CITY OF VESTAVIA HILLS

CITY OF VESTAVIA HILLS FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN FMPC Meeting #3 September 29, 2015 ORGANIZATION OF 2015 FMP 2015 Floodplain Management Plan Structure Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Community Profile Chapter 3 The Planning Process Chapter 4 Risk Assessment Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy Chapter 6 Plan Maintenance Procedures ORGANIZATION OF 2015 FMP APPENDICES 2015 Floodplain Management Plan Structure Appendices and Supporting Documentation: A - Resolution Establishing Planning Process B - Hazard Profile Data C - Risk Assessment Data D - Community Mitigation Capabilities E - Committee Meeting Documentation F - Community Involvement Documentation G Adopting Resolution 1

10-STEP PLANNING PROCESS REVIEW DRAFT UPDATES New drafts Chapter 4, Part II Assessing the Problem App. C Risk Assessment Data CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3 4.3 Vulnerabilities and Hazard Impacts: Assessing the Problem Understanding the vulnerability provides a basis for establishing priorities Risk assessment focuses on flooding FEMA s risk assessment software HAZUS-MH (version 2.2) was used to estimate losses due to flooding for the risk assessment study area for incorporation into this plan. 2

CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3 HAZUS-MH Provides an analytic, decision support tool to help communities make informed decisions regarding land use within their flood prone areas A Level 1 analysis of the 100-year return period flood event was modeled within HAZUS-MH utilizing the most recent datasets for the State of Alabama that is integrated in the software. Uses Census Block to define study area HAZUS-MH Study area is based on census blocks Study area population 79,506 (2010 Census Bureau Data) Over 34,000 households in the assessment area Vestavia Hills population is 34,055 based on 2010 U.S. Census CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3 HAZUS-MH Note: HAZUS-generated structure counts and values are approximate; however, the estimates from HAZUS are useful for prioritizing mitigation measures by place, since the relative values of existing and future populations, building inventories and values, and rates of exposure are considered reasonable for these purposes. 3

4.3.1 SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITY AND IMPACTS Community Impacts Impacts to Vulnerable Community Buildings, Critical Facilities, and Infrastructure Flood- Related Hazard Location (Geographic Extent of Hazard in the Community) Probability (Frequency of Hazard Occurrence in the Community) Extent (Magnitude of Severity of Hazard in the Event of Occurrence) Level of Exposure (Degree of Structures Exposed to the Hazard) Level of Damage Potential (Percentage of Likely Damage to Exposed Structures) Floods Partial Moderate Moderate Low Low Dam/Levee Failures Sinkholes (Land Subsidence) Minimal Very Low Slight Low Low Community-wide Low Slight Low Low 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Life Safety Public Health Critical Facilities Local Economy Buildings (Properties) 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Life Safety Injury, death, and psychological effects on the public Also includes impacts due to limiting access to personal or emergency vehicles when transportation corridors are closed 4

4.3.2 Description of Impacts Life Safety HAZUS Study area population 79,506 (2010 Census Bureau Data) No estimates on injury or death 380 households evacuated 820 people will seek temporary shelter 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Public Health Hazardous and toxic substances released into the flood waters Utility outage affecting elderly and public with special needs Inundated structures developing mold 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Critical Facilities Defined as those that are essential to the health and welfare of the community and are critical subsequent to hazard events. Examples include hospitals, police and fire facilities, and schools. HAZUS defines a subset of critical facilities as essential facilities (hospitals, police stations, fire stations, emergency operations centers, and schools) 5

4.3.2 Description of Impacts Critical Facilities Inventories derived from 2009 Jefferson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, as amended in 2011 Government Facilities Public Safety Facilities Schools Hospital and Care Facilities Emergency Shelters Table 4-8. Government Facilities Agency Address Zip Code US Solicitor 100 Centerview Dr # 150 35216 U.S. Post Office 3105 Sunview Dr 35243 Vestavia Hills Chamber of 1975 Merryvale Rd 35216 Commerce Vestavia Hills Public Library 1221 Montgomery Hwy 35216 Vestavia Hills Maintenance Dept. 1280 Montgomery Hwy 35216 Vestavia Hills City Hall 1105 Mayland Lane 35216 Table 4-9. Public Safety Facilities Zip Name Address Code Vestavia Hills Fire Station 1 513 Montgomery Highway 35216 Vestavia Hills Fire Station 2 2927 Columbiana Rd 35216 Vestavia Hills Fire Station 3 3201 Morgan Dr 35216 Vestavia Hills Fire Station 4 13059 Liberty Pkwy 35216 Vestavia Hills Fire Station 5 3241 Cahaba Heights Road 35243 Vestavia Hills Police Dept 1105 Mayland Lane 35216 6

Table 4-10. Schools Zip Type Name Address Code Private Southminster Day School 1124 Montgomery Hwy 35216 Public Vestavia Hills Elementary School-Central 1259 Montgomery Hwy 35216 Public Vestavia Hills Elementary School-West 1965 Merryvale Rd 35216 Public Vestavia Hills High School 2235 Lime Rock Rd 35216 Public Pizitz Middle School 2020 Pizitz Dr 35216 Vestavia Hills United Methodist 2061 Kentucky Ave 35216 Private Kindergarten & Daycare Private Webster Christian School 1998 Shades Crest Rd 35216 Public Liberty Park Elementary School 17051 Liberty Pkwy 35242 Public Liberty Park Middle School 17035 Liberty Pkwy 35242 HAZUS - Expected Damage to Essential Facilities from a 100-Year Flood Event Classification Total At Least Moderate At Least Substantial Loss of Use Fire Stations 2 0 0 0 Hospitals 1 0 0 0 Police Stations 2 0 0 0 Schools 27 1 0 1 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Local Economy Damaged buildings and infrastructure costly to repair Utility outage may force businesses to close creating loss of income Transportation routes may be closed due to inundation or resulting damage 7

4.3.2 Description of Impacts Local Economy HAZUS defines the economic losses as building related losses only. Direct building losses Business interruption losses 4.3.2 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS LOCAL ECONOMY Category Area Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building Loss Business Interruption Building 46.88 16.56 1.57 1.35 66.35 Content 27.42 29.87 2.73 5.45 65.48 Inventory 0.00 0.30 0.33 0.02 0.65 Subtotal 74.30 46.73 4.63 6.81 132.47 Income 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.14 Relocation 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 Rental Income 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 Wage 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.16 Subtotal 0.04 0.30 0.00 0.04 0.37 All Total 74.34 47.02 4.63 6.85 132.85 Note: Values in Millions of Dollars 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Local Economy $133 Million estimated in losses to the local economy Major areas identified along the Cahaba River 8

4.3.2 Description of Impacts Buildings Many public and private buildings within the flood prone areas are subject to inundation during flood events Older building infrastructure is especially vulnerable to damage in flood prone areas because they may have been constructed before flood ordinances required specific building construction criteria to prevent flood damage 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Buildings Estimated 29,047 buildings within the risk assessment study area Total replacement value of $12.4 billion (2010 dollars) Over 90% of the buildings are categorized as residential housing (Replacement value = $10.0 billion) 4.3.2 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS BUILDINGS Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the 100-year Return Period Flood Scenario Occupancy Exposure ($1000) Percent of Total Residential 1,333,469 78.1% Commercial 307,865 18.0% Industrial 30,407 1.8% Agricultural 1,922 0.1% Religion 21,628 1.3% Government 87 0.0% Education 12,848 0.8% Total 1,708,226 100.00% 9

4.3.2 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS BUILDINGS Category Area Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building Loss Business Interruption Building 46.88 16.56 1.57 1.35 66.35 Content 27.42 29.87 2.73 5.45 65.48 Inventory 0.00 0.30 0.33 0.02 0.65 Subtotal 74.30 46.73 4.63 6.81 132.47 Income 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.14 Relocation 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 Rental Income 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 Wage 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.16 Subtotal 0.04 0.30 0.00 0.04 0.37 All Total 74.34 47.02 4.63 6.85 132.85 Note: Values in Millions of Dollars 4.3.2 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS BUILDINGS Expected Building Damage by Occupancy 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Substantially Occupancy Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Agriculture 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Commercial 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Industrial 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Religion 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Residential 0 0.00 2 1.39 25 17.36 20 13.89 77 53.47 20 13.89 Total 0 2 26 20 78 20 4.3.2 Description of Impacts Buildings $74.3 Million estimated in residential losses Major areas identified along the Cahaba River 20 residential buildings will be substantially damaged 10

CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3.3 4.3.3 Historical Damage Based on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) data obtained from the FEMA Total of 98 flood insurance policies in effect Paid losses to date is $1,361,132 from a total of 20 claims 4.3.3 HISTORICAL DAMAGE Flood Insurance Policies by Community as of 07/31/15, Jefferson County County Community Name Policies In-force Insurance In-force whole $ Written Premium In-force Jefferson County Bessemer, City Of 154 20,945,400 183,103 Birmingham, City Of 895 163,488,400 1,058,796 Homewood, City Of 239 64,473,100 257,018 Hoover, City Of 215 53,844,000 129,240 Hueytown, City Of 94 10,870,000 95,056 Jefferson County * 448 87,176,700 369,668 Leeds, City Of 80 17,113,500 70,375 Mountain Brook, City Of 136 38,123,700 128,675 Trussville, City Of 51 18,787,200 86,119 Vestavia Hills, City Of 98 31,357,200 110,978 * Unincorporated areas of county only 4.3.3 HISTORICAL DAMAGE Flood Insurance Losses by Community as of 07/31/15, Jefferson County County Jefferson County Total Closed Open CWOP 1 Total Community Name Losses Losses Losses Losses Payments Bessemer, City Of 256 219 0 37 4,046,129.75 Birmingham, City Of 1,065 820 1 244 12,371,388.60 Homewood, City Of 79 61 0 18 2,390,736.40 Hoover, City Of 84 65 2 17 765,717.14 Hueytown, City Of 112 99 0 13 1,226,941.29 Jefferson County * 353 279 0 74 4,359,026.40 Leeds, City Of 69 55 0 14 818,176.18 Mountain Brook, City Of 103 82 0 21 2,337,537.99 Trussville, City Of 19 17 0 2 706,078.13 Vestavia Hills, City Of 32 20 2 10 1,361,131.72 * Unincorporated areas of county only; 1 CWOP Closed without payment 11

CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3.4 4.3.4 Areas in the Floodplain that Provide Natural Functions These areas can be more effective at controlling or attenuating flooding as well as less expensive over the long term than traditional manmade flood control structures Alteration of these areas within the floodplain can have an adverse impact on the magnitude and extent of flooding 4.3.4 Areas in the Floodplain that Provide Natural Functions SFHA covers 1,777 acres 1,169 acres of the SFHA remain undeveloped and in a natural state Future Development Areas of future development were identified from the Vision Plan for Vestavia Hills, 2011, US-31 Corridor Redevelopment Plan, 2012, the Cahaba Heights Plan Update, 2015, and the City of Vestavia Hills Comprehensive Plan 2004-2025, adopted 2004 Each of these plans specifically addresses development within the floodway and floodplain. 12

Future Development US-31 Corridor Redevelopment Plan Focuses on the commercial corridor along US Highway 31 within the City Promotes targeted redevelopment of underutilized areas with emphasis on greenways and re-establishing the floodplain along Patton Creek Development density and imperviousness is expected to increase; however, the use of green infrastructure and current stormwater design standards may help offset any adverse hydrologic effects Future Development Cahaba Heights Plan Update Amendment to the prior Cahaba Heights Community Plan drafted in 2008 Concepts identified in this plan include creating a pedestrian-friendly village center, mixed-use development, higher density development, flood mitigation, and sustainable infrastructure Recommends commencing immediately engineering studies to address stormwater management 13

Future Development Vision Plan for Vestavia Hills and the City of Vestavia Hills Comprehensive Plan 2004-2025 Comprehensive City economic development plans that provide details on anticipated growth areas The US-31 Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the Cahaba Heights Plan Update provides specific details for each of those areas addressed, but the overall concepts and growth areas discussed in the City s Vision Plan provide the framework for how these specific area plans fit into the city-wide picture. Future Development Commercial Corridors with Growth Potential US-31 corridor Cahaba Heights (Cahaba Heights Road, Dolly Ridge Road, Pump House Road, and Pipe Line Road) Patchwork Farms Liberty Park Acton Road Rocky Ridge Road Columbiana Road Future Development Residential Growth Areas Liberty Park Acton Road/Altadena Valley Patchwork Farms Little undeveloped land remaining in the city, with the exception of Liberty Park Much of the residential growth will come from mixed-use development within the commercial areas listed above as well as continued infill within the city. 14

Historic Growth Trends 1990 2000 Number Change (1990-2000) Percent Change (1990-2000) 2010 Number Change (2000-2010) Percent Change (2000-2010) Alabama 4,040,389 4,447,100 406,711 10.1% 4,779,736 332,636 7.5% Vestavia Hills city Cahaba Heights CDP 19,749 24,476 4,727 23.9% 34,033 9,557 39.1% 4,778 5,203 425 8.9% - - - Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2010 2010 to 2014 Population Estimates April 1, 2010 Population Estimates (as of July 1) Change, 2010-2014 Census Est. Base 2010 2012 2014 Number Percent Alabama 4,779,736 4,780,127 4,785,822 4,817,484 4,849,377 69,250 1.4 Vestavia Hills city 34,033 34,055 34,047 33,985 34,124 69 0.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, and Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Alabama, May 2015 2000-2010 MSA Population and 2015-2040 Projections Census Projection Change 2010-2040 MSA 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 Number Percent Alabama 4,447,100 4,779,736 4,931,768 5,096,521 5,373,294 5,587,919 808,183 16.9 Birmingham- Hoover 1,052,238 1,128,047 1,156,880 1,197,823 1,266,195 1,315,330 187,283 16.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Alabama, March 2015. CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3.6 4.3.6 Future Flooding Conditions Estimated Population in 2035 is 46,000 With the increase in population, development will continue to expand to provide housing, commercial, and government facilities (schools, police, fire, etc.) to keep up with the ever-increasing demand The more developed each watershed becomes, the greater likelihood for increases in flows; consequently, higher flood elevations and more frequent flooding can be expected. 15

CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3.6 4.3.6 Future Flooding Conditions The population increase will raise the pressure to develop properties within floodplains and other less desirable sites Future development within the floodplain could potentially have an adverse effect on flooding due to loss of floodplain storage, increased flows, and higher velocities ***It may be possible to develop these sites without causing adverse hydrologic impacts to the watershed and receiving water; however this will require significant planning and engineering to ensure both upstream and downstream properties are unaffected by the development CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.3.6 4.3.6 Future Flooding Conditions Redevelopment will conform to current stormwater management design standards City may require or acquire buffers along streams Regulations may change to make development within floodplain more prohibitive APPENDICES App. C Risk Assessment Data Summary of Hazards and Community Impacts (All Natural Hazards included in the Hazard Profile) HAZUS-MH Flood Event Summary Report 16

FMPC MEETING DATES AND TOPICS Upcoming Meetings #4 November Mitigation Strategy: Goals, Objectives, Mitigation Alternatives #5 January Mitigation Strategy: Action Plan; The Planning Process COMMUNITY MEETINGS Schedule of Meetings Community meeting #1 during drafting phase, between FMPC meetings #3 and #4 Community meeting #2 prior to adoption, after FMPC meeting #5 CONSULTING TEAM Walter Schoel Engineering Company, Inc. William Thomas, PE, CFM Senior Project Manager 1001 22 nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205 (205) 313 1150 wthomas@schoel.com Lehe Planning, LLC Urban and Environmental Planning Jim Lehe, AICP Manager 300 Century Park South; Ste. 216 Birmingham, AL 35226 (205) 978 3633 jelehe@leheplanning.com 17