chapter 6. village of berkeley annex - department of emergency management … · 2015. 4. 16. ·...

6-1

CHAPTER 6.VILLAGE OF BERKELEY ANNEX

6.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT

Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact

David Traiforos, Fire Chief5819 Electric AvenueBerkeley, IL 60163Telephone: 708-234-2642Email Address: [email protected]

Marion Gibson, Village Administrator5819 Electric AvenueBerkeley, IL 60163Telephone: 708-234-2619Email Address: [email protected]

6.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE

The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:

• Date of Incorporation 1924

• Current Population: 5,209 as of 2010 Census

• Population Growth: Stable population – built out community.

• Location and Description: The Village of Berkeley is a suburb of Chicago in Cook Countylocated 15 miles west of downtown Chicago. The neighboring towns that border Berkeleyinclude: Northlake to the north, Hillside to the south, Bellwood to the east, and Elmhurst tothe west. Located just one- half block from both the Tri-State and Eisenhower expressways,Berkeley is easily accessible to neighboring towns and connecting interstate highways. TheVillage of Berkeley is located on Cook County’s western border. With Interstates 290 and294 forming its western and part of its southern boundary, and the Union Pacific Railroad andthe large Proviso classification yard to the north. Berkeley is also located just seven milesfrom Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and is the home to major corporations includingWorld Dryer, Vanee Foods, and Preferred Meals. Berkeley is also adjacent to the UnionPacific Proviso Rail yard (Global II), which is one of the world’s largest intermodaltransportation facilities. The Village of Berkeley has a total land area of 1.40 square miles.

• Brief History: Berkeley has ready access to the metropolitan region. Yet the transportationcorridors that make Berkeley accessible to distant places also serve to separate the Villagefrom its nearest neighbors (Elmhurst, Bellwood and Hillside) creating a small-townatmosphere. The 1902 completion of the Chicago, Aurora & Elgin Railroad (interurban) gavethe area its first passenger rail service at a stop called Berkeley. Subdivision in 1908 andagain in 1914–1915 brought residential construction and new residents, many of whom wereEnglish, to the area. At the initiative of these newcomers, the Village of Berkeley wasincorporated in 1924. Although Berkeley is abundant with various types of business andindustries, it continues to remain a predominantly residential community. Berkeley holds ontothe small town feel of community, rich with diversity, history, and tradition.

• Climate: Berkeley’s climate is similar to that of the City of Chicago. As such, the climate isclassified as humid continental with all four seasons distinctly represented: wet springs; hot,and often humid summers; pleasant autumns; and cold winters. Annual precipitation is

Cook County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes

6-2

average, and reaches its lowest points in the months of January and February, and peaks inthe months of May and June.

• Governing Body Format: The Village of Berkeley has the strong Village President form ofGovernment retaining the Trustee-Village Form with the election of a Village President(Mayor) and six Trustees all of whom are elected on an at-large basis (not representingspecific wards or districts) for four-year terms. This body will assume the responsibility forthe adoption and implementation of this plan. The village operates 5 departments including:Administration, Building & Code Enforcement, Fire Department, Police Department, andPublic Works.

• Development Trends: Berkeley is an almost entirely built out community with minimalresidential and commercial redevelopment occurring on an annual basis.

6.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 6-1. Theassessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 6-2. The assessment of thejurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 6-3. Information on thecommunity’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 6-4.Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 6-5.

TABLE 6-1.LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY

LocalAuthority

State orFederal

Prohibitions

OtherJurisdictional

AuthorityState

Mandated Comments

Codes, Ordinances & Requirements

Building Code Yes No No Yes Municipal Code 05-52 adopted: 2005

Zonings Yes No No Yes (65 ILCS 5/) Illinois Municipal Code.Municipal Code 08-15 adopted: 2008

Subdivisions Yes No No No Chapter 16 Village of Berkeley(VOB) 1960

Stormwater Management No No Yes Yes State regulates industrial activity fromConstruction sites 1 acre or largerunder section 402 CWA. MS4.MWRD

Post Disaster Recovery No No No No

Real Estate Disclosure Yes No Yes Yes (765 ILCS 77/) Residential RealProperty Disclosure Act.

Municipal Code 12-0, Adopted: 2012

Growth Management Yes No No No February 2010 Comprehensive Plan

Site Plan Review Yes No No No Municipal Code 05-52 adopted: 2005

Public Health and Safety No No Yes Yes Cook County Board of Health.

Municipal Code 08-15 adopted: 2008

Environmental Protection Yes No No No NPDES

VILLAGE OF BERKELEY ANNEX

6-3

TABLE 6-1.LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY

LocalAuthority

State orFederal

Prohibitions

OtherJurisdictional

AuthorityState

Mandated Comments

Planning Documents

General orComprehensive Plan

Yes No No No February 2010 Comprehensive Plan

Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Plan includes land use and sustainabledevelopment elements

Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes No Yes No MWRD

Stormwater Plan No No Yes No MWRD-Lower Des Plains RiverDetailed Watershed Plan

Capital ImprovementPlan

Yes No No No

What types of capital facilities does the plan address? Projects InfrastructureHow often is the plan revised/updated? 6-year CIP, reviewed and updated annually

Habitat ConservationPlan

No No No No

Economic DevelopmentPlan

Yes No Yes Yes The Economic DevelopmentCommission is charged withreviewing all economic developmentrelated programs and incentivesincluding tax incentives offeredthrough the Cook County 6b program.

Shoreline ManagementPlan

No No No No

Response/Recovery Planning

ComprehensiveEmergency ManagementPlan

No No Yes Yes Cook County DHSEM

Threat and HazardIdentification and RiskAssessment

No No Yes No Cook County DHSEM PreparingTHIRA

Terrorism Plan No No Yes Yes Cook County DHSEM

Post-Disaster RecoveryPlan

No No No No

Continuity of OperationsPlan

No No Yes No Cook County DHSEM

Public Health Plans No No Yes No Cook County DPH


6-4

TABLE 6-2.FISCAL CAPABILITY

Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use?

Community Development Block Grants Yes

Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes

Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes

User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes

Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes

Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes

Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes

Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes

State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes

Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes

Other Home Rule

TABLE 6-3.ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position

Planners or engineers with knowledge of landdevelopment and land management practices

Yes Civil Tech

Engineers or professionals trained in building orinfrastructure construction practices

Yes Civil Tech

Planners or engineers with an understanding ofnatural hazards

Yes Don Morris, Civil Tech, Baxter & Woodman

Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Finance, Public Works, Police Dept., Fire Dept.,Building Dept.

Surveyors Yes Civil Tech

Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Cook County GIS Consortium

Scientist familiar with natural hazards in localarea

No N/A

Emergency manager Yes Fire Chief

Grant writers Yes Contract for service


6-5

TABLE 6-4.NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE

What department is responsible for floodplain management in your jurisdiction? Admin, Public Works

Who is your jurisdiction’s floodplain administrator? (department/position) Admin

Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? No

What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? National Flood Insurance

When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or CommunityAssistance Contact?

Unknown

Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations thatneed to be addressed? If so, please state what they are.

No

Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within yourjurisdiction? (If no, please state why)

Yes

Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to supportits floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance/training isneeded?

No

Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so,is your jurisdiction seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is yourjurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program?

No

Note: The Village of Berkeley is participating in the NFIP, but has no mapped Special Flood Hazard Area.

TABLE 6-5.COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS

Participating? Classification Date Classified

Community Rating System No -- --

Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes Unknown --

Public Protection/ISO Yes Unknown --

StormReady Yes Gold (countywide) 2014

Tree City USA Yes VOB --


6-6

6.4 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY

Table 6-6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss recordsare as follows:

• Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 0

• Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: 0

• Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have BeenMitigated: N/A

TABLE 6-6.NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS

Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment

Flood DR-4116 04/26/2013 Flooding to town

Snow Storm N/A 02/01/2011 Deep amounts of snow

Flood DR-1800 09/13/2008 Flooding to town

6.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING

Table 6-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps areincluded at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of thepreparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.

TABLE 6-7.HAZARD RISK RANKING

Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)

1 Severe Weather 54

2 Severe Winter Weather 54

3 Flood 36

4 Tornado 30

5 Earthquake 12

6 Drought 3

7 Dam Failure 0

6.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OFRECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Table 6-8 lists the actions that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 6-9 identifies thepriority for each action. Table 6-10 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the sixmitigation types.


6-7

TABLE 6-8.HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX

Applies toNew orExistingAssets

HazardsMitigated

ObjectivesMet

LeadAgencies

EstimatedCost

Sources ofFunding Timelinea

Action B7.1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-proneareas to prevent future structure damage. Give priority to properties with exposure to repetitive losses.Existing All 7, 13 Village of

BerkleyHigh FEMA

HazardMitigation

Grants

Long-term(depending on

funding)

Action B7.2—Continue to support the countywide actions identified in this plan.New andexisting

All All Village ofBerkley

Low General Fund Short- andlong-term

Action B7.3—Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan.New andexisting

All 3, 4, 6 DHSEM,Village ofBerkley

Low General Fund Short-term

Action B7.4—Consider participation in incentive-based programs such as, Tree City, and StormReady.New andexisting

All 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, 11, 13

Village ofBerkley

Low General Fund Long-term

Action B7.5—Maintain good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program by implementingprograms that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Such programs include enforcing an adoptedflood damage prevention ordinance, participating in floodplain mapping updates, and providing publicassistance and information on floodplain requirements and impacts.New andexisting

Flooding 4, 6, 9 Village ofBerkley

Low General Fund Short-termand ongoing

Action B7.6—Where feasible, implement a program to record high water marks following high-water events.New andexisting

Flooding,Severe

Weather

3, 6, 9 Village ofBerkley

Medium General Fund;FEMA GrantFunds (PublicAssistance)

Long-term

Action B7.7—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, programs, or resources that dictate landuse or redevelopment.New andexisting

All 3, 4, 6, 10, 13 Civil Tech Low General Fund Short-term

Action B7.8—Meeting with MWRD regarding preventive measures regarding flooding during severe weatherperiodsNew andExisting

Flood, SevereWeather

1, 2, 7, 8, 9,10

MWRD,Village ofBerkeley

High MWRD-Phase II,

FEMA grants,Bonds

Long-term

Action B7.9—Improvement to Emergency warning sirens by adding more to system so they can be heard inthe entire VillageNew andExisting

All Hazards 2, 5 Village ofBerkeley

Low General fund Short-term


6-8

TABLE 6-8.HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX

Applies toNew orExistingAssets

HazardsMitigated

ObjectivesMet

LeadAgencies

EstimatedCost

Sources ofFunding Timelinea

Action B7.10—Provide residents with sand bags and plastic for purposes of flooding mitigation measuresduring severe weatherExisting Flood, Severe

Weather4, 5, 10 Village of

BerkeleyLow General fund Short-term

Action B7.11—Continue to participate in mutual aid agreements and agreements with adjoining jurisdictionsfor cooperative response to all hazards and disastersNew andExisting

All Hazards 2, 4 Village ofBerkeley

Low General Fund Short-termOngoing

a. Ongoing indicates continuation of an action that is already in place. Short-term indicates implementationwithin five years. Long-term indicates implementation after five years.


6-9

TABLE 6-9.MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE

Action #

# ofObjectives

Met Benefits Costs

Do BenefitsEqual or

Exceed Costs?

Is ProjectGrant-

Eligible?

Can Project Be FundedUnder Existing

Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya

1 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium

2 13 Medium Low Yes No Yes High

3 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High

4 9 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium


6 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium


8 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium

9 2 High Low Yes Yes Yes High

10 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Medium

11 2 High Low Yes No Yes High

a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.

TABLE 6-10.ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS

Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea

Hazard Type 1. Prevention2. PropertyProtection

3. PublicEducation and

Awareness

4. NaturalResourceProtection

5. EmergencyServices

6. StructuralProjects

Dam Failure N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Drought 2, 3, 7, 11 1, 11 2, 3, 11 N/A 2, 11 N/A

Earthquake 2, 3, 7, 9, 11 1, 9, 11 2, 3, 9, 11 N/A 2, 9, 11 N/A

Flood 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 10

1, 4, 5, 8, 10 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 4, 5 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 N/A

Severe Weather 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11

1, 8, 9, 10, 11 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10,11,

4 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, N/A

Severe WinterWeather

2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9,10, 11

1 2, 3, 4 4 2, 4 N/A

Tornado 2, 3, 4, 7, 9,11

1, 2, 3, 4 N/A 2, 4 N/A

a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of mitigation types.


6-10

6.7 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY

No future needs have been identified at this time.

6.8 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

No additional comments have been identified at this time.

1

HAZUS-MH RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR BERKELEY

Cook County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes

BERKELEY EXISTING CONDITIONS

2010 Population ......................................................................... 5,209

Total Assessed Value of Structures and Contents ..................... $965,147,922

Area in 100-Year Floodplain ..................................................... 0.00 acres

Area in 500-Year Floodplain ..................................................... 0.00 acres

Number of Critical Facilities ..................................................... 31

HAZARD EXPOSURE IN BERKELEY

Number Exposed Value Exposed to Hazard % of Total

Assessed Value

Population Buildings Structure Contents Total Exposed

Dam Failure

Buffalo Creek 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

U. Salt Cr. #2 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Touhy 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

U. Salt Cr. #3 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

U. Salt Cr. #4 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Flood

100-Year 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

500-Year 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Tornado

100-Year — — $100,523,509 $63,164,774 $163,688,283 16.96%

500-Year — — $423,684,625 $287,431,101 $711,115,726 73.68%

ESTIMATED PROPERTY DAMAGE VALUES IN BERKELEY

Estimated Damage Associated with Hazard % of Total

Assessed Value

Building Contents Total Damaged

Dam Failure

Buffalo Creek $0 $0 $0 0.00%

U. Salt Cr. #2 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Touhy $0 $0 $0 0.00%

U. Salt Cr. #3 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

U. Salt Cr. #4 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Earthquake

1909 Historical Event $6,594,539 $1,827,209 $8,421,748 0.87%

Flood

10-Year $0 $0 $0 0.00%

100-Year $0 $0 $0 0.00%

500-Year $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Tornado

100-Year $10,052,351 $6,316,477 $16,368,828 1.70%

500-Year $61,857,955 $41,964,941 $103,822,896 10.76%

HAZARD MAPPING FOR BERKELEY

^

åÙ

åÙ

åÙ

åÙ

åÙåÙ

åÙ

åÙ åÙåÙ

åÙ

åÙåÙ

"X

c_

c_

c_

c_

c_

c_

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

"X

"Xú

ú

ú

ú

ú

úú

úú

ú

ú

ú

ú

ú

ú

ú

úú

úú

ú

ú

ú

ú

úú

úú

úú

úú

úú

úú

úú

úú

úú

ú

úúúú

úúú

ú úú

úú

ú

ú

ú

ú

%defgc

%defgc%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc%defgc

%defgc%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc%defgc

%defgc

%defgc

%defgc%defgc

¬«

¬«

¬«

¬«

¬«

¬«

"O$

"O$

"O$

"O$

"O$

¥v¤

h

h

£¤20

¬«56 §̈¦88

§̈¦294

§̈¦290

SAINT CHARLES RD

W LAKE ST

NWOLF RD

BUTTERFIELD RD

EISENHOWER EXPY

TRI-S

TATE

TLWY

WOLF

RD

.

o Airport Facilityh Bus Facility

¥v¤ Dams

"O$ Emergency Operations Center

¬« Fire Station Facility

%defgc Hazardous Materialsú Highway Bridge

89:i Light Rail Bridge

"X Light Rail Facility

Ñ Medical Care Facility

¥K¢ Military

!5 Oil Facility

c_ Police Station Facility

Î Port Facility

po Potable Water Facility

"X Rail Facility

89:i Railway Bridge

åÙ School Facility

kj Other Facility

0 0.25 0.5Miles

VILLAGE OFBERKELEY

Base Map Data Sources:Cook County, U.S. Geological Survey

Critical Facililties

DUPA

GE C

O.CO

OK C

O.

mlewis

Placed Image

mlewis

Placed Image

^

£¤20

¬«56

§̈¦290

§̈¦88

§̈¦290

§̈¦294

SAINT CHARLES RD

N TAF

T AVE

TAFT

AVE

W LAKE ST

NWOLF RD

BUTTERFIELD RD

EAST-WEST TLWY

EISENHOWER EXPY

TRI-S

TATE

TLWY

WOLF

RD

.

I (Not Felt)II-III (Weak)IV (Light)V (Moderate)VI (Strong)VII (Very Strong)VIII (Severe)IX (Violent)X+ (Extreme)

0 0.25 0.5Miles


VILLAGE OFBERKELEY

DUPA

GE C

O.CO

OK C

O.Modified Mercalli Intensity

Event Date of May 26, 1909. Originalmagnitude of 5.0; increased magnitude foranalysis of 6.0. Depth: 10 km. EpicenterLat/Long: 41.6N 88.1WAn Epicenter Map is derived from a databaseof historical earthquakes developed from threesources (Composite Earthquake Catalog,2002, Earthquake Data Base, 2002, andEarthquake Seismicity Catalog, 1996). Thedatabase has been sorted to remove historicalearthquakes with magnitudes less than 5.0.The Epicenter Map is based on a historicalearthquake epicenter, selected from thedatabase.

Illinois Historical1909 Earthquake

mlewis

Placed Image

mlewis

Placed Image

^

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)

Soil Classification

§̈¦88

§̈¦290

§̈¦294

¬«56

£¤20

SAINT CHARLES RD

N TAF

T AVE

TAFT

AVE

W LAKE ST

NWOLFR D

BUTTERFIELD RD

EAST-WEST TLWY

EISENHOWER EXPY

TRI-STATE TLWY

WOLF

RD

.

Soil classification data provided by the IllinoisState Geological Society.The procedures outlined in the NEHRPprovisions (Building Seismic Safety Council,2004) and the 2003 International BuildingCodes (International Code Council, 2002)were followed to produce the soil site classmaps. Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium(CUSEC) State Geologists used the entirecolumn of soil material down to bedrock anddid not include any bedrock in the calculationof the average shear wave velocity for thecolumn, since it is the soil column and thedifference in shear wave velocity of the soils incomparison to the bedrock which influencesmuch of the amplification.

Site ClassA - Hard RockB - RockC - Very Dense Soil, Soft RockD - Stiff SoilE - Soft SoilF - Site-Specifc Evaluation

0 0.25 0.5Miles


VILLAGE OFBERKELEY

DUPA

GE C

O.CO

OK C

O.

mlewis

Placed Image

mlewis

Placed Image

^

Liquefaction Susceptibility

§̈¦88

§̈¦290

§̈¦294

¬«56

£¤20

SAINT CHARLES RD

N TAF

T AVE

TAFT

AVE

W LAKE ST

NWOLF RD

BUTTERFIELD RD

EAST-WEST TLWY EISENHOWER EXPY

TRI-S

TATE

TLWY

WOLF

RD

.

Liquefaction data provided by the Illinois StateGeological Society. Liquefaction data basedon the Youd and Perkins (1978) method.A liquefaction susceptibility map provides anestimate of the likelihood that soil will liquefyas a result of earthquake shaking. This type ofmap depicts the relative susceptibility in arange that varies from very low to high. Areasunderlain by bedrock or peat are mappedseparately as these earth materials are notliquefiable, although peat deposits may besubject to permanent ground deformationcaused by earthquake shaking.

SusceptibleHighModerate to HighModerateLow to ModerateLowVery Low to LowVery Low

Not SusceptibleBedrockPeatWaterIce

0 0.25 0.5Miles


VILLAGE OFBERKELEY

DUPA

GE C

O.CO

OK C

O.

mlewis

Placed Image

mlewis

Placed Image

^

§̈¦88

§̈¦290

§̈¦294

¬«56

£¤20

SAINT CHARLES RD

N TAF

T AVE

TAFT

AVE

W LAKE ST

NWOLF RD

BUTTERFIELD RD

WOLF

RD

.0 0.25 0.5Miles


VILLAGE OFBERKELEY

100-Year Modeled Tornado Event (F4)

500-Year Modeled Tornado Event (F5)

The 100- and 500-year events have beenmodeled based on fifty-nine years of tornadodata for Cook County. The wind speeds,widths, lengths, and direction for each eventwere developed using existing historicaltornado data. The simulated storms and theircorresponding losses within this jurisdictionwere used to determine the 100- and 500-yeareconomic loss event.

100- and 500-YearTornado Events

DUPA

GE C

O.CO

OK C

O.

mlewis

Placed Image

mlewis

Placed Image