This page has not been translated into 한국어. Visit the 한국어 page for resources in that language.
Permanent restoration of pavement and sidewalk
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; City of Santa Barbara; FEMA-1044-DR-CA; PA 083-69070
Cross-Reference: DSR 39763; Permanent Restoration; Lower East Side; Pavement Repair
Summary: Following the winter storms of 1995, in the City of Santa Barbara (City), FEMA prepared DSR 39763 for $50,933, which was reduced to $44,694, to provide funding for the permanent restoration of damaged pavement and sidewalk on the lower eastside of the City. The City claimed that the damage occurred when heavy equipment drove over saturated pavement subbase to remove debris from the storm. Upon review, it was determined that the damaged site is located a on road/street functionally classified as either a minor collector or a local road/street. Furthermore, it was determined that the damage to the pavement and the sidewalk was pre-existing and ineligible and the DSR was reduced to $0, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.223 (a)(1). On July 19, 1996, the State submitted the first appeal. The basis of the first appeal was that the damage was a result of heavy traffic during emergency response efforts, that the roads are not Federal-aid routes, and that the damage is eligible for FEMA funding. The Regional Director determined that the roads/streets were in fact non Federal-aid routes. However, the Regional Director denied the first appeal on December 17, 1996, because the original documentation supporting the DSR indicated that the damages were characteristic of long-term damage and not a direct result of the disaster, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1). The State submitted the second appeal on March 24, 1997, again requesting full funding for DSR 39763. The basis of the second appeal is that the road/street damage was a direct result of necessary and prudent emergency debris removal work, required as a result of the disaster. In support of the appeal, the applicant refers to another 1044-disaster DSR, which was prepared for similar damages, and funded. Documentation provided in support of the original DSR indicates the damages were characteristic of long-term damages.
Issue: Were the damages to the pavement and the sidewalk solely a direct result of the disaster?
Finding: No. Documentation provided in support of the original DSR indicates that the damages, such as road patch failures and small "alligator" cracking, are characteristic of long-term exposure to the elements, combined with heavy traffic.
Rationale: According to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1), to be eligible for financial assistance, an item of work must be required as the direct result of a major disaster event.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | City of Santa Barbara |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 083-69070 |
| PW ID# | 39763 |
| Date Signed | 1997-11-18T05:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: DSR 39763; Permanent Restoration; Lower East Side; Pavement Repair
Summary: Following the winter storms of 1995, in the City of Santa Barbara (City), FEMA prepared DSR 39763 for $50,933, which was reduced to $44,694, to provide funding for the permanent restoration of damaged pavement and sidewalk on the lower eastside of the City. The City claimed that the damage occurred when heavy equipment drove over saturated pavement subbase to remove debris from the storm. Upon review, it was determined that the damaged site is located a on road/street functionally classified as either a minor collector or a local road/street. Furthermore, it was determined that the damage to the pavement and the sidewalk was pre-existing and ineligible and the DSR was reduced to $0, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.223 (a)(1). On July 19, 1996, the State submitted the first appeal. The basis of the first appeal was that the damage was a result of heavy traffic during emergency response efforts, that the roads are not Federal-aid routes, and that the damage is eligible for FEMA funding. The Regional Director determined that the roads/streets were in fact non Federal-aid routes. However, the Regional Director denied the first appeal on December 17, 1996, because the original documentation supporting the DSR indicated that the damages were characteristic of long-term damage and not a direct result of the disaster, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1). The State submitted the second appeal on March 24, 1997, again requesting full funding for DSR 39763. The basis of the second appeal is that the road/street damage was a direct result of necessary and prudent emergency debris removal work, required as a result of the disaster. In support of the appeal, the applicant refers to another 1044-disaster DSR, which was prepared for similar damages, and funded. Documentation provided in support of the original DSR indicates the damages were characteristic of long-term damages.
Issue: Were the damages to the pavement and the sidewalk solely a direct result of the disaster?
Finding: No. Documentation provided in support of the original DSR indicates that the damages, such as road patch failures and small "alligator" cracking, are characteristic of long-term exposure to the elements, combined with heavy traffic.
Rationale: According to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1), to be eligible for financial assistance, an item of work must be required as the direct result of a major disaster event.
Appeal Letter
November 18, 1997
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your letter dated March 24, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 39763 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA on behalf of the City of Santa Barbara (City), requesting FEMA reinstate the $44,694 for costs associated with the repair of road pavement on the lower eastside of the City.
On September 11, 1995, FEMA prepared DSR 39763 for $50,933, which was reduced to $44,694, to provide funding for the permanent restoration of damaged pavement and sidewalk on the lower eastside of the City. The City claimed that the damage occurred when heavy equipment drove over saturated pavement to remove debris from the storm. Upon review, it was determined that the damaged site is located on a road/street functionally classified as either a minor collector or a local road/street. Furthermore, it was determined that the damage to the pavement and the sidewalk was pre-existing and ineligible. The DSR was reduced to $0, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.223 (a)(1). The State submitted the first appeal on July 19, 1996. The basis of the first appeal was that the damage was a result of heavy traffic during emergency debris removal, that the roads are not Federal-aid routes, and that the damages are eligible for FEMA funding. The Regional Director determined that the roads/streets were in fact non Federal-aid routes. However, the Regional Director denied the first appeal because the damages are characteristic of long-term exposure to the elements, combined with heavy traffic and generally not indicative of storm-related flood damage from a single event, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1).
The State submitted the second appeal on March 24, 1997, again requesting reinstatement of costs associated with DSR 39763. The basis of the second appeal is that the road/street damage was a direct result of necessary and prudent measures to remove debris. In support of the appeal, a reference was made to another 1044-disaster DSR prepared for similar damages and funded. To be eligible for permanent restoration, damages to a facility must be the direct result of a disaster event, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1). In this appeal, the applicant states that the damages resulted from protracted use of heavy equipment, traveling over the road in debris removal efforts. However, documentation, particularly the photographs, provided in support of the original DSR indicates that the damages (including failed road patches and alligator cracking) were the result of long-term exposure to the elements, combined with heavy traffic. Documentation to establish the pre-disaster condition of the road, such as the maintenance schedule of the road or the design standard of the road indicating the load-bearing capacity of the road, was not provided. This type of documentation may establish what damages, if any, could be directly attributed to the debris removal operation. We have carefully reviewed all the documentation submitted with the second appeal and have determined that the Regional Director's decision is consistent with program statute and regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your letter dated March 24, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 39763 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA on behalf of the City of Santa Barbara (City), requesting FEMA reinstate the $44,694 for costs associated with the repair of road pavement on the lower eastside of the City.
On September 11, 1995, FEMA prepared DSR 39763 for $50,933, which was reduced to $44,694, to provide funding for the permanent restoration of damaged pavement and sidewalk on the lower eastside of the City. The City claimed that the damage occurred when heavy equipment drove over saturated pavement to remove debris from the storm. Upon review, it was determined that the damaged site is located on a road/street functionally classified as either a minor collector or a local road/street. Furthermore, it was determined that the damage to the pavement and the sidewalk was pre-existing and ineligible. The DSR was reduced to $0, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.223 (a)(1). The State submitted the first appeal on July 19, 1996. The basis of the first appeal was that the damage was a result of heavy traffic during emergency debris removal, that the roads are not Federal-aid routes, and that the damages are eligible for FEMA funding. The Regional Director determined that the roads/streets were in fact non Federal-aid routes. However, the Regional Director denied the first appeal because the damages are characteristic of long-term exposure to the elements, combined with heavy traffic and generally not indicative of storm-related flood damage from a single event, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1).
The State submitted the second appeal on March 24, 1997, again requesting reinstatement of costs associated with DSR 39763. The basis of the second appeal is that the road/street damage was a direct result of necessary and prudent measures to remove debris. In support of the appeal, a reference was made to another 1044-disaster DSR prepared for similar damages and funded. To be eligible for permanent restoration, damages to a facility must be the direct result of a disaster event, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1). In this appeal, the applicant states that the damages resulted from protracted use of heavy equipment, traveling over the road in debris removal efforts. However, documentation, particularly the photographs, provided in support of the original DSR indicates that the damages (including failed road patches and alligator cracking) were the result of long-term exposure to the elements, combined with heavy traffic. Documentation to establish the pre-disaster condition of the road, such as the maintenance schedule of the road or the design standard of the road indicating the load-bearing capacity of the road, was not provided. This type of documentation may establish what damages, if any, could be directly attributed to the debris removal operation. We have carefully reviewed all the documentation submitted with the second appeal and have determined that the Regional Director's decision is consistent with program statute and regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate