Reducing Flooding Hazards through Citizen...

A P A 2 0 1 7 N A T I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E , N E W Y O R K , N E W Y O R K

S U N D A Y , M A Y 7 , 2 0 1 7 | 8 A . M . - 9 : 1 5 A . M .

R O O M : H A L L 1 A 2 1 ( J C C )

S E S S I O N F U N C T I O N C O D E - 9 1 1 0 1 5 7

Reducing Flooding Hazards through Citizen Engagement

Presenters

Allison Hardin, CFM – City planner with the City of Myrtle Beach. Her 25-year career includes experience with regional and urban planning, GIS mapping and coordination, floodplain management, hazard mitigation planning, business operations and emergency services.

Stephen D. Villavaso, FAICP – Forty years of concentrated and innovative application of the skills of professional urban and regional planning as required by local, regional and national issues and projects, including innovative approaches to land use, zoning, Smart Growth planning techniques, brownfields and grant writing for professional planners.

Theresa Pinto - Almost 20 years experience working at the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Since 2004, she has been a Project Manager overseeing planning and environmental projects including Area Drainage Master Studies/Plans (ADMS/ADMPs).

Lynndsay O’Neill – New Planner with three years experience. Currently working for the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (Phoenix, AZ), in the Policy, Planning, and Coordination Branch.


There is a growing national effort to educate the public on flood hazard mitigation.

The shift in mindset comes from severe loss and damages that have occurred due to the increased viability of natural hazards and disasters.

It is no longer a feasible option to just rely on large costly structural mitigation projects that need constant operation and maintenance. It has become too costly for many communities, and the projects may not offer full protection.

Citizens need to be engaged in the process and learn what their role is in helping to reduce losses from flooding.

ALL ABOARD!

• Citizens • Community

Leaders • Staff • Developers • New Residents

Methods

1980s : Opportunities 1990s : Press

2000s : Outreach 2010s: Social Media

Opportunities

Hurricane Hugo

Before “Sustainability”

• 1989: Zoning Map Revisions – Placed lower-density zones on the oceanfront, saving the

zones with most density for the higher ground directly behind

• 1991: Floodplain Regulations – Rewritten to accommodate 3 ft freeboard

• 1992: Beach Management Plan – Encouraged “retreat from the beach” to protect

properties from beach erosion and flooding • 1992: Coastal Protection Overlay Zone

– To “control erosion, preserve and maintain a recreational beach, safeguard property and promote public safety.”

How Did You Do All That?

We Learned from experience – Hugo, 1989.

Press

Mayor Stands in Flooded

Road Myrtle Beach Herald, Sept 28, 2000

Press

Result: $20 million

stormwater bond

Outreach

Visioning Process / Comprehensive Plan

• Population ~ 30,000 • 31 square miles • 650 acres

parks/recreation

• 92,000 guest rooms (Grand Strand)

• 14.6 million visitors/year • Incorporated in 1938

About Myrtle Beach

The community values all of this.

Comprehensive Plan Goals Include…

Reduce the city’s carbon footprint. • Action: The Planning and other appropriate departments,

working with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies will develop a climate action plan including strategies such as solar power and wind energy that reduces electricity demand, since virtually all of the city’s electricity comes from coal, and most experts believe coal must be phased out as a fuel source by 2030 or dangerous climatic events, like rising sea level, droughts, fires, etc. may become unstoppable.

Develop a plan for the effects of sea level rise. • Action: The Planning and other appropriate departments,

will work with Federal, State and local agencies addressing the issue of sea level rise and make plans for the impacts of rising sea levels.

Who Wrote That?

1,136 hours in committee meetings

Social Media and Other Tricks

EPA Building Blocks for Sustainability


• Facebook, Twitter; Targeted Media

• FOOD

• Professional coordinators

• Staff from each department

Result:

• New input from new residents, based on new development impacts

• Facilitated answers to unanswered questions

• Surprising ground support for LID, urban open spaces

Things That Help

• Keeping your boards educated • Finding and nurturing citizen advocates • Focus on your decisions having “No Adverse

Impact” on neighboring properties • Evaluate the programs you *do* have – you

may already have regulations that “get you to the station”

• The Community Rating System • Digital Coast, Naturally Resilient Communities

End Result – A Community Worth Fighting For

Do It For the Kids!

Thank You

Allison Hardin, CFM Planner

City of Myrtle Beach, SC 843.918.1059

[email protected]

Public Engagement to Help the Community Understand And Reduce Its Flood Risk:

Pinnacle Peak West Area Drainage Master Study

Theresa Pinto, AICP, CFM, PMP Flood Control District of Maricopa County American Planning Association 2017 National Planning Conference

Session Title: Reducing Flooding Hazards Through Citizen Engagement

Maricopa County • 4 million people

• 9,200 sq. mi

• Sonoran Desert

• 8 major rivers & 1000’s miles of washes o Dry 95% of the time

o Largest River: Peak

flood flows up to 220,000 cubic feet per second (Same as Niagara Falls)

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Identify Flood Hazards and Risks Floodplain delineations Watershed/Area Drainage Master

Studies

• Regulate Development Safely built No adverse impacts

Mitigate Flood Hazards Structural is primary focus Non-structural mitigation

About the Study 95 square miles Floodplain Maps Over 20% of study Most mapped in late 80’s/early 90’s Floodplains are outdated Study Goal Help reduce flooding risks for residents by: • Identifying Existing Flood Hazards and

Risks o Do the FEMA floodplain maps

accurately represent the hazards? o Are there additional flood hazards

that should be mapped? • Identifying Solutions to Reduce Flood

Hazards and Risks

1st Study Goal: Identifying Existing Flood Hazards and Risks Results

• Over 1900 Houses or Buildings at Potential Flood Risk during the 100-yr storm

o Over 60% are outside of the mapped floodplain

o 550 houses at risk during a 10-year storm

• One in five roads are hazardous during the 100-year storm

o Based on depths & velocities that can move a car

• Structural Mitigation Solutions generally not feasible due to: o Flooding is very dispersed and

widespread oROW not available oCosts would exceed benefits

• Most Practicable Solution to

Reduce Flood Risks in this Study Area is Non-Structural oPublic Outreach o Floodplain Delineation

2nd Study Goal: Identifying Solutions to Reduce Flood Hazards and Risks

Provided information in many ways, methods

• Newsletters, emails, maps, & summaries

• Homeowner Association Meetings

o About 30 HOA meetings with 400+ attendees

o HOA managers sent emails to residents, which represented over 16,000 households

• Informed residents of their specific risks and ways to reduce their flood risks

• Public Meetings

o Ample time & staff for open house

o Staff from different departments

• Over 1,200 interactions with the public

Solution: Extensive Outreach

Dove Valley Road

• Illustrated the flooding hazards

o Detailed model results

o Photos & videos

• Described problem

o Flood flows compared to known rivers

o Showed how deep the water would be

• Developed animations

Solutions: Used several techniques to describe flooding problems

Tools & Resources Developed: Online Results Map

Dove Valley Road

• Report a Flood www.reportafloood.org

Other Tools & Resources Developed:

o Online repository of flooding reports o Useful for data collection, public outreach, problem identification

• Flood Resource Guide

o Basic information o Who to call for many issues

• Flooding Tolerance Survey o Is flooding a nuisance or a

problem?

o Where should $ be spent?

Structural Project in Study Area – Rawhide Wash • Rawhide Wash was part of project

rejected in 2001 at final design • Massive flood control structures were

proposed before most current development was built

Lessons Learned • Public outreach was intermittent • Residents thought project would

increase development • People didn’t think flooding was a

problem and that flooding was exaggerated

• Public felt like there was no transparency

• Project was killed for other reasons

Past public reaction was the impetus for the extensive outreach

Headlines 2000 & 2001

Rawhide Wash Focus Area: Community Stakeholder Group

• Needed ample time to explain

complex problems, potential solutions, & get buy-in on the alternatives

• Transparent about who benefits from project (including developers & Phoenix residents)

• 25 Members o Scottsdale residents near project o Community activists

• 3 meetings and 1 Field Trip

• Result was gained support and

citizen advocates for the project (i.e., they understand the need)

Key Points

• Most extensive public outreach conducted for a study at FCDMC

• Developed new tools and approaches that can be used for other FCD studies and projects

• Information was provided in many ways and was easily accessible

• Message was consistent – Knowing and understanding your flood risk potential reduces your flood risk

• Won 2016 National Project of the Year

Award for Public Participation IAPP

Contact: Theresa Pinto AICP, CFM, & PMP [email protected] Youtube video at: https://youtube/mswWsn8HXmc

mailto:[email protected]

https://youtube/mswWsn8HXmc


Reducing Flooding Hazards through Citizen

Engagement Master Plans, Codes and Engaging Citizens

#9110157 Stephen D. Villavaso, J.D., FAICP

APA 2017 National Conference, New York, New York

National Citizen Engagement

• 5 Cities • One Satellite

• Dozens of Rooms • Lots of Computers and Cameras

• And Thousands of Citizens

What Changed after the Public Comment period?

Major questions have been answered • How does a Recovery Plan differ from a Master Land Use

Plan or a Comprehensive Plan

• How does the Citywide Recovery and Rebuilding Plan fit into the overall effort to rebuild the City?

• Who will be responsible for implementing the Citywide Plan?

• Who Created the Recovery Plan and How?

• How were the District Plans Integrated into the Citywide Plan?

• What are the Underlying Assumptions behind the Recovery Plan?

• What are the Limitations of the Plan?

• How is the Report Organized?

Recovery Framework has been expanded

Plan content that was not altered by the Citywide Team

• Discussion of programs, projects, and priorities (throughout Section 4)

• Discussion regarding flood risks in certain parts of the City

• Discussion of planned flood protection improvements

• Discussion of funding sources

One City, One Code

(…one plan)

Post Recovery (UNOP) Post the First Mater Plan (adopted in 2010) in the

History of the City

City Planning Commission Draft Comprehensive Zoning

Ordinance July 1, 2014 ZTAC Presentation

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

PLANNING & ZONING WORKING TOGETHER

Many people think that planning & zoning are the same – They are actually separate but related functions that work

together in making development decisions.

Master Plan

• Foundation: Declaration of Goals for the City

• Policy • Long-Term Vision • Preferred Land Use • Preferred Development Character

Provides the standards to enhance the aesthetic appearance of

development and to meet practical and mandated stormwater

management requirements.

Developments over 5,000 sf of impermeable surface required to submit separate landscape and stormwater management plans stamped by civil engineer & landscape architect.

Flexibility and encouragement of plant material and landscaping that emphasizes stormwater management

Increased requirements for on-site water retention and water quality improvements

LANDSCAPING/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Live entertainment regulations

Vieux Carre – Section 8.1 of the current CZO

Riverfront Overlay

Parking and bicycle requirements and standards

Stormwater regulations

Standard restaurants – hours of operation and alcoholic beverage service Planned Developments and Affordable Housing

Reasonable accommodations

Specific zoning district map requests

What types of comments were received?

TIMELINE: New Orleans CZO

July, 2014 CPC Requests Formal Consideration and Adoption

December, 2103 – June, 2014 Public comments are sorted, logged and considered. CPC prepares a Public Hearing

Draft.

October – November, 2013

CPC Receives Comments from the Public (deadline was November 30, 2013)

October, 2013 Community Meetings by Planning District

August- September, 2013

Citizen Engagement & Public Draft Preparation: Draft Released to Public for Review

June – July, 2013

CPC review of 2011 Draft: Work Sessions/Comments

Small Towns/Same People

Scale Low Tech

One on One Build Trust

Case Studies

Folsom, Louisiana (village) St. Francisville, Louisiana

(town) Sulphur, Louisiana (city)

Folsom, Louisiana

Master Plan, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations

Adopted 2011

St. Francisville, Louisiana

Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance

Subdivision Regulations In Progress

Sulphur, Louisiana

Master Plan Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance

Subdivision Regulations In Progress

Thank you

•Stephen D. Villavaso, J.D., FAICP •504-343-9096

•[email protected]

QUESTION & ANSWER


A P A 2 0 1 7 N A T I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E , N E W Y O R K , N E W Y O R K

S U N D A Y , M A Y 7 , 2 0 1 7 | 8 A . M . - 9 : 1 5 A . M .

R O O M : H A L L 1 A 2 1 ( J C C )

S E S S I O N F U N C T I O N C O D E - 9 1 1 0 1 5 7


Public Engagement to Help the Community Understand And Reduce Its Flood Risk:

Pinnacle Peak West Area Drainage Master Study

Theresa Pinto, AICP, CFM, PMP Flood Control District of Maricopa County American Planning Association 2017 National Planning Conference

Session Title: Reducing Flooding Hazards Through Citizen Engagement Session Function Code: xxxx