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond its control?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.204(d)
Appeal Letter
November 8, 1999
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3673
Re: Second Appeal - University of California-Los Angeles; Stunt Ranch Restoration Project; FEMA-1005-DR-CA; DSRs 44709/09789, 44710/09790, 44711/09791, 17198, 44708/09788
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced second appeal transmitted by your office on May 5, 1999. The University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) is asking that FEMA reconsider its request for a time extension to complete the referenced project. UCLA first requested a time extension on May 18, 1998. FEMA denied this request on August 31, 1998. The University submitted its first appeal of this decision on September 30, 1998. On November 4, 1998, FEMA again found no reason to grant a time extension. This is the second appeal of the August 31, 1998, decision.
The referenced Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) were prepared to fund the replacement of historic buildings destroyed during the Southern California firestorms. The final approved project completion deadline was October 28, 1997. As explained in the enclosed analysis, the University has not provided sufficient justification to warrant a time extension beyond this date, as required by 44 CFR 206.204(d). Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3673
Re: Second Appeal - University of California-Los Angeles; Stunt Ranch Restoration Project; FEMA-1005-DR-CA; DSRs 44709/09789, 44710/09790, 44711/09791, 17198, 44708/09788
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced second appeal transmitted by your office on May 5, 1999. The University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) is asking that FEMA reconsider its request for a time extension to complete the referenced project. UCLA first requested a time extension on May 18, 1998. FEMA denied this request on August 31, 1998. The University submitted its first appeal of this decision on September 30, 1998. On November 4, 1998, FEMA again found no reason to grant a time extension. This is the second appeal of the August 31, 1998, decision.
The referenced Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) were prepared to fund the replacement of historic buildings destroyed during the Southern California firestorms. The final approved project completion deadline was October 28, 1997. As explained in the enclosed analysis, the University has not provided sufficient justification to warrant a time extension beyond this date, as required by 44 CFR 206.204(d). Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDStunt Ranch was a five-building complex originally developed by the Stunt family as a homestead in the late 1880s. All five buildings were destroyed during the 1005-DR fire event declared on October 28, 1993. At the time of the disaster, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MCRA), a special district, was legally responsible for operating the Stunt Ranch property. Following inspection, the Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) listed below were prepared to address the disaster damage.
DSR | Building | Proposed Funding |
44268 | 1919 Cabin | $95,040 |
44268 | Homestead Cabin | $23,100 |
44268 | Storage Barn | $22,997 |
44268 | Barn (Nature Center) | $60,150 |
44266 | Caretaker's House | $177,608 |
Transfer of Facilities and Funding
Prior to any disaster-related construction at the site, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) acquired the Stunt Ranch property. On March 15, 1995, OES transmitted the University's request that FEMA "transfer" federal disaster assistance funding for the Stunt Ranch facilities from MCRA to UCLA. FEMA informed the University, on August 16, 1995, that funding would be transferred upon receipt of necessary applicant information (e.g., Notice of Interest). In October 1995, the University acquired title to the 67-acre Stunt Ranch parcel from MCRA. On March 11, 1996, OES requested that FEMA prepare new DSRs to reflect the transfer of funding. Because no work had been performed and both MCRA and UCLA were eligible applicants, FEMA deobligated the previous MCRA DSRs and prepared the UCLA DSRs listed below.
DSR | Building | Funding |
44708 | 1919 Cabin | $0 |
44709 | Homestead Cabin | $0 |
44710 | Storage Barn | $13,453 |
44711 | Barn (Nature Center) | $25,192 |
83713 | Caretaker's House | $111,370 |
In the course of preparing these DSRs, FEMA determined that the cabins were not in active use at the time of the disaster and, therefore, did not approve associated funding. Additionally, funding was adjusted to account for factors such as the pre-disaster use of the facility and existing foundations that would not need to be replaced. FEMA advised UCLA of these determinations on October 10, 1996.
On January 14, 1997, UCLA submitted its first appeal of FEMA's determinations. The appeal focused on the eligibility of the facilities and scopes of work. The University indicated that it planned to rebuild the cabins as part of an "outdoor laboratory and field study/educational center." UCLA stated that at the time of the disaster, the cabins "were used intermittently as guest houses and support to the Cold Creek Docent programs." On January 14, 1998, FEMA granted the subgrantee's appeal to reinstate funding for the 1919 Cabin and the Homestead Cabin, although at lower amounts. FEMA also partially approved the subgrantee's appeal to increase the amount of funding provided under DSRs 44710, 44711, and 44713, to include additional work items that would be necessary to reconstruct the facilities. The following supplemental DSRs were prepared:
DSR | Building | Revised Funding |
44708/09788 | 1919 Cabin | $83,751 |
44709/09789 | Homestead Cabin | $13,598 |
44710/09790 | Storage Barn | $15,454 |
44711/09791 | Barn (Nature Center) | $26,680 |
83713/09792 | Caretaker's House | $166,348 |
Soil, Engineering, and Historic Evaluations - DSR Request
On December 12, 1996, the University asked for an additional DSR to fund soil, engineering and historic evaluations on the Stunt Ranch property. OES submitted this request on April 25, 1997. The University conducted these studies at a cost of $7,995. FEMA denied this request on
May 8, 1997, because it determined that these studies were not required as a direct result of the disaster, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223. UCLA did not submit an appeal of this decision.
Time Extension Request
On May 21, 1998, UCLA requested a time extension for the Stunt Ranch facilities. The appeal stated that "[b]ased on current available information, it is expected that these projects will not be completed until the spring of 1999." On August 31, 1998, FEMA advised the University that its request was not sufficiently supported, but provided an opportunity to submit additional documentation. Specifically, FEMA requested that UCLA provide (1) a detailed justification for the delay, (2) construction plae ompletion date.
The University submitted its first appeal of the time extension denial on September 30, 1998. It summarized its efforts to obtain FEMA funding for various site alterations and improvements at the Stunt Ranch location and addressed geotechnical concerns affecting the site. Instead of submitting plans and specifications as requested, the University included a construction cost model "based on schematic architectural drawings for a Museum Building." The project schedule submitted by UCLA based its start date on the resolution of FEMA appeals and indicated that construction would begin in the summer of 1999. It also stated, "we request that this project be considered an improved project."
FEMA denied the appeal on November 4, 1998. It upheld the previous determination that the request for a time extension was not justified. FEMA noted that the documentation provided indicated that the University was still in the preliminary planning stage and that it appeared to be developing a project that expanded upon and altered the pre-disaster use of the Stunt Ranch facility. Finally, FEMA noted that the nature of the facilities that the University intended to construct was not clear. At this time, all funding was deobligated.
SECOND APPEAL
UCLA submitted its second appeal on March 30, 1999. The University claims that it could not begin construction until it was able to determine the funding available from FEMA. It says, "the University was unable to move forward with construction until the DSR appeal was resolved." It also claimed that FEMA's denial of funding for soil, historical, and engineering evaluations created a delay. It states, "the major delays in the start of construction have been the result of lack of timely action on the part of FEMA, over which the University had no control." In its transmittal letter, OES states, "based on the information provided by the subgrantee, OES believes the subgrantee had sufficient time to complete all work within the timeframe granted under OES authority." OES does not support the appeal.
DISCUSSION
The history of the subgrantee's actions with respect to the Stunt Ranch facilities indicates that it is still in the process of project development. In fact, the proposed project described in the March 30, 1999, appeal is different from the project described in the September 30, 1998, appeal. UCLA indicates it is now planning to install modular structures on the site, it has preliminary designs, and it is "ready to proceed to the construction phase." In its appeal, the University has included a project schedule reflecting a 24-month time period, but does not indicate what stage(s) it has completed. UCLA indicates in its appeal that it showed its preliminary design drawings and construction cost estimate to a FEMA inspector. As noted however, the proposed project now differs from that cited in the original time extension request. The University has not provided any additional information concerning the status of its currently proposed project.
The grantee extended the initial project completion deadline of 18 months up to the four-year limit of its authority. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.204(d)(2), requests for time extensions must include a detailed justification for the delay and a projected completion date. As noted in the Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 286/September 1996), the justification should be based on extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond the control of the subgrantee. A subgrantee's decision to appeal FEMA eligibility determinations does not constitute extenuating circumstances beyond its control. In addition, the University cites delays caused by historical, soil and engineering evaluations. These evaluations were not necessary to return the facility to pre-disaster condition, and were not disaster-related. The major portion of the delay (two years) was the result of the voluntary change in ownership, which was not a result of the disaster. Together, these factors do not constitute justifiable reasons for a delay in project completion.
CONCLUSION
FEMA has provided the University with ample opportunity to justify its request for a time extension. Despite this effort, UCLA has failed to establish that its delay in completing or initiating the project results from extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond its control as required by 44 CFR 206.204(d). Additionally, it is noted that the University has not demonstrated any substantive progress since acquiring the Stunt Ranch in late 1995. For these reasons, the subgrantee's appeal for additional time to undertake and complete the project is denied.