This page has not been translated into Tiếng Việt. Visit the Tiếng Việt page for resources in that language.
Granada Hills Recreation Center Community Building
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
Cross-Reference: Earthquake related damages, standards, predisaster use
Summary: The Northridge earthquake substantially damaged structural members of the community center. Estimated damages were more than 50% of the replacement costs. DSR 63859 was prepared for replacement of the 7,600 square foot (SF) structure plus 15% for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for a total of 8740 SF and a cost of $1,054,878. The building was condemned and demolished by the city after the structure was found to be a public hazard. The subgrantee appealed because larger community centers were being built in recent years per subgrantee standard requirements (12,000 SF). FEMA contended that the requirements are not a standard that supports increasing the amount of eligible funding. The second appeal asserted that the population increased significantly and that the community center was an essential facility to be used in the event of a disaster. Further, the subgrantee requested funding for a replacement facility of 12,000 SF.
Issues: Is the expanded facility eligible for restoration?
Findings: No. The predisaster use of the facility, including its function and capacity, may only be replaced with a facility of similar area. Consequently, only the predisaster design and an expansion to meet ADA requirements are eligible.
Rationale: Standards that change the predisaster construction are only eligible if they are appropriate to the predisaster design, per 44 CFR 206.226(b)(2). ADA requirements are such a standard.
As a result of the Northridge Earthquake on January 17, 1994, the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Park's Granada Hills Recreation Center Community Building (facility) was considerably damaged. Damage survey report (DSR) 04631 was prepared in mid-February 1994, to fund the structural evaluation of the damaged structure. On February 25, 1994, DSR 63859 was written as a supplement to DSR 04631 for replacement of the 7,600 square foot (SF) facility and a 15% expansion for complying with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
DSR 63859 also indicated that the City of Los Angeles contracted the demolition of the building at no cost to FEMA. In March 1994, the subgrantee submitted a report to FEMA and the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) that was prepared by a structural engineer. The report concluded that the repair costs of the facility were 65% of the replacement cost. In early May 1994, the City of Los Angeles demolished the facility because it was found to be a "public nuisance/hazard."
In May 1995, proposed DSR 63859 was presented to the subgrantee for review and concurrence for funding in the amount of $1,054,878 for design and construction of a new 8,740 SF facility. OES and the subgrantee did not concur, stating the size and cost of the replacement facility was inadequate based on the size of other facilities then being constructed for similar uses. On October 18, 1995, the DSR was approved for the design and construction of a 7,600 SF facility in the amount of $865,964, with no provisions for ADA compliance.
First Appeal
On May 1, 1996, OES transmitted the subgrantee's February 23, 1996, first appeal of DSR 63859. The subgrantee stated that a 12,000 SF facility was necessary to restore the predisaster function and that a standard for larger community centers existed, which meets all the eligibility criteria for a standard. The subgrantee stated that the criteria for community centers had been used for several years before the Los Angeles Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners adopted those criteria as the Building Design Standards for Community Buildings on November 2, 1994. Three similar facilities have been built since 1990.
OES concurred with the subgrantee and added that the increase in area for ADA requirements should be eligible. Further, OES referenced a FEMA/State Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Expediting Infrastructure Grants (DR-1008-CA), signed in March 1994. OES stated that the MOU supported the validity of a subgrantee's standard for a 12,000 SF facility. Further, OES indicated that the replacement is appropriate to the predisaster use since the facility will remain as a community center. Further, OES indicated that the standard has been uniformly applied since three recent community buildings have been constructed with the 12,000 SF area.
The Regional Director's response, dated January 7, 1997, stated that there were several reasons an expanded facility was not eligible. Specifically, the predisaster facility included a volleyball court, while the subgrantee has requested expansion to a regulation size basketball court. Further, the Regional Director stated that no architectural drawings were submitted to support an increase in square footage. The Regional Director also noted that it appeared that the standard was not consistent with FEMA regulations because it was not uniformly applied.
Second Appeal
With a May 2, 1997, letter, OES transmitted the subgrantee's April 4, 1997, second appeal. The subgrantee addressed the criteria for a standard. Specifically, the subgrantee indicated that the community has grown in population since the original facility was built and restoration to effective predisaster use would involve expansion of the facility. More information was given on the application of the 12,000 SF facility design at the other subgrantee's facilities. In all, eleven facilities of this size have been constructed since 1987, some of which were replacements. In addition, the subgrantee claimed that the facility, as with all community buildings, became part of the City's disaster preparedness scheme as an essential facility. Further, the subgrantee maintained that an increase in square footage to meet ADA requirements was eligible and requested that FEMA provide a basis for their cost estimate. OES agreed with the subgrantee's second appeal.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.226, work to restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of such facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster is eligible. Funding is provided to restore a facility to its predisaster condition, only. The exception to this would be if a Federal, State or local repair or replacement standard would change the predisaster construction of the facility. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.226(b)(2), to be eligible, a standard must be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility.
Predisaster Design
Predisaster design means the size or capacity of a facility as originally designed and constructed. The facility was constructed in 1962. The subgrantee stated on page 2 of the attachment to their second appeal that "population growth created the need for larger community buildings which could accommodate larger numbers of people ."
Section 406 of the Stafford Act is intended to provide subgrantees with assistance to recover or restore the use of a facility lost as a specific result of the disaster. The legislative history makes a clear distinction between code-driven upgrades that are necessary to effectively restore damaged elements, e.g., the electrical and plumbing systems and costs associated with code-driven upgrades that introduce altogether new elements that go beyond what is necessary as a direct result of the disaster, e.g., a 200 person increase in capacity, a swimming pool or a gymnasium.
The construction of a 12,000 SF community center with a multipurpose room designed to accommodate a regulation size basketball court (an increase of 3,860 SF over the area of the
original facility's community room), a 275 SF commercial kitchen that did not exist in the original
facility, and a 600 SF increase in the area of the club rooms, is not appropriate to the predisaster design of the damaged facility. Instead, it significantly enhances the function and capacity of the community center. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the predisaster design of the facility.
Essential facilities
Essential facilities are structures that are necessary for emergency operations subsequent to a natural disaster. They allow for the basic functioning and operation of State and local governments to enable them to respond to the essential emergency needs of the affected population immediately after a disaster. This includes such facilities as: hospitals, fire and police stations, and dedicated disaster operation and communications centers. No documentation has been submitted that indicates that the facility in question was used as or is planned for use as such a facility.
Cost Estimate
We have estimated that 5% additional area is adequate to comply with ADA requirements, bringing the total eligible area to 7,980 SF. This increase is based on a review of the original facility's floor plan and a determination that an additional 3% in area was needed to comply with ADA requirements. Further, recognizing that some additional material costs are incurred (e.g., wider doors and automatic opening devices) in complying with ADA, this estimate was rounded up to 5%. Therefore, the eligible replacement cost, $908,862, is the sum of:
CONCLUSION
The community center is eligible for replacement to its predisaster use and capacity and the added space needed to comply with ADA requirements. Therefore, the total eligible cost based on a 7,980 SF facility is $908,862. If the subgrantee desires to construct a larger facility, which is an improved project, OES approval must be obtained and FEMA funding is limited to this eligible amount. The appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1008-DR |
| Applicant | Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-91170 |
| PW ID# | 63859 |
| Date Signed | 1997-11-28T05:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: Earthquake related damages, standards, predisaster use
Summary: The Northridge earthquake substantially damaged structural members of the community center. Estimated damages were more than 50% of the replacement costs. DSR 63859 was prepared for replacement of the 7,600 square foot (SF) structure plus 15% for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for a total of 8740 SF and a cost of $1,054,878. The building was condemned and demolished by the city after the structure was found to be a public hazard. The subgrantee appealed because larger community centers were being built in recent years per subgrantee standard requirements (12,000 SF). FEMA contended that the requirements are not a standard that supports increasing the amount of eligible funding. The second appeal asserted that the population increased significantly and that the community center was an essential facility to be used in the event of a disaster. Further, the subgrantee requested funding for a replacement facility of 12,000 SF.
Issues: Is the expanded facility eligible for restoration?
Findings: No. The predisaster use of the facility, including its function and capacity, may only be replaced with a facility of similar area. Consequently, only the predisaster design and an expansion to meet ADA requirements are eligible.
Rationale: Standards that change the predisaster construction are only eligible if they are appropriate to the predisaster design, per 44 CFR 206.226(b)(2). ADA requirements are such a standard.
Appeal Letter
November 28, 1997
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your May 2, 1997, submittal of the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Park's second appeal for funding for the replacement of the Granada Hills Community Center Building. The DSR was written for the replacement of the Community Center Building to its predisaster design area only. The subgrantee has requested that the facility's size be increased to 12,000 square feet (SF) based on a standard that has been applied for several years.
Though we recognize the benefit of a larger facility to the community, the standard for constructing larger community centers does not meet FEMA's eligibility criteria. Specifically, FEMA regulations require that a standard restore the facility's predisaster design and capacity.
However, the costs of complying with the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) are eligible. We have evaluated the needed increase to comply with ADA and determined that a 5% increase in SF over the predisaster design is necessary. In addition, costs for construction, engineering and design services, and soil testing are eligible. Therefore, the total eligible cost to replace the community center is $908,862.
Please inform the subgrantee 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
Enclosure
cc: Leland R. Wilson
Federal Coordinating Officer
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your May 2, 1997, submittal of the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Park's second appeal for funding for the replacement of the Granada Hills Community Center Building. The DSR was written for the replacement of the Community Center Building to its predisaster design area only. The subgrantee has requested that the facility's size be increased to 12,000 square feet (SF) based on a standard that has been applied for several years.
Though we recognize the benefit of a larger facility to the community, the standard for constructing larger community centers does not meet FEMA's eligibility criteria. Specifically, FEMA regulations require that a standard restore the facility's predisaster design and capacity.
However, the costs of complying with the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) are eligible. We have evaluated the needed increase to comply with ADA and determined that a 5% increase in SF over the predisaster design is necessary. In addition, costs for construction, engineering and design services, and soil testing are eligible. Therefore, the total eligible cost to replace the community center is $908,862.
Please inform the subgrantee 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
Enclosure
cc: Leland R. Wilson
Federal Coordinating Officer
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDAs a result of the Northridge Earthquake on January 17, 1994, the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Park's Granada Hills Recreation Center Community Building (facility) was considerably damaged. Damage survey report (DSR) 04631 was prepared in mid-February 1994, to fund the structural evaluation of the damaged structure. On February 25, 1994, DSR 63859 was written as a supplement to DSR 04631 for replacement of the 7,600 square foot (SF) facility and a 15% expansion for complying with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
DSR 63859 also indicated that the City of Los Angeles contracted the demolition of the building at no cost to FEMA. In March 1994, the subgrantee submitted a report to FEMA and the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) that was prepared by a structural engineer. The report concluded that the repair costs of the facility were 65% of the replacement cost. In early May 1994, the City of Los Angeles demolished the facility because it was found to be a "public nuisance/hazard."
In May 1995, proposed DSR 63859 was presented to the subgrantee for review and concurrence for funding in the amount of $1,054,878 for design and construction of a new 8,740 SF facility. OES and the subgrantee did not concur, stating the size and cost of the replacement facility was inadequate based on the size of other facilities then being constructed for similar uses. On October 18, 1995, the DSR was approved for the design and construction of a 7,600 SF facility in the amount of $865,964, with no provisions for ADA compliance.
First Appeal
On May 1, 1996, OES transmitted the subgrantee's February 23, 1996, first appeal of DSR 63859. The subgrantee stated that a 12,000 SF facility was necessary to restore the predisaster function and that a standard for larger community centers existed, which meets all the eligibility criteria for a standard. The subgrantee stated that the criteria for community centers had been used for several years before the Los Angeles Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners adopted those criteria as the Building Design Standards for Community Buildings on November 2, 1994. Three similar facilities have been built since 1990.
OES concurred with the subgrantee and added that the increase in area for ADA requirements should be eligible. Further, OES referenced a FEMA/State Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Expediting Infrastructure Grants (DR-1008-CA), signed in March 1994. OES stated that the MOU supported the validity of a subgrantee's standard for a 12,000 SF facility. Further, OES indicated that the replacement is appropriate to the predisaster use since the facility will remain as a community center. Further, OES indicated that the standard has been uniformly applied since three recent community buildings have been constructed with the 12,000 SF area.
The Regional Director's response, dated January 7, 1997, stated that there were several reasons an expanded facility was not eligible. Specifically, the predisaster facility included a volleyball court, while the subgrantee has requested expansion to a regulation size basketball court. Further, the Regional Director stated that no architectural drawings were submitted to support an increase in square footage. The Regional Director also noted that it appeared that the standard was not consistent with FEMA regulations because it was not uniformly applied.
Second Appeal
With a May 2, 1997, letter, OES transmitted the subgrantee's April 4, 1997, second appeal. The subgrantee addressed the criteria for a standard. Specifically, the subgrantee indicated that the community has grown in population since the original facility was built and restoration to effective predisaster use would involve expansion of the facility. More information was given on the application of the 12,000 SF facility design at the other subgrantee's facilities. In all, eleven facilities of this size have been constructed since 1987, some of which were replacements. In addition, the subgrantee claimed that the facility, as with all community buildings, became part of the City's disaster preparedness scheme as an essential facility. Further, the subgrantee maintained that an increase in square footage to meet ADA requirements was eligible and requested that FEMA provide a basis for their cost estimate. OES agreed with the subgrantee's second appeal.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with 44 CFR Section 206.226, work to restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of such facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster is eligible. Funding is provided to restore a facility to its predisaster condition, only. The exception to this would be if a Federal, State or local repair or replacement standard would change the predisaster construction of the facility. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.226(b)(2), to be eligible, a standard must be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility.
Predisaster Design
Predisaster design means the size or capacity of a facility as originally designed and constructed. The facility was constructed in 1962. The subgrantee stated on page 2 of the attachment to their second appeal that "population growth created the need for larger community buildings which could accommodate larger numbers of people ."
Section 406 of the Stafford Act is intended to provide subgrantees with assistance to recover or restore the use of a facility lost as a specific result of the disaster. The legislative history makes a clear distinction between code-driven upgrades that are necessary to effectively restore damaged elements, e.g., the electrical and plumbing systems and costs associated with code-driven upgrades that introduce altogether new elements that go beyond what is necessary as a direct result of the disaster, e.g., a 200 person increase in capacity, a swimming pool or a gymnasium.
The construction of a 12,000 SF community center with a multipurpose room designed to accommodate a regulation size basketball court (an increase of 3,860 SF over the area of the
original facility's community room), a 275 SF commercial kitchen that did not exist in the original
facility, and a 600 SF increase in the area of the club rooms, is not appropriate to the predisaster design of the damaged facility. Instead, it significantly enhances the function and capacity of the community center. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the predisaster design of the facility.
Essential facilities
Essential facilities are structures that are necessary for emergency operations subsequent to a natural disaster. They allow for the basic functioning and operation of State and local governments to enable them to respond to the essential emergency needs of the affected population immediately after a disaster. This includes such facilities as: hospitals, fire and police stations, and dedicated disaster operation and communications centers. No documentation has been submitted that indicates that the facility in question was used as or is planned for use as such a facility.
Cost Estimate
We have estimated that 5% additional area is adequate to comply with ADA requirements, bringing the total eligible area to 7,980 SF. This increase is based on a review of the original facility's floor plan and a determination that an additional 3% in area was needed to comply with ADA requirements. Further, recognizing that some additional material costs are incurred (e.g., wider doors and automatic opening devices) in complying with ADA, this estimate was rounded up to 5%. Therefore, the eligible replacement cost, $908,862, is the sum of:
- Construction cost of $845,880 (based on $106/SF; from Means; includes constructiheAngeles as described in the DSR estimate of October 18, 1995),
- Engineering and design services cost of $54,982 (based on 6.5% of the construction cost, from FEMA cost curves), and
- Soil engineering survey and processing cost of $8,000 (as described in the DSR estimate of October 18, 1995).
CONCLUSION
The community center is eligible for replacement to its predisaster use and capacity and the added space needed to comply with ADA requirements. Therefore, the total eligible cost based on a 7,980 SF facility is $908,862. If the subgrantee desires to construct a larger facility, which is an improved project, OES approval must be obtained and FEMA funding is limited to this eligible amount. The appeal is denied.