2-1

2. Tri-County’s “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” Project.

Introduction

The “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project remains an integral part of the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan and is presented here to reinforce that relationship. Most information in this chapter was completed and adopted in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan, was re-adopted with the Regional 2030 Transportation Plan in October 2005, re-adopted again as part of the Regional 2030 Plan Supplement in June 2007 and now is again being re-endorsed with adoption of the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan. Text from the last plan has been edited, updated and modified slightly to reflect minor revisions and other actions by the Regional Growth project Steering Committee. However, core materials in this chapter are consistent with work adopted in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan and Regional 2030 Transportation Plan. The TCRPC’s role as the MPO requires that it allocate and target federal transportation funds to meet transportation needs of the region’s citizens. One major criteria guiding the Commission’s transportation decisions is the “Wise Growth” land use pattern and related principles, goals and objectives developed in the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project and as adopted in the previous Regional 2025 and 2030 Transportation Plans. This process is discussed in more detail in Chapter 13: Regional 2035 Transportation Plan under the Improve-Expand section. The year 2000 Tri-County regional population was approximately 447,728. By the year 2045, the area’s population is projected to increase to 506,835, a 13.2% increase. While this growth rate is less than 0.5% per year, if current trends continue, each additional family of four will result in approximately four additional acres of land being converted to urban use. In addition, much of this conversion is occurring in rural areas of the region outside existing urban service areas. Key elements of the Regional Growth project were developed as a result of a stakeholders Land Use Forum held in October 1997. A diverse group of non-traditional participants were asked to respond to an initial concept paper for a Regional Growth project. Based on this input, a second forum was held in March 1998 to present the revised project proposal, budget and organizational structure for moving the project forward. A 14 person Steering Committee was formed and approved a mission statement, work plan and project budget. Commitments of local, state and federal funds were soon in place to begin the project and work was initiated. For over six years, responsibility for project planning stayed with the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, who provided administrative and technical staffing support, media coordination, contracting authority and overall policy direction all while undertaking existing day to day assignments. A Stakeholders Committee representing approximately 90 different public and private organizations also participated, offering unique perspectives on growth and its impact on persons they represented. During the project, 136 delegates and alternates on the

2-1

2-2

Committee assured broad and comprehensive representation from the full spectrum of diverse interests in growth and land use related issues, from inner city neighborhoods to the most rural corners of the region. The Stakeholders Committee was both geographically diverse (urban, suburban, rural and regional), functionally diverse (agriculture, schools, realtors, government, environmental, business, etc.) and was a critical working component of the project team. The Stakeholders Committee met monthly and functioned as a hands on project working committee with numerous subcommittees and task forces to formulate specific recommendations and actions to the Steering Committee as elements were completed. The Steering Committee (which met at least quarterly) was also a significant component of the project team. The Steering Committee was advisory to the TCRPC, formulated a mission statement, approved the work plan and budget, actively engaged in securing funding from member governments and agencies, initiated meetings with local editorial boards to obtain media support, held an initial visioning session and actively participated in nominating Stakeholders Committee members. In 1999, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) representing Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties and the Lansing, Michigan metropolitan area as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, initiated a multi-phased land use scenario analysis and regional visioning activity entitled: “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future.” Overall goals of this regional visioning were to:

develop a shared vision of future land use and development patterns; establish an action plan to address urban sprawl by guiding public and private

investment decisions; develop regional consensus on a shared vision of future land use

development patterns; seek broader citizen and stakeholder understanding of land use trends and

implications and gain support for common strategies to achieve the shared regional vision. In other words, get people to think regionally and act locally;

select a preferred regional growth alternative and policies; select intergovernmental cooperation and coordination mechanisms; develop an action program which leads to “who does what, how, by when,”

and delegates responsibility to implement recommended actions; achieve specific objectives for transportation investment strategies, job

access/economic development, sewer/water/public services, farmland/open spaces, environmental protection and other specific quality of life objectives;

implement new growth and land use policies so that growth pays its own way; and

evaluate, report and disseminate results and establish an ongoing program of monitoring effectiveness at achieving these outcomes over time.

Additional results included demonstrating new planning methods and techniques to improve effectiveness of citizens, planners, stakeholders, local governments and non-traditional partners in making informed choices that affect the information and decision making process. Examples include knowing how:

2-2

2-3

economic impacts of sprawl affected the decision making process; visual tools improve ability of citizens and decision makers to make better

informed choices on land use alternatives, implementation tools and policies; information on public subsidies and policies supporting sprawl affect the

decision on alternatives; a set of indicators will allow tracking and implementation over time; and impacts of past transportation investment decisions on urban development

affect decisions on transportation alternatives and design and implementation of new policies to direct transportation investments and better manage and operate the system.

The project’s primary purpose was to develop a shared regional vision of future land use and development patterns. TCRPC used a combination of regional trends analysis, build-out analysis based on composites of local comprehensive plans/zoning ordinances and alternative growth scenarios to develop a set of policies and action strategies to guide public and private investment decisions. Actual land use and growth alternatives evaluated were formulated based on input gathered from citizens, non-traditional partners and Stakeholders/Steering Committees. Specifically, the following alternatives were considered:

1. Trend forecast alternative (do nothing) entitled, “Business as Usual.” 2. “Build Out” analysis based on composites of local zoning ordinances. 3. An alternative growth scenario based on regional land use visions and goals,

as formulated in the process, entitled “Wise Growth.” 4. A “Wise Growth Buildout” scenario.

These alternatives were evaluated using traditional planning methods and performance measures such as: travel demand models, emissions models, environmental and community impact assessment techniques, environmental justice analysis, accessibility analysis, sketch planning techniques, a proactive citizen participation and media involvement process and using related performance measures, such as vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of travel, congested vehicle miles and hours of travel, etc. To achieve implementation consensus, the TCRPC involved 78 communities, each with a strong home rule form of government, hundreds of local officials, thousands of citizens and numerous non-traditional partners. All are making individual land use and development decisions within local political jurisdictions with virtually no oversight or coordination on collective, long-term regional impacts of these decisions. Consensus generated through the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project resulted in creation of a “Future Vision.” Implementation of the Future Vision will be through the adopted land use policy map, themes and principles. Follow up implementation activities may take decades but will be based on a variety of strategies identified in an Action Plan which includes nearly 200 items. While some strategies will require direct implementation by the 78 individual local governments, other strategies may require implementation by transportation agencies, regional actions through the MPO process, actions by the private sector, utilities, school districts, transit agencies or other community organizations. The consensus and specific action plan will improve the transportation system, preserve communities and reduce impacts on environmental systems by linking transportation and other public investments to a shared regional land use vision.

2-3

2-4

However, the Action Plan is not yet explicit enough to identify specific responsibilities for “who is to do what, how and by when,” since many of the agencies responsible for implementation must now be brought to the table. Their absence from the Stakeholder Committee was not an oversight, but rather the result of the practical impossibility of having “everyone” participate in the process. TCRPC instead chose to create a Stakeholders Committee that included a representative sample of the region, with specific details of the Action Plan to be developed by facilitators identified for each specific objective. TCRPC has a significant track record in this regard throughout its 53 year history in arenas other than land use. Examples of similar efforts TCRPC has been involved in over the years included formulation of an award winning regional Groundwater Management Board, the Mid-Michigan Water Authority and the Capital Area Transportation Authority. No summary of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project would be complete without discussion of public involvement. TCRPC has a long history of innovative public involvement/education activities. However, for this project TCRPC expanded these horizons to new tools and techniques for public involvement. These techniques included random citizen opinion surveys, leadership surveys, targeted interviews, a total of 13 facilitated nominal group style Town Hall Forums with participation by nearly 775 people and other public involvement techniques, including a proactive media involvement program, project placemats, a toll free phone number, project web site, ambassador training and outreach, wireless voting, Frequently Asked Questions sheets, talking point cards, newsletters and more. As mentioned, three sets of four Town Hall Forums conducted at different project stages gauged public reactions to trends, survey research and identified citizens’ regional vision. A fully developed media involvement and communications plan was prepared to help focus public education and involvement efforts. These public involvement techniques were used to formulate alternatives, select a preferred vision and to devise an action program for implementation. An Introduction to Regional Growth Trends As the Tri-County regional population continues to increase, and new housing and commercial activity develop more intensely outside the Lansing urban area, the existing transportation system experiences greater challenges. About 37 percent of the population lives in Lansing/East Lansing urban area. Development of the more unpopulated portions of counties has been an emerging trend. Since 1990, population in non-urban areas has added more than 15,000 people (3.4 percent) to the Tri-County region. In 2000, the region had an employment base of 285,237 jobs. The region’s economic base evolved from automobile manufacturing industries early in this century to include education, health-care and state government. The employment base in the region more than doubled in the past 30 years. The region’s economy remains strongly linked to the auto industry, but substantially less so than in previous decades. Employment in the services sector (especially technology, health care and education) continued to grow throughout the 1990’s. The diverse regional economy will continue to contribute to growth pressures in the

2-4

2-5

Tri-County region, which is expected to accommodate a total of 506,835 people and 308,234 jobs by 2045.

Population Between 1970 and 2000, the region’s population grew from 378,423 to 447,728 (18 percent). Table 2-1 shows population increased steadily in 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. All three counties have increased population with each Census. The only exception was Ingham County’s loss of population from the urban area from 1990 to 2000. Table 2-2 shows percentage change in population has slowed significantly since the boom of the 1950s and 1960s. The Tri-County region is still growing, but at a decreasing rate. From 1970-1980, Clinton County grew 13 % and Eaton County grew 22%, compared to Ingham County’s increase of 4%. Between 1990 and 2000, Clinton and Eaton Counties both had population increases of 12%, while Ingham County actually had a population decrease of 1%. Table 2-1: POPULATION BY COUNTY

1950-2000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Clinton 31,195 37,969 48,492 55,893 57,883 64,753

Eaton 40,023 49,684 68,892 88,337 92,879 103,655

Ingham 172,941 211,296 261,039 272,437 281,912 279,320

Region Total 244,159 298,949 378,423 416,667 432,674 447,728 Only a small portion of the population gain during this period is accounted for by net migration into the region. Population is moving around the region at a faster rate than new residents are moving into the region. Census data from 1950 to 2000 shows Ingham County's share of the regional population has decreased from 68.9% to 62.4%. During the same period, Eaton County and Clinton County increased in percentage share. Although Clinton and Eaton Counties have smaller populations, they are both growing at faster rates than Ingham County (Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Table 2-2: PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION BY COUNTY, 1950-2000

1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Clinton 18% 22% 13% 3% 12%

Eaton 19% 28% 22% 5% 12%

Ingham 18% 19% 4% 3% -1%

Region Total 18% 21% 9% 4% 3%

2-5

2-6

While counties were expanding their population base, each county’s share in the region was also changing. Census data indicates that over the last 30 years, a larger percentage of people are moving to Eaton and Clinton Counties than to Ingham County, the more urbanized county. In 1970, Ingham County's share was 68.9% of regional population. By 1990, this dropped to 65.2%. By 2000 this decreased to 62.4%. During this same period, Eaton County’s share of population grew 5%, from 18.2% to 23.2%, while Clinton County’s share increased 1.7%, from 12.8% to 14.5%. The Ingham County population decline was due in large part to losses in the region’s two largest cities. Tables 2-3 and 2-5 show that from 1990 to 2000, Lansing and East Lansing, had population decreases of 6% and 8% respectively. Table 2-3 shows that during the last 30 years, the City of Lansing lost 12,418 persons. From 1970 to 1990, the City of East Lansing gained 3,137 persons, but lost 4,152 people from 1990 to 2000. Table 2-3: Population Change by Jurisdiction 1950-2000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Lansing City 92,129 107,807 131,546 130,414 127,321 119,128East Lansing City 20,325 30,198 47,540 48,309 50,677 46,525

Table 2-4: Percentage of Regional Population by County 1970-2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 Clinton 12.8% 13.3% 13.4% 14.5% Eaton 18.2% 21.0% 21.5% 23.2% Ingham 68.9% 65.6% 65.2% 62.4%

Table 2-5: Percent Change in Population 1950-2000 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000Lansing City 17% 22% -1% -2% -6% East Lansing City 49% 57% 2% 5% -8%

Employment Employment has been a primary driver in regional population growth. This growth resulted in unprecedented demands on the region’s agricultural resources and infrastructure. Long-range forecasts indicate continued steady growth in population and employment. Planning for this growth can have a beneficial influence on future economic vitality, environmental health, adequacy of transportation systems, other infrastructure, costs of doing business and providing public services. All of these things contribute to the region’s quality of life.

2-6

2-7

Table 2-6: Projected Retail Employment by County 2005-2045*

Retail 2005

Retail 2010

Retail2015

Retail2020

Retail2025

Retail2030

Retail2035

Retail 2040

Retail 2045

2005-2045% Growth

Clinton 5,048 5,151 5,366 5,531 5,645 5,737 5,846 5,958 6,072 20.3% Eaton 8,872 9,038 9,285 9,408 9,449 9,450 9,532 9,614 9,698 9.3% Ingham 35,511 35,131 35,475 35,465 35,221 35,166 35,387 35,610 35,834 0.9%

Region Total 49,431 49,320 50,126 50,403 50,315 50,352 50,765 51,182 51,603 4.4% *Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Table 2-7: Projected Non-Retail Employment by County 2005-2045*

Non Retail 2005

Non Retail 2010

Non Retail2015

Non Retail2020

Non Retail2025

Non Retail2030

Non Retail2035

Non Retail 2040

Non Retail 2045

2005-2045 % Growth

Clinton 25,667 25,629 26,672 27,397 28,063 28,702 29,368 30,049 30,745 19.8%

Eaton 34,814 35,798 37,029 37,794 38,484 39,183 40,028 40,889 41,770 19.9%

Ingham 170,874 171,173 174,117 174,779 175,661 177,216 179,487 181,787 184,116 7.8%

Region Total 231,355 232,600 237,819 239,970 242,209 245,101 248,882 252,724 256,631 10.9%

*Totals may not add up due to rounding. Between 1995 and 2000, the region’s job growth increased by about 16,356 jobs. In 2000 there were an estimated 285,237 total jobs in the region. Total job figures include all wage and salary employment plus estimates of self-employed jobs. Trends that emerge from this job growth influence land use, other regional dynamics and impact the region’s economic growth and transportation plans. Tables 2-6 and 2-7 show retail and non-retail employment is projected to increase by approximately 4.4% and 10.9%, respectively, over the next 40 years. Diversification of the region’s employment base is also changing the region’s landscape. New ways of doing business, referred to as the “New Economy,” are based on communication and connectivity. Goods, information and services are now instantly transferred via the Internet. In the auto sector, “just in time” manufacturing requires efficient use and real time coordination of air, railroad and trucking systems. As a consequence of this economic development, the region is growing in new spatial patterns created by business location decisions. Understanding these employment trends is critical to planning the region’s transportation system. Results of Tri-County Regional Growth project established a goal to focus new development in established urban areas. By 2045, the region will become more densely developed, on the whole, as an additional 79,615 people are projected to live and work in the region by 2045.

2-7

2-8

Households and Household Size A projected 226,715 households will be located in the region by the year 2045. In 2045, population is projected at 506,835 people. Table 2-9 shows projected households are increasing 29.4 percent, higher than projected population growth, at 11.5%, a product of continued declines in household size as shown in Figure 2-1. Table 2-8: Projected Population Change by County

2005 to 2045

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2005-2045 % Growth

Clinton 69,359 71,083 72,921 75,356 78,057 80,228 81,603 82,978 84,353 21.6%

Eaton 107,190 106,516 106,770 109,009 112,152 115,173 117,722 120,271 122,820 14.6%

Ingham 278,119 273,661 275,578 279,955 284,978 288,895 292,484 296,073 299,662 7.8%

Region Total 454,668 451,260 455,269 464,320 475,187 484,296 491,809 499,322 506,835 11.5%

Table 2-9: Projected Household Change by County

2005 to 2045*

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2005-2045% Growth

Clinton 27,828 29,962 31,868 33,638 35,192 36,409 37,413 39,613 41,219 48.1%

Eaton 43,680 45,728 47,626 49,773 51,808 53,611 55,124 57,379 59,318 35.8%

Ingham 103,692 105,393 108,379 111,571 114,883 117,640 120,377 123,283 126,178 21.7%

Region Total 175,200 181,083 187,873 194,981 201,884 207,660 212,914 220,275 226,715 29.4%

*Totals may not add up due to rounding. Figure 2-1: Average Regional Household Size 1970-2045

2-8

2-9

Population Change Map 2-1 shows net regional population change from 1978 to 1999. While the Lansing/East Lansing urban area still accounts for a majority of regional population, census numbers show non-urban areas of the region have grown faster during the last decade. Since 1978, population in the urban area decreased by over 500 people while regional population increased. Map 2-1: Population Change, 1978 to 1999 Urbanization Much of the region’s population growth during the last decade occurred outside the Lansing/East Lansing urban area. Maps 2-2 and 2-3 show changes in developed land between 1978 and 1999. The darker shaded areas show the existing built environment in 1978 and 1999. Areas of significant growth are located along the edge of existing county roads. “Speckled” areas show residential development in 1978 and 1999. Increased rural residential development from 1978 to 1999 equals approximately 100 square miles. Map 2-4 shows these changes in rural residential development. This figure clearly shows the pattern of development along county one mile grid roads throughout the region.

2-9

2-10

Map 2-2: Residential Land Use Pattern, 1978

2-10

2-11

Map 2-3: Residential Land Use Pattern, 1999

2-11

2-12

Map 2-4: Residential Change, 1978-1999

2-12

2-13

Summary of Regional Growth Trend Conclusions Population is increasing in rural areas and decreasing in urbanized areas.

Current development trends result in a decrease of agriculture and open space

lands.

Future residential development will replace agricultural areas in 30 to 50 years.

Number of farmers declined 59% since 1974.

An increase in building permits in rural areas shows the pattern of development trends prior to 1980 was largely inside urbanized areas. Since 1980, this trend has completely reversed, with rural areas now receiving nearly half of new building permits, as follows: 1980 = 29% of total; 1998 = 50% of total.

Housing units are increasing over twice the rate of population growth.

A variety of housing development trends limit the region’s ability to realize its growth and transportation objectives over the next 20 to 30 years unless they are slowed or reversed. These trends create land use patterns difficult for pedestrians to negotiate and cannot be served efficiently by transit. Trends include:

Low-density suburban development often occurs in areas not close to employment opportunities.

Affordability of housing developed in a given area may not match income levels of jobs in that area.

Low-density suburban development does not provide the critical mass of population necessary to support siting of pedestrian-friendly development, commercial shopping areas and transportation services.

High costs and complexity of in-fill development can lead to higher costs of housing in urban areas, which tends to under-produce urban housing stock affordable to lower and middle income residents.

Comparatively low-density development is being dispersed throughout the urban growth area.

Analysis of Regional Zoning, Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Legal Issues Introduction Consultants on the Regional Growth project were charged with analyzing the legal framework in which Michigan land use decisions are made and regional zoning and future comprehensive land use plans which support those decisions. Three principal purposes of this element of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project were:

2-13

2-14

Demonstrating how local land use plans and zoning regulations affect land use trends;

Identifying potential land use and related conflicts along jurisdiction borders; and Identifying other characteristics of existing local plans and zoning ordinances that

may affect development and/or implementation of a common regional vision. This section summarizes key elements and findings of this analysis. Analysis of Local Master Plans & Zoning Ordinances Staff of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission gathered the local future land use map, zoning map and accompanying plan and zoning ordinance from each jurisdiction in the region. These were then used by TCRPC staff to create a composite future land use map and composite zoning map for the region. A common set of definitions of land use categories was used to make disparate local classification schemes comparable on a regional basis. At a glance, anyone can now see the general pattern of future land use and current zoning in the region. Consultants on the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project examined the composite plan and zoning maps of all jurisdictions in Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties (as well as, in some cases, the original documents from which they were drawn) to identify the following: 1. areas where existing zoning appears to be inconsistent with existing future land use

plans; 2. incompatible (or incongruous) land uses at borders of jurisdictions; 3. land uses that may be incompatible with environmentally sensitive lands and

resources; 4. land uses and areas that may have significant impacts on transportation or other

infrastructure if developed as planned or zoned; 5. land uses whose scale or location may present issues of greater than local concern; 6. areas where existing zoned or planned future land use is incompatible with long

term resource management; and 7. areas where future use appears inconsistent with goals of a common regional vision

of the future. Additional maps prepared by TCRPC and consultants for this comparison and contextual analysis included:

Historical urbanization in the region; Land Use/Cover – 1978 and 1999 ( Maps 2-3 and 2-4 ); Residential change map – housing growth patterns ( Map 2-5 ); Composite Future Land Use by Minimum Lot Size; and Minimum Lot Size Zoning Maps

2-14

2-15

Significant findings from analysis of these maps follows.

The developed area of the Tri-County region has grown faster than its population in recent years. For example, from 1978-1999 the total urbanized area increased from 103.34 square miles to 125.76 square miles or 21.7%. In contrast, the area covered by rural residential development grew from 102.94 square miles to 202.83 square miles or 97.04%. Other related observations follow:

- Total urbanized land increased 62,287 acres or 342% from 1938 to 1999 to

80,482 acres. - Total urbanized land increased 47,945 acres or 263% from 1938 to 1978. - Total population increased 228,339 persons or 119% from 1940 to 1980. (This

equates to 0.21 new urbanized acres per person). - Total population increased by 256,317 persons or 134% from 1940 to 2000. - Total population increased by 27,798 persons or 6.6% from 1980 to 2000. This is

only 12% of the population change from 1940 to 1980. Yet, it resulted in 0.52 new urbanized acres per person. This is 2 1/2 times the rate of urbanized acres per person than the previous 40 year period.

- From 1978 to 1999, for every new acre of urbanized land there was an increase of five acres of new rural residential land.

The trend from this data is evident. Rural land is being converted to rural residential

use at a rate five times greater than land at the edge of the urbanized area. In the last twenty years, this is a rate 2 ½ times faster than in the previous forty years. Rural residential land in the region in 1978 was about equal to the amount of urbanized land. Between 1978 and 1999 rural residential land increased by about 100 square miles (the equivalent of about three standard townships). Urbanized areas increased by only about 22 square miles (about 60% of an entire standard township).

The land use/cover analysis and the housing pattern depicted on these maps reflect these changes in other quantifiable ways, with the same finding -- rural residential development is expanding in the region faster than urbanized development and agricultural land or sensitive natural features like wetlands and stream corridors are most at risk.

For the most part, composite future land use maps do not reflect scattered residential development pattern portrayed on land use/cover maps. Instead, large areas of the region are depicted as planned for future rural and resource production, such as agriculture. They also depict “ribbon like” commercial and single family development extending along main roads from the core urban area.

The majority of the region is zoned for resource production (agricultural, forestry, mining) and rural residential development. For the most part, the actual scattered rural residential pattern is not apparent from the composite zoning map.

Comparisons between the future land use and zoning maps reveal many specific inconsistencies. In general, zoning maps are often inconsistent with the future land use plan of the community and often incompatible between abutting jurisdictions.

2-15

2-16

Differences between the future land use map, zoning map and existing minimum lot sizes were very great from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with the exception that generally speaking, permitted densities are lower the farther from the urban core one looks. Several tables compare amount of land by lot size by county. Most land is planned for minimum lot sizes at 1-15 acres, and most is zoned for lots of about 1-2 acres in size. Little land is zoned for large minimum lot sizes (like 40 acres) which is usually the case in jurisdictions serious about farmland preservation.

The principal problem with the existing zoning pattern in the region is what is known as “over-zoning.” This is the practice of zoning more land at a higher density than is reasonable to need, or for which the community has no realistic ability to provide necessary public services if it were to develop that way. Most over-zoning is for single family homes on large country lots which is occurring consistent with local zoning as a strip residential development pattern along rural county roads. This pattern creates significant negative impacts on agriculture, rural character, sensitive lands, public infrastructure and energy use, among others.

Strip residential development largely occurs as a result of local zoning that permits single family dwellings on large lots in agricultural zones as uses permitted by right. Fundamentally, non-farm residences are incompatible with typical agricultural practices and undermine the long-term viability of agriculture in an area. Yet, the purpose and intent statements of most rural zoning ordinances in the region say agricultural uses are what are desired to be maintained, not creation of low density rural residential communities.

Land division laws also contribute to this situation by permitting large lots with narrow frontage to be created along county roads without platting or being served by new public roads and associated infrastructure. This puts further pressure on the long term viability of agriculture in an area.

The legal analysis report concludes with the following observations:

Most of the region has been planned and zoned for at least 30 years. There is considerable variation in approaches being used, even when depicted with

a generalized land use scheme. The least variations are in Clinton and Eaton Counties, which are largely under county planning and zoning.

Variation is most extreme in Ingham County where each local unit of government has its own zoning. A number of local units do not have future land use plans. Ingham County also has no county planning commission – one of very few large counties in Michigan without one.

There is even less uniformity in densities allowed in individual zoning ordinances than in zoning districts, with huge variations in permitted densities in rural areas.

There is little evidence of real concern for, or a consistent coordinated approach to, natural resource protection of farmland, forests, rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains or sand and gravel resources.

There are few obvious conflicts between incompatible land uses in different jurisdictions, but this is also difficult to observe with a generalized land use scheme and without more detailed investigation of all ordinances.

2-16

2-17

There are inconsistencies between the purpose statements of local zoning ordinances and permitted uses and densities in the same ordinances and may be inconsistencies with established broader regional goals.

There is little evidence of coordination in plans and zoning districts between many abutting jurisdictions.

Anecdotally, initially there was little interest in coordination. TCRPC staff noted that after requesting a copy of the local plan and zoning ordinance from every jurisdiction in the region, only 2 of the 50 jurisdictions that have planning authority requested a completed copy of the composite future land use and zoning maps for their areas. Over time many more have requested copies as they began local plan updates.

The principal apparent problem is over-zoning for rural residential use and lack of protection for farmland. This has significant potential for future negative implications.

The current land use pattern of strip residential development scattered in agricultural areas is principally the result of local plans and zoning ordinances which permit it. This pattern is known as sprawl. It occurs because local zoning allows it, there is a market for homes on large lots in the country and because it is a lower cost alternative than building in a suburban subdivision since rural landowners don't have to pay all direct and indirect costs associated with living in the country and working in the city or suburbs. Current land use trends leave the City of Lansing with fewer residents, more minorities, an older population and generally lower income residents than surrounding communities. This is another typical consequence of sprawl. It is quite likely the current land use pattern (with a proliferation of large lot strip residential development) is an unintended result even though it is locally planned and locally zoned, since almost all new development is regulated by local permit. It adds up to a land pattern which is consumptive, low density, auto dependent, resource destructive and which:

Results in loss of prime farmland and the economic value of that resource; Accelerates central city decline; Results in separation of people by race and income; Reflects abandonment of existing infrastructure and the investment therein; Necessitates construction of new infrastructure at the fringe; and Can be characterized as a build/abandon pattern rather than a build/maintain, or

build/reuse pattern. This in turn results in increasing disincentives to reinvest in cities (irrespective of clean-up liability and resulting disincentives).

In short, the region is not building communities to last. It is not building sustainable communities. The current land use pattern and likely consequences of this pattern are significantly the result of current local planning and zoning practices. While the market, government subsidies, preferable tax policies and consumer choice are also significant variables, if local zoning did not allow so many homes on large lots in the country, the rural strip residential development that is so evident on the 1999 Land Use/Cover Map would not be present. In short, rural zoning ordinances throughout the region facilitate sprawl with its associated consequences on Lansing, other smaller cities and villages. On this issue, all jurisdictions in the region are connected and, over time, what happens when a large lot is

2-17

2-18

created in a rural township is having an associated negative impact in the amount of available farmland, as well as negative impacts on population in nearby small towns, the City of Lansing or metropolitan suburbs. This is quite evident because of very slow regional population growth, which for the most part, is simply moving around. Summary of Fiscal and Real Cost Analysis Introduction Consultants on the Regional Growth project also were charged with performing fiscal impact and real cost analysis of sprawl on the region and individual residents and businesses. This section summarizes this cost and fiscal impact analysis of sprawl. Two interrelated technical memoranda further document this element of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. The principal purposes of these tasks include:

Literature review of fiscal, economic and resource impacts and benefits of low-density development scattered throughout the region and alternatives to it.

Providing a context for better understanding of fiscal and economic implications of current trends and conditions in the Tri-County region.

General analysis of fiscal impacts of changing regional land use patterns. This includes identifying fiscal impacts over time associated with moving people around within the region, including differentiating impacts on core communities, suburbs, rural townships and small towns.

Identification of some specific costs associated with sprawl, as contrasted to a more compact urban form, along with the relationship of these costs to the local tax base and tax rates.

Relating these fiscal impacts to the adopted “Wise Growth” scenario, themes, principles of the regional vision that evolved from the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project.

Using information gathered in the above task, and a survey designed to collect information about people who recently moved to the country, to compare costs (including direct, indirect, public and private) associated with choices to live on large rural lots versus urban lots.

Following is a brief description of key elements and findings of these specific technical tasks. Analysis of Fiscal Impacts and Benefits of Alternative Development Patterns The fiscal, economic and resource impacts of sprawl versus more compact settlement patterns has been the focus of substantial research and report synthesis in the last few years. Three major types of research in this area may be summarized as:

Literature reviews of fiscal, economic and resource impacts of various development patterns;

The most contemporary national synthesis research on costs of sprawl versus more compact settlement patterns; and

2-18

2-19

Michigan specific studies on fiscal impact analysis and impacts of continuing current trends on Michigan land resource based industries.

In review of this research, two studies receive the greatest attention because of their significance. The first is The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited and the second is The Costs of Sprawl—2000. Each is the product of an extensive multi-disciplinary team involving many research organizations and led by Dr. Robert Burchell of the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University. Each was financed by the Transit Cooperative Research Program supported by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council and published by the National Academy Press. The first report documents the consensus opinion of the multi-disciplinary team on what has been learned from analysis of over 500 fiscal impact and related studies. The second report documents results of running a complex fiscal impact model on a national basis that compares continuing current trends with a more compact settlement pattern. Both reports acknowledge there are both benefits and detriments to sprawl that go beyond the individual and greatly affect a broad range of public interests. Extensive quotes from these reports characterize some of the most important lessons. There is overall agreement among experts in The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited that, based on the literature, higher infrastructure development and land costs exist as a condition of development. There is general agreement on existence of negative transportation impacts from development such as long travel times and less cost-effective transit. There is general agreement loss of agricultural land and sensitive environmental areas are linked to sprawl. Positive impacts on quality of life, such as lower crime rates and economic well-being, are also agreed upon as linked to sprawl. According to the authors, the literature shows positive social impacts, such as localized land use decisions, municipal diversity and choice, are indeed linked to sprawl. There is general agreement a host of other impacts are associated with development, but less agreement they are associated with sprawl. The Costs of Sprawl—2000 examines the impact of sprawl on resources using five different models: land conversion, water and sewer infrastructure, local road infrastructure, local public service costs and real estate development costs. The personal costs of sprawl on individual travel costs, quality of life and livability of cities are also examined. The study preface states:

“There are high infrastructure and land conversion costs associated with sprawl, yet quality of life is higher and housing costs are lower in locations characterized by sprawl development. This report looks very carefully at the many costs and benefits of sprawl and concludes that there is clearly evidence of each.” “Costs and benefits are not weighed on a balanced scale, however. There appear to be more costs than benefits, even though the magnitude of these costs to the general public is not nearly what has been chronicled in the popular press. On the other hand, the level of resource consumption resulting from development is increasing in the United States, and this increase is not related to need. There is no reason to support two underutilized systems of infrastructure when one fully subscribed system will do.

2-19

2-20

Growth need not 'skip' to the farthest and least-expensive location in the metropolitan area, with the expectation that infrastructure will be put in place, if adequate undeveloped space exists closer in. Thus, while sprawl is not the villain it has been portrayed to be, it is without question an unnecessary and increasing drain on natural resources. More compact development patterns produce savings that are both profound and measurable. It makes sense to pursue these development savings.” (Preface, p.2)

Using a variety of fiscal impact models, the study quantifies savings on infrastructure, resources and person costs of more compact settlement patterns. The study concludes with an even stronger message:

“The cost of this locational pattern (sprawl) in dollar outlays and resources consumed is both continuously increasing and basically unnecessary to achieve a very high quality of life. Too much land and infrastructure are being consumed by development. Two sets of infrastructure are being created and both are underutilized: the one Americans are running away from (cities and older developed suburbs) and the one they never catch up with (the new spreading development). This development pattern results in overly high costs to local governments, developers and housing consumers. As a result, taxes are increasing in the older communities due to excessive capacity in their infrastructure and in the sprawl developments due to the need for required systems to serve the new growth, including such physical infrastructure items as community water and sewer.” “It is possible to accommodate growth in another way--to be more centrally focused in development patterns and to consume fewer resources when development takes place. This is compact development, or smart growth. Smart growth allows all development that would have taken place under uncontrolled growth to occur, but it directs that development to locations where it is more efficient to provide public services. This allows appreciable savings in a relatively short period of time. Resources need not be as aggressively consumed, yet the amount of residential and nonresidential development is not altered. That is the message of this study. Sprawl produces costs in dollar outlays and in resources consumed, but these costs are deceivingly bearable in the short run. The benefits of unrestricted freedom of choice of neighborhood and lower housing costs seem worth the cost. In fact, they probably are. However, these benefits can be achieved through compact development with little loss of freedom of choice or housing value and with significant savings of man-made and natural resources. Smarter growth appears to be a reasonable approach and a relatively easy choice for future development in the United States. Committing to and implementing smart growth is a much more difficult task.” (p. 21)

Results of local cost analysis include a summary description of regional trends over the last thirty years in eight categories:

Population change; Employment; Land consumption; Farmland loss; School enrollment;

2-20

2-21

Poverty and race; Family income; and Traffic congestion.

These trends document expansion of population from urban parts of the region to suburbs and more rural areas. A clear pattern of rural growth and urban decline is beginning to emerge in the region. Implications of continuing these trends are discussed in the context of costs and revenues associated with regional growth and decline. The budgets of a sample of 28 communities in the region were examined along with change in State Equalized Value (SEV) and tax rates in all jurisdictions over time to create a clearer picture of fiscal impacts of growth on local governments in the region. While few solid conclusions can be drawn, a picture of the impact of current land use trends on SEV and of potential future tax rates on local land use decisions emerges. Agriculture has declined significantly as a percent of total SEV, with rural residential development taking up most of the slack. Unfortunately, long term public service impacts of scattered site rural residential development is not often given adequate consideration in this process. Pursuit of a bigger tax base to help pay costs of growth has also led to a number of aggressive actions by cities in the region to either annex land in an adjoining jurisdiction or enter into a PA 425 agreement. Direct costs associated with new development in a variety of alternative arrangements are illustrated, as are some specific costs associated with particular infrastructure. This information provides a context for intelligent dialogue on costs and revenues associated with growth. Cycles for investment and disinvestment, along with transportation infrastructure investment, are used to illustrate causes and effects associated with sprawl and urban decline. The Themes and Principles that emerged from the Regional Growth project are examined for sensitivity to fiscal, economic and natural resource considerations. A large proportion of Themes and Principles are found to have fiscal, economic or natural resource dimensions. The four future land use alternatives, including the adopted “Wise Growth” alternative are examined in light of current trends, conditions and the Themes and Principles. “Wise Growth” is determined to be more fiscally responsive and consistent with the Themes and Principles than other alternatives. Continuing current trends is identified as being most destructive to long term interests of the region. Conclusions from this research show implementation of the regional vision will rely heavily on the degree to which local governments in the region embrace the Governance Principles set forth as part of the common vision for the future of the region. Implicitly, if local governments embrace the Governance Principles, as well as the other Themes and Principles, then there is a good chance the adopted “Wise Growth” alternative will be successfully implemented. This would have positive fiscal, economic and natural resource benefits for the region.

2-21

2-22

Analysis of Large Rural Lot vs. a Subdivision or City Lot or Why People Move to the Country Planning for sustainable growth in the Tri-County Region requires an understanding of the types of housing choices people are making, why they are making those choices and the likely resultant impacts. To achieve that understanding, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission’s “Regional Growth: Choices for our Future” project conducted a series of surveys of residents and leaders in Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties. The surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2002 and sampled the general population, local elected/appointed officials, business, labor and other community leaders. A separate survey targeted a group of people who had moved from urban areas to more rural areas. This section summarizes results of those surveys, along with other surveys in Michigan and the nation that sought information related to growth, planning for growth and housing choices. Results of the City of Lansing Housing Market Survey, conducted in 1999 by Gove Associates, is also discussed. Basic findings of these surveys are:

There is a nearly universal desire to acquire a larger house, whether in the city or country.

Those who move from urban areas to rural areas within the Tri-County region responded that the primary reasons were to find quiet and more space. Other surveys suggest that getting closer to jobs and finding better schools are also primary reasons.

About 43% of city residents expect to move from the city. Most people who expect to remain in the city are over age 40, with younger more

affluent residents planning to move out. There is little difference in education among those remaining in the cities and those

choosing to move to the country. However, fewer minorities leave the city for the country.

Those intending to stay in the city find affordability, access to work and shopping, resale value and neighborhood appearance to be important assets. This and other studies suggest traditional neighborhood design has merits in this region.

A sizable portion of people who moved to the country may have jobs outside of urban areas.

There is a high level of support among local leaders for more coordinated, interjurisdictional planning, maintaining transportation infrastructure and providing services for elderly and low income populations.

There is modestly high support among local leaders for improving automobile transportation alternatives, a clean environment and farmland protection.

Support among local leaders for improving quality of life in cities so fewer families move to the country is not very high. This is in contrast to recognition in the general population in Michigan that cities are important but are not in good shape.

Rapid growth of rural areas is of concern to community leaders because:

2-22

2-23

1. loss of vitality and tax base of aging inner cities, and high costs of just maintaining existing services;

2. deferred costs associated with sprawling growth outside of cities, the

maintenance of which will be a massive burden in the future. These costs and impacts occur to land, water, natural resources and the lifestyle of individuals.

Some costs and impacts of an uncontrolled growth pattern are obvious, while others are hidden and include:

Travel time to commute to work, school, recreational activities and shopping greatly increases, with time spent in sprawl about 4% greater than in controlled new development.

Cost in fuel and car maintenance to drive increases. Costs of travel in a sprawl pattern are about 2.4% higher than in a controlled new development pattern.

Cost to develop and maintain a rural residential lot is likely higher than a city lot (well, septic, electric, driveway, etc.).

Quality of life reduction in access to culture and community. Hidden public costs include:

Conversion of large amounts of land from agriculture, forestry or open space to developed or rural residential areas with a loss of open space, rural character, naturalness. On average, 0.6 acres of land will be converted for every residential unit over the next 25 years.

Reduced water quality and loss of diversity of wildlife. Water, sewer, roads and other infrastructure may need to be extended and capacity

increased to treat water and sewage. A difference of a compact versus an uncontrolled development pattern would save 21 million gallons of water a day and over $1.5 billion in the Midwest over next 25 years.

Gravel roads must be paved and the number of miles of roads and lanes of roads must be expanded and maintained along with existing roads. A compact residential development pattern would save 18,000 lane miles and $9 billion in the Midwest between 2000 and 2025.

Public service costs generally run at a deficit from residential development, as much as $0.37 per $1 of revenue in some Michigan communities.

Existing urban centers lose residents and tax base to maintain infrastructure and services.

Urban centers concentrate poverty and minorities. More people live in low density, fragmented communities and lose a close-knit

community spirit. Access to jobs declines for people with lower incomes.

Among hidden costs of an uncontrolled growth pattern are the socially unfair decline in access to jobs for lower income people and creation of large islands within communities of low home ownership. Alternative scenarios such as smart growth have placed an emphasis on protection of open space and land resources when improving regional transportation.

2-23

2-24

Affordable housing and equity should also be a part of the discussion. There are benefits to sprawl, depending on perspective. These benefits include:

Large lots sizes away from the city, that appeal to an affluent market segment. Communities with households with a variety of tax levels and resulting public

services at various levels, appealing to a wide range of markets. Lower land and housing costs farther from urban centers. Stronger citizen participation in highly fragmented local governments rather than

large, single political jurisdictions. As a result of the impacts to communities, local officials are increasingly interested in promoting re-growth of urban centers and a more controlled, compact development pattern for newly developing areas. Future success will probably be measured in terms of the degree a more compact settlement pattern can meet desires of homebuyers for quiet and open space, or the degree of balance between new rural residential development, as opposed to more compact urban forms and public and private costs associated with each. The more indirect costs of urban sprawl are directly charged to new rural homebuyers, the more “attractive” suburban and urban neighborhoods will become. Overview of Public Involvement/Media Plans Introduction This section summarizes public involvement and media strategies completed through the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” effort, which also were direct input into the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan. As noted, a primary goal of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project was to develop a shared vision of future land use and development patterns and to establish an action plan to address land use by guiding public and private investment decisions. To ensure this, effort to stimulate public participation beyond those typical to many regional transportation plan update processes was essential. Strategies for Success Beyond day-to-day communication among project consultants, comprehensive, constant and consistent communication with certain key publics was crucial in developing this long-term regional growth strategy for multiple counties of approximately 447,728 people. A proactive citizen and media involvement campaign was vital to success. This proactive approach ensured the public participated during the ongoing process of developing the regional growth vision and transportation plan and also ensured the public was informed of major milestones as the project progressed. Target audiences included:

Ingham, Eaton and Clinton county residents:

The primary audience for this project ultimately was residents of Ingham, Eaton and

2-24

2-25

Clinton counties, as the end result of the project (a 20-year action plan to implement the regional vision) will direct development in the tri-county area.

Key stakeholders in the 78 municipalities in the study area:

To keep 78 units of government and numerous other governmental entities in this geographic area informed about the project’s progress, frequent communication with key stakeholders from those areas (including elected and appointed officials) was also critical to ensuring those stakeholders are included in the development process for the transportation plan.

Tri-county area business associations, service clubs and other organizations:

Groups such as the Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce, Greater Lansing Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michigan Association of Realtors®, Michigan Home Builders Association and area Rotary clubs were also excellent venues for project ambassadors to speak about the regional growth project and provide updates to key business leaders and influencers throughout the area.

In order to effectively reach these target audiences, an extensive public involvement and media relations plan was prepared at the beginning of this process by a team of professional public relations experts and planners with specialized expertise in community engagement on transportation and land use issues. It is important to note that this public involvement plan was revised and amended as the project progressed and to integrate results of survey research in order to refine the public involvement plan and improve its overall effectiveness. A general overview of these public involvement and media relation activities follows. Communication Tools and Tactics Editorial Board Meetings:

Rossman Martin & Associates (RM&A) leveraged its strong, long-term personal relationship with the Lansing State Journal and community newspapers in the tri-county area to engage the publications in support of the Regional Growth project. RM&A scheduled members of the project’s key stakeholders group (including members of the consultant team) to meet with newspaper editorial boards to explain the project in detail.

Town Hall Forums (July and December 2001; May 2002):

Town Hall Forums were held to gain input. However, they also tend to attract two ends of the spectrum – those who are already committed and actively interested in supporting the project and those who are adamantly opposed to the project under any circumstances. The challenge was to mobilize attendance and participation from the silent majority – those who may be apathetic about the project, or simply too busy to participate.

2-25

2-26

The following strategy was used to guide the Town Hall Forum process:

Media advisories and community calendar announcements were issued prior to

each Town Hall Forum to encourage public participation;

The project’s logo and slogan were used for “branding” to more consistently and immediately identify the project in all communication tools;

Project and community input and awareness was built by seeking speaking

opportunities to key groups (Rotaries, chambers, neighborhood associations, etc.) prior to Town Hall Forums;

Support was solicited from a media team consisting of the local newspaper and a

local television station and/or radio station to host, broadcast and cover (both pre and post) at least one of the Town Hall Forums. This successful effort helped ensure third-party credibility and helped significantly increase importance and visibility of these events;

Personal invitations were sent to stakeholders like local officials, business leaders

and other community leaders, including clergy, local Chamber of Commerce members, etc.;

On-site nominal group activities were incorporated in Town Hall Forums (discussion

tables of eight to 10 each) and were moderated/facilitated by professional facilitators trained to get input following presentations; and

All participants at each event were added to a master mail list to receive updates

regarding the Regional Growth project. Each set of four Town Hall Forums (July and December 2001 and May 2002) had a specific set of objectives:

Set #1 (July 2001): determined regional goals and objectives for land use and transportation and determined regional transportation investment strategies; Set #2 (December 2001): revised goals and objectives for land use and transportation, reviewed and refined four land use alternatives, presented the impacts of these alternatives and identified a preferred alternative; Set #3 (May 2002): helped finalize Themes and Principles and the land use policy map that form the basis of the action plan.

Maximum visibility was attained for this project through constant and consistent communication with target audiences. The strategy followed when initiating and concluding each set of town forums is summarized below:

2-26

2-27

Beginning Media advisories and community calendar announcements were released in advance of each series of Town Hall Forums to encourage media coverage and public participation for the meetings. End Once each set of Town Hall Forums was concluded, news releases were developed and distributed summarizing relevant information (findings, progress update, etc.). Task Forces Task forces were used to focus on specific issue areas throughout the project and to more deeply probe opinions, beliefs and attitudes. The consultant team also implemented some additional specialized geographic based task forces during finalization of Themes and Principles prior to the third set of Town Hall Forums. Ongoing Media Relations Media relations involved more than simply announcing the beginning and end of each set of Town Hall Forums. Conveying information about this project through media outlets required other tactics the consultant team implemented, including:

Letters to the editor; Viewpoint columns and editorials; Radio talk show appearances by key stakeholders; Public access television show appearances by key stakeholders; Public Service Announcements (PSAs); and Community calendar announcements.

Web Site While the foundation of this media and communications strategic plan was based on traditional communication vehicles such as news releases, media advisories, news conferences, brochures and audio/visual presentations, the project’s Web sites (www.tricountygrowth.com and www.tri-co.org ) were alternative sources of project information. Newsletter In addition to an internet presence, the Regional Growth project featured a newsletter keeping key stakeholders, business and community leaders and the general public informed about the project’s progress. The project newsletter normally was a four-page publication. In addition to being mailed to each person and/or organization in the project’s contact database of over 3500 individuals or organizations, the newsletter was electronically converted to a portable document format (PDF) which could be posted to the project Web site or e-mailed for easy online accessibility. Toll-Free Information Line Since the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission offices are inside the urbanized area

2-27

2-28

of Lansing, many people in the Tri-County area would need to make long-distance phone calls in order to contact the project team. Again, to meet the goal of making information about the Regional Growth project easily accessible to the general public, a toll-free phone number was set up and used as the project’s primary information line. Brochures A brochure summarizing the project’s goals and objectives was produced and made readily available at a number of prominent locations in each of the 78 area governments (e.g., libraries and city/township halls). The project brochure was also posted electronically in PDF format. Fact sheets A variety of fact sheets, including some that addressed frequently asked questions, outlined the project’s goals and objectives, or discussed the project timeline and key milestones were produced and, similar to the project brochure, made available electronically and at prominent locations throughout the area (e.g., township halls, city halls, county road commission offices, schools, libraries). Advertising Announcing Town Hall Forums As a community partner in this project, the Lansing State Journal agreed to donate advertising space promoting the first set of Town Hall Forums (July 2001). Ads indicated pertinent information about the project and the forums (time, date, location, etc.). The consultant team fostered an ongoing relationship with the Lansing State Journal to receive additional coverage for later town forums. Use of Non-Traditional Media Sources This project involved stakeholders representing a number of diverse interest groups (many of which have specialized publications and communication tools). Every effort was made to distribute all media relations tactics (e.g., news releases, media advisories, viewpoint articles, letters to the editor, public service and community calendar announcements) to those non-traditional media sources for inclusion in those groups’ publications. Public Involvement to Support Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations The public involvement process for “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” was specifically tailored to facilitate participation by low income and minority groups and to comply with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations.” The following components of the project’s public involvement process provide examples specifically designed to facilitate involvement of low income or minority individuals, organizations and advocates to meet environmental justice requirements:

Toll-free information line; Public access to the project Web site through public libraries and community

centers;

2-28

2-29

Presentations about the project in traditionally minority and low-income neighborhoods and to protected-class groups and organizations;

Collateral placement in public areas (e.g., libraries, city/township halls, community centers, churches);

Partnering with community organizations representing protected classes to ensure appropriate community leaders and residents were included on mailing lists; and

Distribution of fliers and announcement of Town Hall Forums in minority and low-income neighborhoods.

Additional information on outreach and involvement activities directed toward low income, minority populations, advocacy organizations and the general population may be found in Chapter 5 and the Plan Supplement. Conclusion The public involvement strategic plan of action for “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” was based on a strong and proactive citizen and media involvement campaign. This campaign was vital to ensure the public perceived this project as something of value because their opinions, attitudes and beliefs were considered when designing the action plan, transportation goals, objectives, investment strategies and other transportation considerations for the area. Through traditional media relations strategies and other direct community outreach efforts, the public was informed early and often about this project. The public was also kept informed about progress so they knew the final plan was comprehensive, well reasoned and in their best interests. (See Chapter 5: Public Participation/Information Program for additional information. ) Survey Research This section summarizes methods and results of additional public involvement opportunities provided through specialized public, leadership and movers opinion survey research conducted as part of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project.

Random Public Survey Methodology The professional survey research firm of EPIC ▪ MRA administered interviews with 420 adults in Ingham, Clinton and Eaton Counties between May 5 and May 15, 2002. Respondents were included in the sample if they were aged 18 years or older and resided in the tri-county region. Respondents were selected by an interval method of random published telephone records. The sample was stratified so every area of the region was represented according to its contribution to the general population. In interpreting any survey results, all surveys are subject to error. That is, results of the survey might differ if the entire population were interviewed. The size of sampling error depends on total number of respondents on a particular question. Table 2-10 shows estimated sampling error for different percentage distributions of responses based on sample size. For example, 49 percent of all 420 respondents cited “availability and quality of affordable housing” as an important factor in their decision to live where they currently reside

2-29

2-30

(Question #26). As indicated in Table 2-10, this percentage would have a sampling error of plus or minus 4.9 percent. That means, with repeated sampling, it is very likely (95 times out of every 100), the percentage for the entire population would fall between 44.1 percent and 53.9 percent, hence 49 percent ±4.9 percent.

In addition to the random public opinion survey, a leadership survey was conducted in October, 2001. This survey had a sample size of 258 and a margin of error of ±6.2 percent. Comparisons of results from the random general public survey to similar questions posed on the leadership survey were also performed to measure how connected leaders were to the general public’s view. Further, a survey of 294 individuals who recently moved from an urban location to a rural location was completed in July and August 2002. This survey gathered empirical data on why people were leaving the urban area in order to assist in identifying action items that might help reverse this trend. In general, results of these surveys were used as input to transportation/land use goals, objectives, themes, principles, alternatives development and analysis for the Regional Growth project. Results were also considered in developing the Action Plan, various public information materials and other elements of the growth project, while a few questions pertained directly to transportation needs, priorities and related issues. For brevity, most of these results are not included here. However, it is significant to note this extensive survey research was an important public involvement component completed and considered as part of “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” and also was considered as it related to developing the approach and content for the adopted the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan. As such, it was highly insightful in informing project staff, the consultant team and various task forces and advisory committees on issues related to selection of the adopted “Wise Growth” scenario and related principles, goals, objectives and policies which remain the foundation of this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan.

TABLE 2-10: SAMPLING ERROR BY PERCENTAGE (AT 95 IN 100 CONFIDENCE LEVEL 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 SAMPLE SIZE % margin of error ±

650 2.3 3.1 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.1 2.3 600 2.4 3.2 3.7 3.9 4 3.9 3.7 3.2 2.4 550 2.5 3.3 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.3 2.5 500 2.6 3.5 4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4 3.5 2.6 450 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.2 3.7 2.8 400 2.9 3.9 4.5 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.5 3.9 2.9 350 3.1 4.2 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.2 3.1 300 3.4 4.5 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.2 4.5 3.4 250 3.7 5 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.7 5 3.7 200 4.2 5.5 6.4 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.4 5.5 4.2 150 4.8 6.4 7.3 7.8 8 7.8 7.3 6.4 4.8 100 5.9 7.8 9 9.6 9.8 9.6 9 7.8 5.9 50 8.3 111.1 12.7 13.6 13.9 13.6 12.7 11.1 8.3

2-30

2-31

Some selected results specifically related to transportation issues in this plan are summarized in Table 2-11 below. Respondents were asked to use a priority/importance scale to rank a list of several transportation goals. Senior mobility and road/bridge repairs scored high. Eighty-six percent of general population respondents consider maintaining mobility for low income and elderly citizens a priority, almost tied with repairing and maintaining roads and bridges. Lowest scores for transportation needs went to widening existing roads and building new roads. Paving gravel roads received support from just 43 percent of respondents and was ranked least important by respondents in Clinton County. It is interesting to note leaders gave highest scores to the same four areas as the general population and also assigned lowest priority to the same areas. Regional Goals and Objectives For Land Use This section briefly highlights process and outcomes of efforts to develop regional goals and objectives for land use. Introduction The purpose of a regional approach to planning is to recognize the region shares a vested interest in various natural resources, services and public infrastructure. Preserving and enhancing quality of life in the region requires a concerted effort to manage these shared assets. Achieving agreed upon regional goals and objectives for these assets is the first step in the cooperative and pro-active process to develop a shared regional vision for Stakeholder meetings, sub-committee gatherings and from public opinion surveys indicate residents from 78 jurisdictions share the same vision for the future of the region. Prevalent concerns were:

1. Community character; 2. Infrastructure; 3. Open space and agricultural preservation; 4. Recreation; 5. Governmental cooperation; and 6. Economic development.

2-31

2-32

Table 2-11: Random Public Opinion Survey Results of Regional Transportation Priorities* Question: “Now I would like to read you a list of transportation goals. For each one that I read, please tell me if you think that goal should be a top priority, important but not a top priority, only slightly important, or not a priority at all. The first one is . . .”

Questions Top Priority or

Important

Slightly Important or Not a Priority

Maintaining mobility for low income and elderly citizens 86.0% 12.0% Repairing and maintaining roads and bridges 85.0% 14.0% Reducing congestion and improving traffic flow through major streets and intersections 72.0% 27.0% Improving sidewalks and pathways for pedestrians and bicycles 63.0% 36.0% Providing adequate parking for commuters and for shoppers 59.0% 38.0% Improving public transportation services 54.0% 40.0% Improving options for carpooling and vanpooling 50.0% 43.0% Providing passenger rail service to other communities 44.0% 50.0% Paving gravel roads 43.0% 47.0% Making airport improvements 42.0% 51.0% Building new roads 41.0% 57.0% Widening existing roads 38.0% 58.0% * Survey conducted in May 2001 of 420 regional adult residents and is generally accurate at 95 percent confidence level and about plus or minus 5 percent.

These comments are crucial to developing measures for effectively managing future regional growth and development. An initial set of regional land use goals and objectives were originally developed by TCRPC staff and the Stakeholder Committee. Their final form, as illustrated later in this chapter, was strongly influenced by comments gathered from residents at Town Hall Forums and interest groups throughout partnering communities. Ultimately, goals and objectives were shaped into final form using comments received during the July, 2001 Town Hall Forums. They were then tested using quantitative and qualitative methods during the alternatives development stage and were subsequently approved by the Stakeholder and Steering Committees and adopted in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan (in final form) to guide future land use decisions throughout the region and in local communities. They are again being re-adopted in this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan.

2-32

2-33

Public Involvement Process In late July, nearly 400 tri-county residents – including citizens, business owners, elected and appointed officials, farmers and environmentalists – braved record-breaking heat and participated in Town Hall Forums on four consecutive nights. The forums – held in Mason, Charlotte, St. Johns and Lansing – gave Clinton, Eaton and Ingham County residents a chance to let their voices and choices shape the region’s future.

The forums’ purpose was to develop goals and objectives for land use and transportation in the Tri-County region. Working in small nominal groups led by facilitators trained by MSU Extension, participants tackled regional land use and transportation goals, objectives and short and long term transportation investment strategies. Attendees prioritized and changed future goals and objectives interactively by voting using handheld “Option Finder” keypads. Using wireless voting equipment, participants reacted immediately to presented material. Responses were instantly tabulated and displayed. Figure 2-2: Nearly 400 residents attended the first round of forums A map showing distribution of participants in these forums by zip code is shown in Map 2-6.

2-33

2-34

Map 2-6: July Town Forum Participants by Zip Code

2-34

2-35

During the four Town Hall Forums, more than 1,000 comments were recorded and prioritized. Prioritized comments were reported out to the larger group and, when necessary, voted on. Comments and electronic voting data were used to make numerous refinements to draft regional land use and transportation goals and objectives prepared by staff and the consultant team. Revised drafts were then presented to the Stakeholder and Steering Committees. Based on comments received from the Stakeholder and Steering Committees, the following refined set of Goals and Objectives were accepted by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, were adopted as part of Regional 2025 Transportation Plan, were reindorsed by adopting the Regional 2030 Transportation Plan, its 2007 Supplement and again by adopting this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan. As such, they formulated the basis for development of land use scenarios tested during December 2001 Town Forums. Adopted regional land use goals and objectives are shown in the following text box.

Adopted Regional Land Use Goals and Objectives

1. NATURAL RESOURCES Promote through education and regulation the preservation of natural, non-renewable resources found in the region.

a) Protect and enhance groundwater aquifers, natural recharge areas and surface water resources

from contamination from septic systems, agricultural runoff and other sources of pollution. b) Promote use of storm water best management techniques to minimize impacts of pollution on

surface water resources. c) Preserve and enhance key wildlife corridors and habitats to sustain and enhance quality of the natural

environment. d) Protect air quality by implementing education programs and regulations which recognize impacts of

future development on energy consumption and air quality in the region. e) Promote extension of public water services in areas where water quality threatens public health. f) Protect important scenic areas, stands of mature vegetation and other natural resources which

contribute to a sense of community character. g) Preserve and protect open space and farmland with appropriate zoning regulations, education

programs and other tools, such as purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights and tax codes.

2. WISE GROWTH

Encourage jurisdictions to utilize resources wisely and guide growth to achieve a regional vision.

a) Empower a regional growth advisory organization to facilitate coordinated development and

encourage compatible land use plans between adjacent jurisdictions. b) Encourage growth patterns which make use of existing infrastructure and public/private investments. c) Establish urban revitalization policies that encourage growth, development, preservation, use of

existing structures and revitalization of urban centers. d) Improve existing schools and facilities in all communities.

2-35

2-36

Adopted Regional Land Use Goals and Objectives

e) Site regional public facilities and other significant types of development in population centers and

near existing infrastructure. f) Discourage reliance on large lot, low density as a primary zoning category. g) Encourage high density developments to locate in areas served by public utilities. h) Revise zoning ordinance standards to reduce impervious surfaces such as in subdivision and

commercial site design.

3. QUALITY OF LIFE Promote and maintain a high quality of life for current and future residents of the region.

a) Facilitate growth in the region to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale and pace, and in

locations suitable for the type of development. b) Encourage a greater variety of housing styles and types to accommodate a wider range of housing

preferences, income levels and household types (singles, seniors, empty-nesters). c) Ensure new development is compatible with existing development within each community. d) Preserve and protect valued cultural and historical sites and resources. e) Enhance the visual appearance of the region for residents and tourists. f) Provide parks and recreational opportunities in and near population centers. g) Create and sustain a sense of place and community where people live and work. h) Promote zoning policies that reward preservation of natural features.

4. REGIONAL APPROACH Encourage a regional approach to development and planning which includes inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination among the seventy-five jurisdictions and with Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties.

a) Encourage joint efforts, shared services and/or costs between two or more communities where

appropriate. b) Encourage coordination of economic development efforts within the region. c) Encourage a coordinated approach toward recreational opportunities and open space preservation in

the region. d) Develop procedures for greater collaboration and coordination of efforts among municipalities and

school districts in the region. e) Encourage and identify funding for physical linkages, such as bike, pedestrian and equestrian

pathways that connect important regional assets such as parks and community services. f) Create a mechanism to involve the public to update, promote, monitor and implement the actions

identified during the Regional Growth project. g) Encourage development of an inter-jurisdictional equity system to balance the cost and benefit of

development and services. (i.e. who pays vs. who benefits?). h) Develop a regional community funding foundation to promote public and private joint funding

ventures. i) Create a regional data clearing house so that benchmarks and indicators can be monitored on a yearly

basis. j) Encourage adoption of the final plan of the Tri-County Regional Growth project by all jurisdictions.

5. PARKS AND RECREATION

Establish a regional approach to providing parks and recreation services that emphasizes natural resources of the region.

a) Create a regional system of linear park links along natural stream corridors and open space. b) Identify, promote and encourage public access points to rivers and lakes that have water quality

suitable for recreational use. c) Encourage cooperation and coordination of recreational facilities and programming among

jurisdictions, including school districts.

2-36

2-37

Figure 2-3: Use of “Goals/Objectives”

GOALOBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

DRAFT (2001) FINAL (2002)

VISIONGOAL

TOW

N F

OR

UM

SA

LTE

RN

ATI

VE

TE

STI

NG

GOALOBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

DRAFT (2001) FINAL (2002)

VISIONGOAL

TOW

N F

OR

UM

SA

LTE

RN

ATI

VE

TE

STI

NG

Adopted Regional Land Use Goals and Objectives d) Maintain, preserve and enhance existing parks and recreation facilities and when appropriate, acquire

additional parkland or facilities to meet regional needs such as open space preservation and wildlife habitat protection.

e) Provide non-motorized links and pathways between population centers and recreational opportunities.

6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Foster an environment in which the region becomes an economic development engine providing for the sustained service to, and employment of, current and future citizens.

a) Develop an environment conducive to small business enterprises. b) Encourage adaptive reuse of existing structures and in-fill redevelopment. c) Promote establishment of new businesses which are compatible with local communities. d) Strive to make the region a competitive location for business through cooperation to reduce utility

rates and mitigation/elimination of constraints associated with doing business, rather than financial incentives to encourage development.

e) Continue to facilitate inter-governmental cooperation to support economic development needs. f) Sustain economic development to ensure future employment opportunities and an adequate tax base. g) Encourage growth to occur where public utilities are located or can be contiguously expanded.

7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Encourage planning programs that include formalized, facilitated and broad-based public involvement processes.

a) Increase emphasis in equitable and accessible public participation surrounding land use and

transportation issues. b) Promote visioning, planning and education programs that include broad-based public involvement

processes to achieve consensus on implementation of the vision for the region and each local community.

c) Improve communication through early and continuous involvement to help develop a clear vision and to lead to expedited implementation of projects.

d) Promote processes for reviewing site-specific land development applications that are reasonable, predictable and fair for applicants and contiguous neighbors.

2-37

2-38

As identified in Figure 2-3 above, intent of the Goals and Objectives exercise at the July Town Hall Forums was to lead to eventual creation of Visions, Goals and Objectives. These ultimately led to the draft Action Plan for the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. This Action Plan, along with the corresponding transportation goals, objectives and investment strategies will direct future land use and transportation development and decision making throughout the Tri-County region. As part of the July Town Hall Forums, the public was asked to compare the seven land use goals and related objectives with 17 draft transportation goals and objectives, and vote on their compatibility. Generally, they were all found to be compatible but each comment on these items was reviewed by staff and the Long Range Plan Task Force and drafts were revised in consideration of these comments. (See Chapter 3: Goals & Objectives.) As part of this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan update process four additional Town Hall Forums were held in December 2008 which obtained additional input to further update these earlier transportation goals and objectives. Results of these additional forums are reported in the following chapters. Alternatives/Alternatives Analysis Land Use Alternatives Introduction This section outlines methodology, results and analysis of land use/transportation alternatives considered in the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. The purpose of the Regional Growth project is two-fold: first, to develop a shared vision of future land use and development patterns and second, to establish an action plan to address urban sprawl by guiding public and private investment decisions. These two purposes are sequential, i.e., a shared vision of future land use and development patterns is required before an action plan to address urban sprawl can be developed. Thus, development of land use alternatives is an important step in reaching consensus on a regional land use vision. Different balances of public policy, market forces and public desires can result in alternative land use patterns that strongly contrast one another. Objectives of the land use alternatives analysis phase of the Regional Growth project were to develop:

Different “themes” or balances of policy, market forces and public desires in alternative land use scenarios.

2-38

N

ot

Com

patib

le

Mos

tly N

ot

Com

patib

le

Ade

quat

ely

Com

patib

le

Mos

tly

Com

patib

le

Com

patib

le

TR

AN

SPO

RT

AT

ION

GO

AL

S V

otes

%

V

otes

%

V

otes

%

V

otes

%

V

otes

%

I.

Acc

essi

bilit

y 12

6.

8 21

12

38

21

.7

61

34.9

43

24

.6

II.

Mob

ility

Opt

ions

15

8.

9 14

8.

3 38

22

.6

68

40.5

33

19

.7

III.

Safe

ty

3 1.

7 13

7.

3 29

16

.3

60

33.7

73

41

IV.

Syst

em E

ffic

ienc

y 9

4.8

15

8 31

16

.7

71

37.9

61

32

.6

V.

Env

iron

men

tal I

mpa

cts

11

6 11

6

38

20.9

48

26

.4

74

40.7

VI.

Lan

d U

se

8 4.

4 11

6.

2 29

16

.1

61

33.9

71

39

.4

VII

. Fi

nanc

ial C

onsi

dera

tions

3

1.7

22

12.6

37

21

.1

59

33.7

54

30

.9

VII

I. E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

t 10

5.

6 19

10

.7

35

19.6

68

38

.2

46

25.9

IX.

Publ

ic In

volv

emen

t 7

3.9

17

9.5

31

17.3

55

30

.7

69

38.6

X.

Tra

nsit

6 3.

3 19

10

.4

37

20.3

54

29

.7

66

36.3

XI.

Park

ing/

Park

ing

Man

agem

ent

17

9.5

17

9.5

50

27.9

51

28

.5

44

24.6

XII

. C

omm

unity

Impa

ct

4 2.

3 12

6.

9 39

22

.3

55

31.4

65

37

.1

XII

I. In

term

odal

3

1.7

17

9.7

47

26.7

45

25

.6

64

36.3

XIV

. N

on-M

otor

ized

12

6.

6 17

9.

4 22

12

.2

44

24.3

86

47

.5

XV

. M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

s 10

5.

7 13

7.

4 49

27

.8

48

27.3

56

31

.8

XV

I. A

irpo

rt Is

sues

8

4.4

16

8.6

49

26.5

50

27

62

33

.5

XV

II.

Inte

llige

nt T

rans

port

atio

n Sy

stem

s 8

4.5

12

6.7

39

21.9

51

28

.7

68

38.2

2-39

2-40

Graphic depictions of alternatives using a consistent set of underlying assumptions

(e.g., zoning, environmental features, etc.).

Consistent and, to the extent possible, quantifiable methodologies for analysis and evaluation of alternatives.

Methods to evaluate alternatives leading to selection of a Preferred Alternative land use vision for the region.

Each of these objectives was reviewed by an Impacts and Alternatives Task Force, Stakeholder’s Committee and Steering Committee to obtain feedback and comment. Alternatives and analyses were also presented in a series of four public forums in December 2001. Scenario Development, Methodology and Results

Population/Employment Forecasts and Zoning Accurate portrayal of land use scenarios requires a reasonable estimate of the amount of expected development. Population and employment forecasts were used to estimate amounts of development expected by a certain date. It is noteworthy that scenarios contained significant input from outside the scope of the Regional Growth project. In particular, under a separate contract, the TCRPC had prepared two sets of population and employment forecasts, one based on existing development trends in the three-county area, the other based on build out of existing zoning districts for all local governments in the region to their maximum allowable density.

Scenario Building Process In June 2001, the project team met with the Steering Committee to discuss the methodology for building alternatives and to preliminarily identify scenarios. By this time, population and employment projections developed separately were available and it was agreed that these projections would serve as a primary input into scenarios. Projections were developed by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ), small geographic planning areas whose size ranges from a city block in heavily urbanized areas to an entire township in rural areas. Since boundaries of TAZ’s do not overlap, and the entire three county region is subdivided into TAZ’s, adding TAZ projections provides regional totals of forecast population and employment. The two sets of projections at the TAZ level (one for the adopted trend forecasts, the other for build out based on existing zoning) would define two of the scenarios. Other scenarios would contain different distributions of population and employment, but use the same two regional control totals as these two forecasts. It should be noted that the trend and wise growth forecasts for population and employment used in this 2001 land use alternatives analysis were updated for this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan (see Chapter 6). The land use alternatives analysis previously completed as part of the Regional Growth project was not revised, and results reported

2-40

2-41

Trends Issues/

Opportunities

Evaluation/ Impact Analysis

Goals and Objectives

Refine Alternatives

Draft Alternatives

Develop Evaluation

Criteria

PreferredAlternative

Action Planning &

Implementation

here are based on those earlier forecasts as they were in effect at the time of the analysis and selection of the preferred alternative. Since the new population and employment forecasts are generally lower then those used in the earlier analysis, impacts would also generally be lower than those reported. However, the relative differences between alternatives would not change, nor would results of either build out scenario since they were based on maximum allowable density in local zoning ordinances. Figure 2-4: “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” Schematic Process

Flow Diagram In this manner, the following four scenarios were decided upon:

An adopted Trend Forecast (a.k.a. “Business as Usual”) scenario that extrapolated existing trends of development and urbanization.

A “Build Out” scenario based on existing zoning that showed anticipated build out of

existing zoning districts at maximum allowable densities.

A “Centers Reinvestment and Environmental Conservation” (a.k.a. “Wise Growth”) scenario that represented a focus on existing urban areas. This scenario represents a merging of two previous draft scenarios, a “Compact Development” scenario and an “Environmental Preservation” scenario, which were developed from the adopted Visions and Goals. The term “Compact Development” refers to steering new growth into existing urban service areas to minimize costs of new infrastructure development and to more effectively utilize existing public services. By “Environmental Preservation,” it was intended that new development avoid areas of high environmental importance, including floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes and dense natural vegetation. Although aimed at different objectives, these two draft scenarios had sufficient similarity to one another that combining them seemed a logical step.

A “Wise Growth Build Out” representing complete development of the region using

control totals from the build out based on existing zoning, but reallocated consistent with the development footprint of the “Wise Growth” scenario.

2-41

2-42

It should be noted that the Impacts and Alternatives Task Force suggested the original two draft alternatives (“Compact Development” and “Environmental Preservation”) be combined into one “Wise Growth” alternative to continuation of current trend forecasts. “Build Out” of the region based on current zoning was then compared to a “Wise Growth Build Out” which used the same control totals for future population and employment as permitted under “Build Out” at maximum allowable densities, but reconfigured this same amount of growth into the same development footprint of “Wise Growth” at higher densities necessary to permit the same amount of regional growth. Hence, combination of the two “Compact Development” and “Environmental Preservation” options into one “Wise Growth” scenario was also then extended to “Wise Growth Build Out” as an alternative to current zoning throughout the region. This action by the Impacts and Alternatives Task Force essentially set the direction of the alternatives analysis on two parallel tracks, as follows:

Current adopted Trend Forecasts, then “built out” to their logical conclusion or end state “Buildout” under current zoning;

Versus:

“Wise Growth,” “built out” to its logical end state using the same totals as permitted

under current public policy, but reallocated to reflect the “Wise Growth” land use pattern.

The Task Force generally felt this would provide a fair and equal comparison of the two approaches, while demonstrating the region could still grow to the same level of development currently allowable. Their discussion generally indicated the Task Force felt this would also permit more accurate cost/benefit and impact analysis, eliminate opposition and reduce perception that the effort somehow was “anti-growth,” while still permitting a mid-range option to emerge as a compromise between the two approaches if necessary. After receiving additional feedback from the Stakeholders and Steering Committees, development of the scenarios began in earnest. Descriptions of the scenarios follow.

Adopted Trend Forecast or “Business as Usual” Scenario This scenario (Map 2-7) has as its basis adopted population and employment projections developed at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level, representing trend forecasts of population and employment growth outward from the central city areas. It details land amounts and locations of residential and commercial growth throughout the region according to past development trends. The scenario assumes no major adjustment in development policies in the region, allowing development densities and other factors to remain constant. The scenario illustrates an irregular development pattern, with development attracted to existing and planned public utilities and close proximity to roadway access and continuation of a land use pattern where residential development is attracted to many outlying townships

2-42

2-43

and away from the central Lansing metropolitan area. In this scenario, population and employment projections for each county and Minor Civil Division (MCD) in the region were developed and allocated into the then-existent 834 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ’s) previously developed by the TCRPC as part of its regional traffic forecasting model and used in its transportation planning program. Allocation to TAZ’s considers existing developable land, local zoning, development proposals, accessibility and environmental constraints (such as soils, slopes and wetlands), but not urban service considerations or preservation of agricultural land. Considerable manipulation was required to translate population and employment projections into this land use scenario. Briefly described, the steps were as follows:

1. Utilizing existing residential and employment land use densities (persons/acre and jobs/acre), population and employment projections were transformed into land use absorption figures, i.e., acreage estimated to be consumed by new development.

2. Within each TAZ, anticipated new development was placed proximate to existing

development. This was done by considering the perimeter and area of existing development and calculating a buffer distance equal to anticipated development.

3. Some post-processing manipulation was done to avert political difficulties and

obvious errors in model specification. For instance, the model inadvertently placed some residential development next to a landfill, which was promptly corrected.

Note that under the adopted Trend Forecast or the so called “Business as Usual” model, a large amount of residential and commercial/industrial development is anticipated in areas away from urban centers. The impacts of this development pattern will be analyzed later.

“Build Out” Scenario This scenario (Map 2-8) also was based on population and employment projections developed at the TAZ level, but represented regional “Build Out” at maximum allowable densities under current community zoning policies. It detailed land amounts and locations of residential and commercial growth throughout the region according to the maximum allowable densities. This type of scenario is a "Build Out" of the region to its logical end state based on current public policies as represented in local zoning ordinances. The “Build Out” population and employment numbers were then used in comparing alternate future scenarios in order to facilitate discussion on what the ultimate impacts would be on the region sometime in a future century when “Build Out” would occur. This scenario was simple to develop. A composite zoning map for all the region’s municipalities was developed by TCRPC staff. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to combine this composite zoning map with a composite map of existing land use/land cover. This allowed direct comparison of existing land use to existing zoning. Where a polygon’s zoning exceeded its land use in terms of intensity (e.g., an existing agricultural area that is zoned industrial), then that area was considered a growth area for purposes of the scenario. “Build out” population and employment densities were calculated

2-43

2-44

by applying the zoning district’s maximum allowable residential and employment densities to household size (for population) and floor-area ratios (for employment). In terms of anticipated development, this is the most expansive of the scenarios. Again, as with the trends scenario, much development is anticipated away from existing urban areas. The scenario illustrates more in-fill of all types of development in order to permit a higher density of residents and employees. Most growth takes place in and around local cities and towns and along major transportation corridors.

“Wise Growth” and “Wise Growth Build Out” Scenarios The “Wise Growth” scenario (Map 2-9) was based on Visions and Goals developed during the first set of Town Hall Forums (July 2001). It steers new development and redevelopment to existing urban areas with growth planning policies and represents a managed growth alternative. It was generated using both demand (population and employment projections) and supply (land suitability) considerations. Population and employment projections for this scenario were produced using two maximum controls. First was the total population of the “Build Out” based on existing zoning. The other used the adopted trend forecasts, or the so called “Business as Usual” total population. Therefore, two different scenarios were produced: “Wise Growth” based on the total amount of growth predicted to occur in the adopted trends forecast and “Wise Growth Build Out,” based on maximum totals permissible under current zoning using the same development footprint as “Wise Growth,” but at a much higher density. Hence, both of these alternatives were reallocated into a “Wise Growth” land use pattern. The two different population alternatives, when applied to the “Wise Growth” scenario, result in very different residential and employment densities. In these complex “Wise Growth” and “Wise Growth Build Out” scenarios, allocation of population and employment were derived from the land development pattern. In contrast, in the trends scenario, the land development pattern permissible under current zoning and trends were considered in the allocation process, but the actual population and employment forecasts are prepared independent from this land use pattern. The terms used to describe these two separate reallocations are “Wise Growth” and “Wise Growth Build Out.” In the “Build Out” scenario both land development and population/employment are derived from existing zoning. Figure 2-4 outlines the overall process for developing the two “Wise Growth” scenarios. To summarize, land use suitability models were developed for non-retail (industrial), retail and residential development. These suitability models had several features in common – they did not allow development in areas of prime farmland or environmental sensitivity and they expressed a preference for developing in urban service areas. Each suitability model also contained unique elements: industrial areas had to be accessible to certain transportation features, such as highways and railroads, while retail areas had to be accessible to residential markets. If more than one suitability model expressed a preference for a certain area, then the following priority sequence was used to assign land area: industrial first, retail second and residential last.

2-44

2-45

Map 2-7: Adopted Trend Forecast Land Use Pattern

2-45

2-46

Map 2-8: Build Out Scenario Based on Existing Zoning

2-46

2-47

Figure 2-5: Land Use Suitability Modeling Wise Growth

The intent of the two “Wise Growth” alternatives was to provide direct contrast to the other two “Business as Usual” and “Build Out” alternatives. Therefore two different sets of population and employment allocations at the TAZ level were developed. One set utilized the regional population and employment control totals of the adopted trends scenario, while the other set utilized the totals from the build out scenario. While total population and employment may have been the same as those of the other two scenarios, the allocations of population and employment were based upon the land development pattern outlined above. Since more population and employment was being funneled to urban service areas, many TAZ’s experienced substantial increases in population and employment densities, a phenomenon not witnessed in the other two scenarios. Figure 2-4 shows the process used in modeling suitability for various uses in the “Wise Growth” and “Wise Growth Build Out” scenarios and the order in which they were combined. The modeling process was sequential, i.e., individual uses that comprised output of previous phases were used as inputs for following phases. When allocating growth to land throughout the region, the following decision rules were used:

2-47

2-48

Existing environmental and open space uses were modeled first, as they are most

constrained. Environmental areas included floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands and significant vegetation. Growth was minimized to preserve sensitive areas.

Next, employment centers were designated. These growth areas could not occur on existing or proposed environmental and open space areas (previously identified). Public sewer/water utility access was required. Employment centers accommodate all “non-retail” employment growth projected by the TCRPC and can include office, industrial and/or warehousing uses. Infill sites were encouraged, but not required. A preference was given to existing urbanized areas in order to maximize tax revenue, as well as to approximate service areas of non-capital public services (e.g., police and fire service). Sites required more than 100 acres to be considered suitable employment centers.

Residential growth areas were also encouraged (but not required) on lands with existing public sewer, water, utility services and on infill sites. Areas with better overall peak period accessibility were encouraged. Densities were not explicitly defined, but were a calculated variable when regional population totals of the adopted Trend Forecasts (the so called “Business as Usual” and “Build Out” scenarios) were applied (see Impacts section below). Residential development on prime farmland soils was discouraged. A preference for growth in existing urbanized areas was also included.

The last land use designated was retail growth. Existing and proposed residential locations played the most important role in retail siting. Transportation system access was also an important factor. Access to public water, sewer and utility services was encouraged, but not required.

The resulting scenarios are very compact regional growth patterns in comparison to the other scenarios, which allows for preservation of significant amounts of farmland, open space and wetlands. Scenario Analysis With few exceptions, scenario analysis was done with a Geographic Information System (GIS). Methodologies for these analyses generally fall into these categories:

Calculations of land areas were completed for new development by land use type (residential, retail and non-retail) and features preserved, such as environmentally sensitive and prime agriculture areas.

Overlay techniques analyzed geographic variables of interest for impacts of

population and employment distribution for each scenario, such as percent of new households within existing urban service areas. More advanced GIS analysis was done by calculating buffers, or accessibility distance, to such features as parks or transit and to determine proportions of population and employment with access to these services.

2-48

2-49

The most complex analysis involved using geographic variables at different levels. Public service costs for municipalities typically incorporate numerous TAZ’s. The municipal layer was unioned with the TAZ layer so that public services costs could be allocated to TAZ’s and applied to calculate increased costs based on development patterns for each scenario.

Table 2-13 shows preliminary results from comparative analysis of scenarios. In most categories, the so called “Wise Growth” scenario is superior to either the adopted trend forecasts, (the so called “Business as Usual” scenario) and the “Build Out” scenario. There are certain counterintuitive findings however, particularly increases in police/fire/emergency management service expenditures in the “Wise Growth” scenario. This results from higher per capita public expenditures required for urban levels of emergency services in municipalities versus less dense rural areas, raising the possibility that average-cost analysis measures used were inappropriate. Marginal cost measures are difficult to develop in this type of scenario, however. It should be noted results of the comparative alternatives analysis shown in Table 2-13 represent preliminary analysis presented at the December 2001 Town Hall Forums and subsequent committee meetings related to selection of the adopted “Wise Growth” scenario. An earlier regional population estimate shown in this matrix for both “Build Out” and “Wise Growth Build Out” scenarios would impact per capita results shown. This total was subsequently revised downward by the consultant team after normalizing future build out populations to better reflect regional household size distribution. New, revised and adopted final figures, are shown in the rest of this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan, (see Chapter 6 and 9, for examples). However, since the earlier figure used in Table 2-13 was the same in each build out alternative, relative differences between impacts of the two build out scenarios would remain the same and would not impact alternatives selection. Since the horizon year of the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan is 2035, and these build out scenarios are illustrative and not adopted or used in the final plan, no attempt was made to adjust impacts of the two build out scenarios to reflect revised population data or per capita results of these two scenarios as shown elsewhere in the plan. However, it should be noted that absolute impacts of “Build Out” or “Wise Growth Build Out” are overstated by these preliminary results as shown in Table 2-13, since preliminary total regional population figures used to develop the build out totals was between 245,000--345,000 greater than finalized figures. Employment and employment related data shown in Table 2-13 for all scenarios were accurate when this analysis was completed, but have since been revised substantially downward based on new forecasts adopted by TCRPC in June 2008 for the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan. All data for the Trends and “Wise Growth” scenarios were also accurate and not impacted by corrected population figures applied in the finalized “Build Out” and “Wise Growth Build Out” scenarios. Again, relative impacts between the two build out scenarios would not change. Corrected finalized figures from the earlier analysis were used also in the comparative air quality analysis and results

2-49

2-50

discussed in the next section. It should be re-emphasized that at the time this analysis of land use alternatives for the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project was completed:

1. The Tri-County region was not designated as non-attainment area;

2. The current MOBILE 6.2 emissions model was not yet in use;

3. This land use alternatives analysis is not subject to conformity analysis; and

4. That most current population and employment forecasts and emissions models were used in the required conformity analysis for this plan contained in the Plan Supplement.

However, the earlier air quality analysis done for the land use alternatives as originally performed on a 2000 baseline network in 2003 is still illustrative of the relative impacts of the land use alternatives on air quality and remains on point to the Commission’s adoption of a “finding of public necessity” that the adopted “Wise Growth” alternative preserves public health, safety and welfare and documents air quality benefits which support this finding. It also should be noted that newer emissions models now used in conformity analysis would likely have resulted in even greater public health, safety and welfare benefits of the adopted “Wise Growth” alternative than shown below, which is further amplified later in this section.

2-50

2-51

Map 2-9: Wise Growth

2-51

2-52

Table 2-13: Preliminary Comparative Analysis of Scenarios Used in Selecting the Preferred Alternative

Impact category Trend Forecasts

Wise Growth Build Out Wise Growth

Build Out

Agricultural land consumed (acres) 21,889 14,471 39,047 14,471

Open space (not ag) consumed (acres) 11,853 6,868 31,930 6,868

Environmental areas preserved (acres) 195,100 200,100 175,100 200,100

Total developed land area (acres) 201,098 191,002 239,770 191,002

Developed land per capita 0.37 0.35 0.16 0.13

Total non-retail area (acres) 8,106 8,052 15,081 8,052

Total retail area (acres) 19,573 9,519 11,002 9,519

Total residential area (acres) 150,196 145,208 190,464 145,208

Developed residential land per capita 0.27 0.26 0.13 0.10

End-year Population 550,166 550,166 1,462,666 1,462,666

End-Year Retail Employment 68,857 68,857 112,547 112,547

End-Year Non-retail Employment 270,923 270,923 377,378 377,378

Population change (#) 101,913 101,913 1,014,413 1,014,413

Population in developed areas (#) 324,598 352,106 453,426 1,082,373

Population in developed areas (%) 59% 64% 31% 74%

Population in undeveloped areas (#) 225,568 198,060 1,009,240 380,293

Population in undeveloped areas (%) 41% 36% 69% 26% Percent of jobs within 1/4-mile radius of transit routes 61% 67% 48% 66% Percent of households within 1/4-mile radius of transit routes 42% 48% 23% 49% Percent of new households within 2-mile radius of community parks 90% 92% 73% 93% Percent of new households within 1/4-mile radius of neighborhood parks 40% 44% 23% 46%

% of new households in sewer service area 42% 67% 16% 67%

% of new households in water service area 45% 69% 15% 69% New students in excess of existing available capacity* 5,816 2,510 69,359 107,338 New police expenditures (current LOS per unit) $16,512,000 $20,182,000 $113,968,000 $189,401,000 New fire/EMS expenditures (current LOS per unit) $7,183,000 $11,415,000 $60,299,000 $81,987,000 Minority population within 1/4-mile radius of transit routes 44% 90% 21% 26%

* Where information on capacity and enrollment is available.

2-52

2-53

Air Quality Table 2-14 shows MOBILE 5b results for 1995, 2000 and all 2025 land use alternatives prepared for the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. These results compare regional land use choices against base years and the two sets of alternative regional land use scenarios.

The first column after 2000 shows results for the adopted trend forecast. The “Wise Growth” scenario reallocates these adopted 2025 forecasts for population, employment and land uses to city centered focused growth areas with surrounding clustered growth areas. This scenario represents an environmentally friendly urban form characterized as “Wise Growth.” The next set of results is determined from regional “Build Out” population, employment and households based on current maximum permissible densities in all adopted zoning ordinances within 78 governmental jurisdictions. Adopted regional forecasts for 2025 estimated 550,166 population compared to the 2000 Census estimate of 447,728. In contrast, under “Build Out” based on current zoning, estimated population permissible

Table 2-14: Air Quality Analysis Total VOC (HC) Emissions - Kgs/Day

Area 1995 2000 Trend Wise Growth Build Out Wise Growth

Build Out Clinton County 5,558 5,013 5,668 5,382 14,096 8,002Eaton County 5,807 5,029 5,584 5,112 15,334 8,389Ingham County 14,136 12,255 12,088 12,866 21,003 22,915Region 25,501 22,296 23,340 23,360 50,433 39,306 Exhaust CO Emissions - Kgs/Day

Area 1995 2000 Trend Wise Growth Build Out Wise Growth

Build Out

Clinton County 46,937 38,072 41,160 39,141 98,591 57,380Eaton County 46,318 37,031 40,685 37,436 108,889 60,435Ingham County 103,106 87,303 94,627 101,019 164,793 181,973Region 196,362 162,407 176,471 177,596 372,273 299,788 Exhaust NOX Emissions - Kgs/Day

Area 1995 2000 Trend Wise Growth Build Out Wise Growth

Build Out Clinton County 7,865 7,905 10,560 10,088 23,942 14,416Eaton County 7,632 7,196 9,913 9,155 25,808 14,510Ingham County 15,404 14,133 16,514 17,420 27,956 29,628Region 30,901 29,234 36,987 36,663 77,706 58,554

2-53

2-54

under current public policy (adopted zoning) resulted in a regional population of approximately 1.1 million. The “Build Out” population of 1.1 million was also then reallocated to be compatible with the so called “Wise Growth” scenario. TCRPC's travel demand model was applied to evaluate comparative transportation deficiencies of these land use alternatives. For comparability and modeling purposes, the build out period was compressed to a 2025 time horizon consistent with the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan horizon (when this analysis was completed). All future scenarios were analyzed using a 2000 base network. In Michigan this equates to the old Existing Plus Committed network, which basically was limited to projects in the then current Transportation Improvement Program and Michigan Department of Transportation adopted five year program). Since the Tri-County region was an attainment area at the time this analysis was completed and this land use modeling is not subject to a conformity finding, these procedures were deemed acceptable for analysis of regional land use alternatives. EPA’s MOBILE 5b emissions model was applied to results from transportation model runs to generate emissions analysis of regional land use alternatives. Input assumptions used in the MOBILE 5B emission model were generally similar to those used in Michigan conformity analyses. Results shown in Table 2-14 are somewhat interesting and require some interpretation. However, travel model results (see Chapters 9 and 10) showed an increase in congestion, deficiencies and transportation improvement costs in comparing the “Wise Growth” scenario to current adopted trends or the “Business as Usual” scenario. While this is somewhat counterintuitive to what might be expected under a “Smart Growth” scenario, it is a reasonable outcome from the travel model. Concentrating population and employment at higher densities in areas where there is existing infrastructure, as opposed to “Business as Usual” ("scattered low density development"), and on the existing base transportation system without any additional improvements is likely to push some additional facilities which are approaching deficiency into the deficient category and create some new near deficient segments. Further, since the model network used for land use alternatives analysis also assumed existing transit networks, transit service was not optimized in these runs, nor is it possible in the model to adequately account for increased non-motorized trips taken off the network due to various livable, walkable and bike-able community initiatives which are included in the “Wise Growth” scenario. Further, since these were 2025 runs, the additional benefits of five years of additional fleet rollover are not acquired, since emission factors in MOBILE 5b only went out to 2020. At the time of these runs, however release of EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 emissions model (which updated these emission factors and extends them beyond 2025) was not available. Air Quality Conclusions The relatively slight increases in 2025 emissions under the “Wise Growth” scenario, although counterintuitive to proponents of wise growth, are reasonable. However, note differences in emissions between the two “Build Out” scenarios which are based on current densities allowed under existing public policy (“Build Out”) and “Wise Growth Build Out” which allocates the same population, employment and households to accommodate a doubling of population growth to about 1.1 million people. With the same number of persons living and working in this region under either scenario, the so called “Wise Growth”

2-54

2-55

scenario substantially reduces estimated congested miles to approximately half of what otherwise would occur under current zoning. Depending on the assumption, at say a conservative $1 million a mile to retire deficiencies, this would result in an estimated long term cost savings to the taxpayers of 1.8 billion dollars. A more reasonable long term cost estimate of $3 million a mile triples this savings to the taxpayer in the long term. Some of these funds might need to be shifted to transit and non-motorized modes, ITS or other management and operational improvements under this alternative. However, these types of shifts would also result in further emission reductions. In summary, the shorter term (25 year) impacts of “Wise Growth” on the existing transportation network results in a slight increase in deficiencies, costs and a slightly higher rate of emissions. These slight increases are quite negligible, given the caveats above about mode shifts, runs being on an Existing Plus Committed baseline network and extension of fleet turnover for an additional five years of new and cleaner emission factors not in MOBILE 5b. However, at “Build Out,” the transportation cost savings, reduction in congestion and deficient segments and the related emission reductions of “Wise Growth Build Out” are staggering in comparison to costs of transportation investments or implementation of transportation control measures necessary to obtain the same type of reduced emissions, lowered congestion or to retire deficiencies using typical techniques, such as vehicle inspection and maintenance or major roadway widenings. In addition, emissions and transportation benefits of the so called “Wise Growth” scenario may be substantially understated here due to continued network improvements, increased transit and non-motorized use and probably cleaner vehicles or new technologies which may occur in the longer term at regional build out. Alternatives Analysis Public Involvement Process In December 2001 nearly 250 tri-county residents – including business owners, elected and appointed officials, farmers and environmentalists – participated in the “Regional Growth: Choices for our Future” project’s second round of Town Hall Forums. Map 2-10 illustrates attendees by zip code. The Regional Growth project’s alternatives were publicly unveiled at Town Hall Forums in Mason, Grand Ledge, St. Johns and Lansing. Clinton, Eaton and Ingham residents in attendance once again registered their “voices and choices” on the region’s future. For the first time in the project, the true meaning of all the discussion, planning and dialogue about goals and objectives took a concrete form through the scenarios. Attendees carefully examined what the region might look like, based on various trends and policy choices. Attendees viewed two color-coded maps that outlined the region's potential retail, non-retail and residential land growth over the next 20 years. One map showed how the region would look if current trends continued, while the other reflected how the region would look if the

2-55

2-56

project's goals and objectives were fully implemented. They then contrasted these maps against the two Build Out alternatives. Attendees viewed over 40 quantitative and qualitative impacts for each alternative as shown in Table 2-13 and summarized in Table 2-15. Categories for summarizing impacts were:

Community Services; Environmental; Cost of Public Services; Environmental Justice; Utilities; Transportation; Land Use; and Quality of Life.

It should be noted that data shown in Tables 2-13 and 2-15 were preliminary values which subsequently may have been adjusted in later phases of the project. The second round of Town Hall Forums had a similar format to the first. Trained facilitators led participants in small nominal discussion groups. Participants again used hand-held “Option Finder” keypads to immediately respond to questions and register input. Figures 2-15 and Table 2-16 summarize voting on impacts. Selection of the preferred “Wise Growth” alternative is shown on Table 2-16 and Table 2-17. After assessing impacts, participants voted to select which alternative they preferred based on their review of comparative impacts of alternatives by category. Raw votes on alternatives by impact category are shown in Table 2-16. Percentage results are depicted graphically in Figure 2-6. Results show preference for the “Wise Growth” scenario ranged between a low of 81 percent on environmental impacts to a high of 87 percent on land use impacts. After voting based on each impact category, participants were asked to vote directly for their preferred alternative. Voting results on alternative selection are shown in Table 2-17 and graphically in Figure 2-7. Results are consistent with those by impact category, with 79 percent of participants voting for the “Wise Growth” scenario. Generally, things participants said they liked about “Wise Growth” vs. “Business as Usual” include:

Increased access to community parks; Protected natural areas and open space; Decreased agricultural land consumption; Increased access to transit; Increased access to existing public services; Decreased cost and expansion of future infrastructure; Jobs and services located adjacent to developed areas reducing travel times;

2-56

2-57

Decreased expenditures for police, fire and other services. Table 2-15: Summary of Impacts a Farmland and open space consumed in acres b Minority population access to transit c Percentage of population within urban water and sewer service districts d Total developed land in acres e Police, Fire and Emergency Services

Table 2-16: Voting Results by Impact Category By Alternative and Location

Wise Growth Business as Usual Total

Impact Mason Grand Ledge

St. Johns

Lansing Mason Grand Ledge

St. Johns

Lansing Wise Growth

Business as Usual

1. Community Services

25 25 22 46 5 10 3 2 118 20

2. Environment 40 33 25 45 5 5 3 1 143 34 3. Environmental

Justice 33 25 23 42 6 8 3 1 123 18

4. Utilities 40 16 25 35 4 6 9 0 116 19 5. Cost of Public

Service

6. Transportation 16 15 22 23 3 7 4 3 76 17 7. Land Use 30 15 29 44 6 6 3 2 118 17 8. Quality of Life 19 13 25 39 7 8 4 1 96 20

2-57

2-58

Selection of the Future Vision During May 2002 the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission hosted the final set of four Town Hall Forums for the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. Nearly 125 people attended. Participants in this third set of forums were asked to view and react to a set of Themes and Principles that were “reverse engineered” from the “Wise Growth” scenario as selected at previous Town Hall Forums in December 2001. Map 2-11 shows geographic distribution of participation by zip code. Subsequently, attendees were presented with a visual representation of these Themes and Principles in the form of a draft land use policy map and were asked to comment. In near unanimity, the “Future Vision” for the Tri-County region was formed. Map 2-12 shows the regional vision graphically as the adopted land use policy map which identifies:

Forested and environmental preservation areas; Rural agricultural preservation areas; The existing built environment; Urban and village centers; Urban fringe (focused growth) areas; and Transitional (clustered development) areas.

This policy map as initially prepared by the consultant was derived from the preferred alternative: the “Wise Growth” scenario. It was enhanced based on analysis of various land use/cover and other data collected through the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. It was then refined based on input received at the final set of town forums and based on the Goals, Objectives and Themes and Principles discussed in this chapter. The revised map was then adjusted again to reflect review and comment by both the Stakeholders and Steering Committees and to reflect consideration of various other community plans and development activities. This policy map of the regional land use vision was adopted by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan, was re-endorsed by adoption of the Regional 2030 Transportation Plan in 2005, and again when the Plan Supplement was adopted in 2007 and is now being re-adopted again in this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan.

2-58

2-59

Map 2-10: December Town Forum Participants by Zip Code

2-59

2-60

Figure 2-6: Impact Evaluations

81% 82% 83%87%86%87%86%

14%19%

13%18%

14%17%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CommunityServices

Environmental EnvironmentalJustice

Utilities Transportation Land Use Quality of Life

Wise Growth

Business as Usual

Table 2-17: Public Selection of Scenario Total Mason Grand Ledge St. Johns Lansing Wise Growth 128 34 12 35 47

Business as Usual 24 5 10 6 3

None 9 2 0 2 5 Figure 2-7: Scenario Preference

79%

15%6%

Wise Growth

Business as Usual

Neither

2-60

2-61

Finalized Themes and Principles (also adopted by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission as part of the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan) as edited by the Steering Committee and re-endorsed by adoption of the Regional 2030 Transportation Plan, the Plan Supplement and this current plan follow below. Adopted Themes & Principles

Government Principle #1 − Intergovernmental Cooperation & Coordination Every jurisdiction’s action affects other communities within the Tri-County region. All 75 cities, villages, townships and three counties should cooperate and coordinate their decisions and plans so the region is internally cooperative and externally competitive. Principle #2 − Implementation Through Local Action The region includes 75 cities, villages, townships and three counties. It is through development of coordinated local plans, ordinances and policies that the Regional Vision will be implemented. Principle #3 − Issues of Greater than Local Concern Through evaluation and communication, the region should identify issues of greater than local concern, and through consensus building among affected local governments and other stakeholders, promote change in state or federal laws, rules, regulations or other policy. Principle #4 − Public Participation Local jurisdictions should expand and maintain practices, policies, behaviors and procedures that educate and promote continuous and meaningful opportunities for broad citizen and stakeholder participation. Principle #5 − Customer Satisfaction The region should strive for an efficient, predictable and fair way to provide public services to achieve a consistently high level of customer and community satisfaction. Principle #6 − Regional Role The region needs an advocate, facilitator and forum that has the support of local governments, stakeholders and citizens to promote, monitor, refine and assist with implementation of the preferred Regional Vision. This role includes education, coordination and collaboration, dispute prevention and resolution, providing technical assistance (including model ordinances and planning processes) and reporting on successes and failures. Principle #7 − Equitable Growth and Redevelopment Costs and benefits associated with new growth and redevelopment should be proportional for existing residents, the host community and neighboring jurisdictions and shared by developers.

2-61

2-62

Adopted Themes & Principles (continued) Principle #8 − Capital Improvements Strategies Public improvements should be planned in advance and publicly prioritized to maximize benefits of implementing the preferred vision.

Healthy Economy & Healthy Environment Principle #9 − Environmental Protection For long-term regional health and sustainability, the natural environment (land, air and water) should be protected. Principle #10 − Waste Management Local communities should cooperatively plan for changing regional waste management needs including reuse, reduction, recycling and disposal of solid waste. Principle #11 − Energy Consumption Resource conservation and an appropriate mix of renewable and nonrenewable resources should guide future utility expansion. Principle #12 − Housing for All Community Residents Housing needs (type, location, cost, the jobs/housing balance, etc.) of all regional residents should be continuously and fairly addressed balancing the needs of each jurisdiction. Principle #13 − Jobs, Economic Development and Work Force Jobs, economic expansion and workforce development should be emphasized consistent with the preferred Regional Vision to keep the region competitive in a global economy, but not at the expense of environmental health.

Transportation & Other Infrastructure Principle #14 − Transportation Network The regional transportation priority will be to enhance and preserve the existing road network, public transit and non-motorized transportation modes rather than further expansion of the road network in rural areas. Principle #15 − Public Facilities Public facilities (schools, police, fire stations, museums, etc.) should be planned with an emphasis on partnerships among jurisdiction’s service delivery to promote the preferred Regional Vision. Principle #16 − Hazard Mitigation Planning & Emergency Management Disaster preparedness and emergency management strategies should be developed locally and coordinated by regional hazard mitigation planning, which strives to reduce the impacts and cost of potential hazards of both natural or human origin.

2-62

2-63

Adopted Themes & Principles (continued) Principle #17 − Infrastructure Expansion and Replacement Infrastructure expansion and replacement should follow the preferred Regional Vision with clear urban and rural service areas.

Open Space & Resource Protection Principle #18 − Farmland, Open Space & Other Natural Resources Protection Farmland and other natural resources should be protected in an equitable, fiscally responsible manner to preserve the heritage, environment, quality of life and long-term sustainability of the region. Principle #19 − Greenways & Walkability Pathways, sidewalks, trails and on-street bike facilities should be developed and enhanced to provide alternatives to motorized transportation, improve linkages to recreational opportunities for regional residents and provide public health benefits by offering opportunities for physical activity. Principle #20 − Parks & Recreation Expansion and Linkage Parks & recreation development and expansions should emphasize linkage of facilities through greenways based on the regional vision and the adopted Regional Non-Motorized System Plan. Principle #21 − Historic Preservation & Cultural Facilities The region’s significant built and living heritage, historic sites, cultural facilities and neighborhoods should be protected, preserved and enhanced.

Growth & Redevelopment Principle #22 − Compact Settlement All existing cities, villages and townships in the region should establish urban and rural service areas in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions and consistent with the Preferred Vision. New development in the region should occur in urban service areas or in approved rural clusters at densities consistent with the natural capabilities of soils to absorb septic wastes and the community’s ability to adequately meet public service needs. Principle #23 − Transitional Edges and Clustered Development Areas A clear transition when passing from urban, cluster development and agricultural zones should be established to minimize future strip commercial development. Principle #24 − Phased Growth Each jurisdiction should determine its appropriate rate of growth to preserve and enhance their community and infrastructure. Jurisdictions should phase and manage development at a pace that does not put undue hardship on existing populations, neighboring jurisdictions, municipal services or the natural environment.

2-63

2-64

Adopted Themes & Principles (continued) Principle #25 − Agricultural Economy To enhance synergy between the regional economy and agricultural production, the entire region should emphasize regulation of development on rural lands. Principle #26 − Strengthening the Urban Core The long-term economic sustainability of the region depends on strong urban cores. Therefore, our highest priority is for local units of government, stakeholders and citizens to take such measures as necessary to ensure that urban cores are viable and competitive, that urban residential neighborhoods remain quality places to live and that urban school districts remain on par with other area schools. Principle #27 − Focused Growth Urban fringe areas should have the second priority to be enhanced, developed and redeveloped prior to similar development outside designated urban service areas. Principle #28 − Viable Neighborhoods Implement traditional neighborhood planning and design concepts (walkable elementary schools, mixed use zoning, village/community design, etc.) to: maintain or re-establish viable neighborhoods; attract new residents; and eliminate impetus for existing residents to migrate to new developments. Principle #29 − High Density / Mixed Use Encourage development of higher density mixed use to take advantage of existing infrastructure and services and enhance urbanized areas as a priority over development in rural areas. Development of the Action Plan A draft regional Action Plan was then prepared by consultants based on initial Vision and Goals established at the July 2001 Town Hall Forums. Also considered were revised Themes and Principles and the adopted regional land use policy map shown earlier in this chapter. Repeated input received during Task Force, Stakeholder and Steering Committee meetings also contributed to revisions of the action plan. Consisting of nearly 200 individual actions, these Vision, Goals and Objectives provide a general framework for continuing implementation of the regional land use vision. Due to the magnitude of these tasks, and the overwhelming need for collaboration, “facilitators” were initially identified for each objective. These facilitators will initially be coordinated by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, but it is anticipated a self sufficient implementation process will be established. A copy of the current version of the Action Plan has been included in the back of this document as Appendix B. This draft document has already received a large amount of public input and extensive review and comment by the Stakeholders and the Steering Committee. However, in spite of the broad representative nature of these groups, not all “facilitators” have been involved directly in creating this draft and work to further refine this

2-64

2-65

action plan is anticipated to continue. Accordingly, this draft is included in the Appendices, since refining and finalizing it with input from the Advisory Committees, facilitators, the Commission and general public remains to be completed. As these steps are completed they will represent the next phase of moving towards further implementation as shown in Map 2-12 and in the Themes and Principles identified earlier in this chapter. Why is the Project Unique? Many local governments in the Tri-County region participated in planning activities. While local governments have the ability to both plan for their own future land use vision and enforce that vision through zoning, the Tri-County region does not have regional government and no regional land use enforcement authority exists. All land use decisions are made locally. Development of a shared regional land use vision through the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project has created a unique focal point for cooperation by local governments to address issues which are greater than local concern. This effort has been selected as a national model of best practice in regional land use and transportation planning by federal officials and national professional organizations. Facing Issues Greater Than Local Concerns The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission acts in cooperation with local governments and can provide advice and planning assistance on issues of greater than local concern. Issues of greater than local concern include traffic congestion, groundwater protection, economic development, hazard mitigation and pollution prevention. These issues cross local government borders and cannot be effectively addressed alone by any one county, city or village. Rather, they require cooperation among many adjacent jurisdictions to effectively address each issue. Issues of regional growth and development impact cities, suburbs and rural areas in different ways. The Tri-County “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project has taken into account viewpoints from all areas of the region and developed a shared vision of future regional growth patterns. While this regional plan is only advisory in nature, the information is being presented to local governments for consideration to adopt portions of the Growth Project appropriate to their needs. The Tri-County “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project is unique in that it attempts to develop a regional future land vision that takes into account concerns of the entire region. Relationship to the Regional Transportation Plan The Tri-County “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project is also unique in that it has been integrated in the Tri-County region’s transportation planning process. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission is responsible for transportation planning throughout the entire region.

2-65

2-66

Map 2-11: May Town Forum Participants by Zip Code

2-66

2-67

Map 2-12: Future Vision for the Region

2-67

2-68

It is clear that land use and transportation are connected. A typical representation of this connectivity is shown in Figure 2-8 depicting the land use – transportation cycle. This typical representation of the land use-transportation cycle results in a near continuous need for costly roadway capacity expansion to accommodate new developments in suburban, fringe and rural areas of the region, while the existing built transportation system retains underutilized capacity. Figure 2-8: The Land Use – Transportation Cycle

By defining an agreed upon land use basis for regional transportation decision making which encourages new development in proximity to this underutilized capacity, the regional growth land use vision enhances the connection between land development and existing transportation system capacity, which reduces long term needs for future roadway expansion in rural areas throughout the region. By establishing land use policies which promote higher density, mixed use development in proximity to existing transportation infrastructure and services, future roadway capacity deficient lane miles are reduced to roughly half of what would otherwise occur under current public land use policy. The result is long term tax savings on roadway expansion costs of between 1.8 and 4.8 billion dollars which would otherwise be required if the current land use – transportation cycle continues unabated. By better integrating the regional land use vision in transportation planning, investments in the existing system become better connected to future land development activity. This

Demand for Bigger and Better Roads

Congestion

Changing Land Use

New Development Opportunity

Increased Capacity and Access

Transportation Improvement

2-68

2-69

results in a more efficient transportation system and long term savings on road construction costs to local and state governments, taxpayers and the private sector. This connectivity was reinforced by adopting the shared regional land use vision as an integral component of the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan in March 2003, as re-endorsed in the Regional 2030 Transportation Plan in 2005, again in the 2007 Plan Supplement and now in this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan. In adopting the regional land use vision, the Commission made a finding that implementing the principles and policy map is necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare and is in keeping with their fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to use federal transportation dollars wisely and to establish priorities for use of federal transportation funds. In the resolution adopting the preferred vision through each Regional Transportation Plan the Commission indicated its intent to consider whether future transportation project proposals are consistent with the policy map and principles (discussed above) as part of the process and criteria used to establish priorities for use of federal transportation funds. The Commission also indicated their intent to consider whether individual local governments and responsible transportation agencies have agreed to implement the policy map and principles as part of the criteria they will consider when establishing priorities for future federally funded transportation projects and funding. Regional transportation goals and objectives were also reviewed as part of the growth project town forums, to assure better linkage between land use and transportation goals. Transportation goals and objectives were modified to better reflect input received and the regional land use goals and objectives. Further, regional land use principles were integrated throughout transportation plan goals, objectives, short and long term investment strategies, project selection criteria and elsewhere, and the Commission certified that all projects contained in the Regional Transportation Plan are consistent with the preferred regional land use vision. These basic concepts are also being re-endorsed with adoption of this Regional 2035 Transportation Plan. The Commission has also integrated results of this project as part of the federally required process to manage existing and future traffic congestion within the region. No federal transportation funds may be used to expand roadway capacity unless they are for projects developed through this federally mandated and locally approved congestion management process. An important function of the Tri-County “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project was to provide a generalized future land use plan on which regional transportation planning decisions can be based. In essence, the growth project provides an adopted land use basis on which to plan for future road and transit needs. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission’s Regional 2035 Transportation Plan is based on the land use vision created in the growth project. This process of forming a relationship between regional land use planning and regional transportation planning has been recognized as a national model of best practice by federal officials.

2-69

2-70

The Planning Phase of the Project is Over Work from the planning phase has resulted in information necessary for local units of government to take the next step and consider implementing portions of the project appropriate to their local planning goals through their comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and other actions. Products have been submitted to local governments, citizens and others for implementation and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission convened a new Implementation Steering Committee and task forces to focus on specific items contained in the action and implementation plan. Project implementation will continue over the next several decades. To date the land use policy body covering 44 local jurisdictions and 79.4 percent of the region’s population, plus two Road Commissions and numerous other public agencies have adopted the future land use policy map and themes and principles, mostly by resolutions directing their staff, consultants and planning commissioners to implement that map and principles. Actions by other local governments and agencies are still pending. Examples of Growth Project Implementation The following examples show how results of the growth project are already being applied to local community efforts.

Transportation Plan: As noted, the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan and its predecessors documents have all been based on the preferred land use alternative from the growth project and results are being applied as criteria in considering future priorities for federal transportation funds.

Various Transportation Planning Best Practice Citations:

Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and other national transportation planning professional organizations have recognized the Tri-County regional growth project as a national model for linking land use and transportation decisions.

Implementation by Local Governments: Clinton County, the City of Mason, Delhi Township and other local governments have already used the project as a basis for, or to assist in developing, their own future comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances. Similar efforts are also in progress by several other local governments, including the City of Lansing.

Assisting Ingham County Planning Efforts: Since Ingham County does not have its own planning department, information from the growth project has been used to support implementing land use and environmental policies and programs of county government.

Implementation by MSU Extension Citizen Planner Program: The MSU Extension land use education program has drawn information from the

2-70

2-71

growth project to augment its basic training curriculum for planning and zoning officials.

Implementation in Hazard Mitigation Planning:

Regional growth project data has served as the land use basis for developing a regionwide plan to reduce harm from natural disasters should they occur in the Tri-County region.

Relationship to the Governor’s Land Use Leadership Council Report: Many recommendations from the regional growth project closely parallel suggestions for state land use strategies in Governor Granholm’s 2003 Land Use Leadership Council Report. Materials from the project were made available to some members of the council as they were deliberating. The ten principles of smart growth the Governor’s Council used as a basis for their recommendations (which also could become a basis for establishing state land use goals) are very consistent with the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” themes and principles. The ten principles cited by the Governor’s Council are: 1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. 2. Create walkable neighborhoods. 3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration. 4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 5. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective. 6. Mix land uses. 7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental

areas. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. 9. Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities. 10. Take advantage of compact development design.

Other State Initiatives:

In addition, recent activities like the statewide “Cool Communities” conference, the Michigan Transportation Summit and the statewide “Designing Healthy, Liveable Communities” conferences are all focusing greater attention on land use issues in the region and throughout Michigan. As a result of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” effort, our region is well prepared to tap in to, and benefit from, these broader statewide efforts. The Tri-County region is now positioned as the right place at the right time to benefit from formulating a regional land use vision which ties directly to these other statewide activities. The “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” process has demonstrated regional leadership in broad, consensus based land use decision making.

Michigan Climate Action Plan: The Michigan Climate Action Council has prepared a Michigan Climate Action Plan which unanimously recommends (page 6-3) congestion mitigation, increased transit service, management and operations, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and

2-71

2-72

land use planning and incentive strategies which expand regional growth management options which “result in more compact, mixed use, transit-oriented, walkable development as well as transportation system management and pricing that allows for greater investments in alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, such as public transit…” to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) that are creating global climate change. It notes that recommendations for land use planning and incentives has a potential cost savings to the state of up to $598 million between now and 2025 and results in a savings of $189 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent reduction - the highest cost savings of any of the transportation/land use policy options considered. It should be noted that a cost of about $50 a metric ton is generally the range that some experts have cited as a reasonable cost effectiveness performance measure for carbon dioxide reduction. While the literature varies on this point, a $189 per metric ton savings is approximately 4.8 times more cost effective at reducing greenhouse gases then this suggested performance effectiveness measure of a $50 per metric ton cost. Some experts have suggested that land use measures can produce up to a 15 percent reduction in vehcile miles of travel by 2050 and up to a 14 percent GHG reduction while accomodating continued population change through 2050. (see Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Ewing et., Urban Land Institute, 2008). Hence, the regional land use vision could have substantial benefits to reducing GHG emissions and makes the region already ahead of the curve with regard to addressing local, state, national and international GHG reduction goals to address global climate change. In addition the Governor recently issued an Executive Directive (No. 2009-04) related to implementing recommendations of the Michigan Climate Action Plan which requires MDOT to expand congestion management mitigation, ITS, identifying and improving key bottlenecks, constructing modern roundabouts where justified and implementing intermodal freight terminals. The Directive names the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to coordinate implementation and “requires officers of this state or any political subdivision of this state” to give the Department any necessary assistance in performing its duties under this Directive. The Regional Vision expressly supports implementation of this Directive.

Opportunities for Unique Interagency Cooperation: The project allowed many unique interagency partnerships to develop. For example: cooperative efforts by the MSU Extension and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission were substantially enhanced through this project. The organizations jointly funded a unique staff position as a regional land use agent for six years to assist in the project planning and implementation process. This partnership brought extensive resources and support from the MSU Extension program to assist in public involvement efforts throughout the project. The Commission now retains that position as a local funded land use planner.

Greening Mid-Michigan: The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission is currently partnering with the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) and other agencies to complete the Greening Mid-Michigan Project (GMMP). The GMMP will provide detailed maps and

2-72

2-73

information about natural resources and green infrastructure throughout the tri-county area that was previously unavailable. The GMMP will serve stakeholders on many levels. For example, local and county governments can utilize natural resource information provided by the GMMP to supplement their Comprehensive Plans or Park and Recreation Plans. Also, private stakeholders can access the information to help shape their habitat protection and development priorities. In this way, the GMMP will serve as an valuable tool for agencies and groups in the mid-Michigan area to identify valuable natural areas and networks. The GMMP includes three phases of work: a Potential Conservation Area plan, comprehensive natural resource identification and a green infrastructure mapping and public engagement component for Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties. The first phase, funded by TCRPC’s transportation planning program, the Potential Conservation Area plan, maps and defines those places on the landscape dominated by native vegetation that have potential for harboring high quality natural areas. These areas are ranked as low, medium or high priorities for conservation. Funded by Clinton, Eaton and Ingham counties, the second phase involves creation of additional parcel and threatened species specific data collected for each county. The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) will house this data, and created general GIS layers of high priority areas for public use. Due to the fragile circumstance of some flora and fauna and water resources in mid-Michigan, the parcel specific data will not be openly available to the public, but can be accessed through the MNFI. This second phase provides a “value-added” aspect to the GMMP. The first and second phases are now complete and identify potential regional conservation areas. Products are also shown and used in the Plan Supplement as part of the Environmental Mitigation section. Through public meetings and input, the third phase focuses on aligning locations for future conservation efforts with existing land uses, comprehensive land use plans and development priorities. These efforts will strengthen regional cooperation and land use planning, while enhancing awareness of preserving regional natural areas to create green infrastructure areas and networks. This phase is currently in progress and is being funded by a People and Lands (PAL) grant through the Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance (MTGA) and the Lansing Economic Area Partnership (LEAP) and will result in a Regional Green Infrastructure Plan which identifies a proposed regional greenways or green infrastructure system, as recommended by the Regional Growth project. Other participating partners and funders include each of the three local county parks departments, conservation districts, MDOT, the Ingham County Agricultural Preservation Board, the Clinton and Eaton County Community Development Departments, the Eaton and Ingham County Natural Resources Conservation Services, the Greater Lansing Regional Stormwater Committee, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Quality Deer Management, Eaton County Pheasants Forever and General Motors.

2-73

2-74

This activity illustrates how the TCRPC , as the MPO, continues to proactively work with a group of non-traditional public-private partners to address recommended implementation action steps which were results of Regional Growth project while also proactively working to engage resource, land use and economic development agencies in early consultation and environmental mitigation activities. The products of each phase of the GMMP will assist the MPO in fulfilling those responsibilities and are shown related to Regional 2035 Transportation Plan projects in he Environmental Mitigation section of the Plan Supplement. Additional information on the GMMP project can be found at www.greenmidmichigan.org or www.mitcrpc.org under the transportation planning public participation button.

Land Use and Health Team: One of the local activities allied with the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project has been the Land Use and Health Team. The purpose of the Land Use and Health Team is to educate and engage the community regarding impacts of the built environment on health. The team consists of representatives from local planning departments, Michigan State University, businesses and public health agencies as facilitated by the Ingham County Health Department. As there is a growing of body of evidence indicating that the design of the built environment impacts the physical and mental health of residents, the Land Use and Health Team cooperates with the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in order to highlight health-related issues relevant to the Growth Project’s implementation. An example of this cooperation is highlighted in the Growth Project’s “Greenways and Walkability Principle” which states that trails and walkways can provide public health benefits by offering opportunities for physical activity. Public health experts suggest that increased opportunity for physical activity can result in a decreased risk of obesity, diabetes and poor heart health. Land use and health activities also support other growth project principles. The Land Use and Health Team coordinates many activities, such as creating a health impact assessment tool for planners to use in reviewing development proposals and the team’s work has been cited for model best-practice awards. More information about the land use and health team can be found at: www.cacvoices.org/environment.

Sub-Regional Cooperation Efforts: The growth project has provided numerous opportunities for city and township governments to plan together for their combined growth and has provided numerous maps and other products to facilitate these efforts throughout the region. In addition, TCRPC is using the adopted policy map and principles from the regional growth project as a foundation for commenting on local comprehensive plans and zoning changes under the Coordinated Planning Act and in other sub-regional planning efforts of the agency. TCRPC also sponsors a monthly “planners brown bag lunch” series to enhance networking, training and coordination by planning professionals in the region.

2-74

2-75

Urban and Rural Service Districts/Boundaries Committee: The Urban and Rural Service Districts/Boundaries (USRD/USB) Committee is an implementation activity of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. The Committee and its 20 member governments have met over 27 times since 2004 and demonstrate a multi-year commitment to study service boundaries and shared services between jurisdictions and is pursuing a policy solution to the issue of urban service expansion based on the following elements of regionalism: - Establishing visions and goals, and setting new policy to achieve those goals; - Looking at process: using visioning and planning to create a fair structure; - District and boundary lines that are flexible; - Collaboration emphasized through voluntary agreement; - There is a binding trust rather than accountability; and - Empowerment created by the constructive involvement of many communities.

The urbanized core communities and rural communities that surround it are equal partners in this endeavor. The Committee believes the entire region will benefit from the outcome of a successful urban service boundary strategy in terms of farmland and natural resource protection, savings in infrastructure costs and air pollution reductions. The Committee is determined to successfully implement an urban service boundary policy that strengthens relationships between local jurisdictions based on trust and equitable distribution of resources, and further believes the most efficient manner to declare an equitable policy is to complete a detailed study and analysis of existing implementation strategies. The Committee is currently seeking additional funding and staff support for this effort through a Land Information Access Association’s (LIAA) 2009 “Partnerships for Change: Sustainable Communities” grant.

Future Steps With the planning phase of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project complete, what other future steps are being taken to implement results of this project? Once the planning team completed their work, it was presented in a regional leadership briefing and transmitted to each community so that local governments and organizations can consider how to best put the project into action consistent with local objectives. The project poster plan, summary report, transportation plan and other supporting materials serve as primary vehicles for distributing growth project information to the community. Information about this project is being “taken on the road” to local governments in the region so that messages from the project can be carried directly to local communities. A “toolbox” of implementation ideas is also being considered to provide practical details to assist local communities and the region in bringing results of the project to fruition.

2-75

2-76

With the planning portion of the project complete, the Tri-County “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project initiated the important steps where local communities were asked to consider adopting the vision and principles as their own. Examples of what local communities were asked to consider include:

Adopting a resolution of support from the legislative body for the themes, principles and policy map;

Motion of support from planning commissions (where applicable); Commitment from administration to utilize Themes and Principles as a check list; Commitment of jurisdictions to participate in implementation of the action plan; Annual updates of the poster plan and wall plaques to identify endorsing

communities; and Hosting training programs to educate citizens on importance of the project.

In addition, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission created an Implementation Steering Committee and various task forces (see Figure 2-9) to review, refine and finalize the detailed action plan prepared to further implement results of the project. This action plan lists seven vision statements (broad policy guidelines) for the region to achieve. These are:

1. Promote preservation of the natural, non-renewable resources in the region. 2. Utilize resources wisely and guide growth to achieve the regional vision. 3. Promote and maintain a high quality of life for residents of the region. 4. Encourage a regional approach to development and planning which includes

inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination among the seventy-five jurisdictions and with Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties.

5. Establish a regional approach to parks and recreation services that emphasize natural resources.

6. Enhance the regional economic development engine to provide sustainable services and employment for current and future citizens.

7. Include formalized, facilitated and broad-based public involvement in planning. These vision statements are then further defined in the action plan through nearly 200 specific implementation goals and objectives to fully integrate the vision in the fabric of regional life. The new Implementation Steering Committee and task forces are charged to identify priorities on these action steps, develop work plans, budgets, schedules and identify responsible agencies to accomplish each of these goals and objectives. Examples of goals and objectives from the action plan shown below are related to wise growth vision statement (item 2, above).

2-76

2-77

Vision: Utilize resources wisely and guide growth to achieve the regional vision.

Goal Site regional public facilities, services and major developments in population centers in or adjacent to existing infrastructure and service areas. Objectives:

Cooperate on a regional basis in developing public facilities. Locate public facilities in proximity to public transit.

Goal Discourage large lot, low density as a primary zoning category. Objectives:

Provide incentives (density bonuses, special assessment districts, etc.) for cluster development and Planned Unit Developments (PUD).

Change zoning ordinances to limit low-density, single family as a use by right.

Implement state and local access management guidelines to preserve the transportation network and community character along collector and arterial roads.

Goal

Encourage high density development in areas served by public utilities. Objectives:

Encourage urban service boundaries. Develop local design and community character guides to ensure quality in

high density development. Revise ordinances and regulations to pass the true installation and long

term maintenance costs on to property owners requesting utility expansion.

Coordinate new development with transit.

Final Focus Group Results As part of finalizing the planning phase of the Regional Growth project, planners conducted a series of focus groups in May 2004 which gathered opinions from a random sample of citizens from urban, suburban and rural areas of the region and leaders from throughout the region concerning their preferences for implementing results of the project. Some key results of these focus groups are listed below.

2-77

"Exi

stin

g"St

eerin

gC

omm

ittee

"New

"Im

plem

enta

tion

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ee

Coo

rdin

atin

gC

ounc

il

Fund

ing

Publ

ic

Invo

lvem

ent

& E

duca

tion

Nat

ural

R

esou

rces

&

Park

s an

d R

ecre

atio

n

Expl

anat

ion

of P

lan

1. "

Exis

ting"

Ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

turn

s in

to "

New

" Im

plem

enta

tion

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ee

2. P

ropo

sed

Func

tions

of "

New

" Im

plem

enta

tion

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ee.

O

rgan

izat

ion

of Im

plem

enta

tion

Task

For

ces

C

oord

inat

ion

of Im

plem

enta

tion

Act

iviti

es/A

genc

ies

A

ccou

ntab

ility

to L

ocal

Uni

ts o

f Gov

ernm

ent

F

inan

ce a

nd R

esou

rces

3. I

mpl

emen

tatio

n C

oord

inat

ing

Cou

ncil

C

hairs

and

Vic

e C

hairs

of T

ask

Forc

es a

nd e

xist

ing

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

omm

ittee

s - l

eade

rs

rec

ruite

d fro

m S

take

hold

ers

4. T

ask

Forc

es

Top

ics

for T

ask

Forc

es to

be

dete

rmin

ed b

y "N

ew" I

mpl

emen

tatio

n S

teer

ing

C

omm

ittee

:

-

Fund

ing

-P

ublic

Invo

lvem

ent &

Edu

catio

n

-

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es &

Par

ks a

nd R

ecre

atio

n

-

Wis

e G

row

th, R

egio

nal A

ppro

ach,

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent &

Qua

lity

of L

ife

T

ask

forc

e m

embe

rs re

crui

ted

from

exi

stin

g gr

owth

pro

ject

par

ticip

ants

and

new

m

embe

rs (a

s ap

prop

riate

by

topi

c ar

ea),

iden

tify

prio

ritie

s on

act

ion

step

s,

sch

edul

es, d

evel

op w

ork

plan

s an

d bu

dget

s, a

nd id

entif

y re

spon

sibl

e ag

enci

es to

im

plem

ent a

ctio

n st

eps

deve

lope

d by

Reg

iona

l Gro

wth

Pro

ject

turn

s in

to

"Reg

iona

l Gro

wth

: Cho

ices

for O

ur F

utur

e" P

roje

ctFu

ture

Pla

ns fo

r Ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

Tra

nsiti

on

Tri-C

ount

y R

egio

nal P

lann

ing

Com

mis

sion

Ver

sion

#4:

Mar

ch 1

0, 2

005

Wis

e G

row

th, R

egio

nal A

ppro

ach,

Ec

onom

ic D

evel

opm

ent &

Qua

lity

of L

ife

2-78

2-79

Of participants, 92 percent voted “yes” to the question “should the region implement the vision,” the final question posed to each group. Citizens responding “yes” total 94 percent. Leaders totaled 88 percent “yes votes.” Figure 2-10 shows the final results of this vote.

Figure 2-10: Focus Group Results:

The following bullets summarize key results to general feedback received on the project, as based on a zero to ten scale, with zero to one representing “Not at All Important,” four to six representing “Moderately Important” and nine to ten representing “Crucial/Very Important.” The scores shown below represent the average response to key questions posed to leaders and randomly selected citizens stratified based on geographic area types.

On the question “How important is it that neighboring governments and special districts work together to implement the regional vision?” − leaders averaged a 7.6 score and citizens averaged a 9.4.

On the question “How important is it that neighboring governments and

special districts work together to coordinate planning efforts?” − citizens averaged a 9.6 and leaders averaged an 8.4.

On the question “How much priority do you place on implementation of the

regional vision?” − leaders averaged a 7.1, while citizens averaged an 8.5.

On the question “How important is it that your community financially support the implementation of the regional vision?” − citizens averaged 8.3, leaders a 5.9.

On the question “To what degree do you support implementation of this

vision?” − citizens averaged an 8.6 and leaders averaged a 7.4.

Public & Leadership Response

Yes92%

No8%

Tri-County Regional Growth Project: Choices For Our FutureMay 2004 Focus Group Results

Should the Region Implement the Vision ?

Tri-County Regional Growth Project: Choices For Our FutureMay 2004 Focus Group Results

Should the Region Implement the Vision ?

2-79

2-80

A consistent pattern emerged on all of these questions among the three citizen

groups, with the strongest support shown in urban residents, followed in order by suburban/fringe and rural residents.

On average, on a zero to ten point scale, with 10 being highest, leaders’ average

levels of understanding for all 29 principles was 9.08. For citizens, this level of average understanding was 8.79.

Average levels of agreement with the 29 principles was 8.07 among leaders,

8.28 among citizens.

Among leaders, the average level of agreement to the question “To what level does the regional vision map correspond with your vision of how the region should grow?” − was 7.6 on a zero to ten point scale. Among citizens, this average was 7.1

These key findings in focus groups are summarized in Figure 2-11 and are extremely supportive of consensus reached on the regional vision’s policy map and principles among citizens and area leaders alike. How will the Region Look Different If It Implements the Regional Vision? A portion of time spent by these focus groups offered visual depictions which portrayed ranges of design choices or options for how the region will grow if current trends continue, in contrast to how the region will look if it implements the policy map, themes and principles. Participants were asked to vote for which image or design choice they preferred. Results from visual choice voting in these focus groups generally showed that the majority of all leaders and citizens were on the upper end of a one to four scale (where one is the lowest) for moderate to aggressive urban design options associated with implementing the regional land use vision and principles. Put another way, gauging leaders or citizens’ support for moderate to aggressive implementation of design choices consistent with the regional land use principles would typically fall in the 65-70 percentile range, with citizens having a slightly greater likelihood of being near the top of this range and leaders nearer to the lower end of this range. These results are broadly consistent with consensus shown on other elements of the regional vision using other measures provided in the focus groups and other public involvement efforts throughout the project. The images shown below depict some of these “Choices” for different parts of the region, as examples of how things will look differently if the region implements the “Wise Growth” recommendations of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project.

2-80

7.6

9.4

8.4

9.6

7.1

8.5

5.9

8.3

7.4

8.6

9.08

8.79

8.078.28

7.6

7.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10A

vera

ge

Work toge

ther t

o implem

ent

Neighbors

coord

inate pl

anning

Priorit

y to im

plemen

t

Financia

lly su

pport

Degree

of suppo

rt

Underst

anding prin

ciples

Agree w

ith prin

ciples

Policy m

ap =

vision

Leader Average Citizen Average

2-81

2-82

If pictures are worth a thousand words, the following images have been selected to give citizens and leaders a chance to visualize how areas of the region will look differently if it develops design options based on the land use policy map, themes and principles in contrast to how it will look if current trends continue. The images below illustrate examples of key concepts associated with these alternative future choices and design options. Which images do you prefer for the region’s future and for your children and grandchildren? Figure 2-12 shows the existing rural land use pattern which is typically developed as rural strip residential. Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show environmental preservation and agriculture land preservation. These alternatives can be enhanced using clustered development patterns on the urban fringe, as proposed on the adopted policy map, and as shown in Figure 2-15. Figure 2-12: Rural Strip Residential Figure 2-13: Environmental

Preservation

Figure 2-14: Agriculture Preservation

Figure 2-15: Cluster Development

2-82

2-83

Figure 2-16 shows typical large lot single family residential as it is developing today. Figure 2-17 depicts how higher density single family residential might look in focused growth areas under the preferred regional land use vision. Figure 2-16: Large Lot Residential Figure 2-17: Higher Density Residential In Focused Growth Areas

2-83

2-84

These figures show development in the urban core if current trends (like strip commercial) continue in contrast to higher density commercial infill and mixed use redevelopment. High density mixed use and infill development provide choices which strengthen the urban core under the adopted land use alternative. Figure 2-18: Strip Commercial Figure 2-19: High Density Infill

Figure 2-20: Strip Commercial

Figure 2-21: High Density Mixed Use Redevelopment

2-84

2-85

Figures 2-22 and 2-23 contrast single family residential development in smaller communities as they are developing today with similar housing in higher density traditional village developments, which help to preserve agriculture land and open spaces. Redeveloping smaller communities with higher density traditional village developments will support smaller communities’ long term economic viability, as well as providing more affordable housing, employment and transportation options. Figure 2-22: Small Urban/Village Single Family Residential Figure 2-23: Higher Density Traditional Village Residential Development

2-85

2-86

Figures 2-24 and 2-253 contrast a typical traditional suburban residential design with a clustered development site plan, which might occur on the suburban fringe under the Wise Growth option, which also preserves open space and agriculture lands. Figure 2-24: Traditional Suburban Development Figure 2-25: Higher Density Clustered Development

2-86

2-87

Figures 2-26 and 2-27 contrast traditional suburban development on the fringe to a mixed use site plan. Mixed use provides close to home shopping, work and recreational opportunities at higher densities with lower transportation costs. Figure 2-26: Traditional Suburban Development Figure 2-27: Mixed Use

2-87

2-88

Monitoring In order to measure success of the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project, a task force was assembled to develop a methodology, process and list of indicators. These indicators will be essential in monitoring long term success and impact of implementing the Regional Growth project. Overview of Indicators Indicators are essentially measurements. Most simply, an indicator is something that directly measures something, such as temperature in a location or the amount of a contaminant in river water. Indicators also can measure things that are not physical. Often a useful indicator measures perceptions or opinions through the use a survey. For example, businesses often use customer satisfaction surveys to rate how well they provide quality products and services. Indicators can be complex measurements requiring significant time and effort to produce. An example of this comes from the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research. The institute conducted an elaborate study to measure achievement of Maryland’s Smart Growth Policy. To measure reduction in urban sprawl, the institute developed an indicator of “the continuity of unbroken urban development.” This measure is defined as “the percentage of 40-acre urban cells that are a contiguous part of the largest unbroken grouping of urban development in the county.” This kind of indicator requires more than just simple data collection but can be extremely valuable as a measurement of sprawl. How many indicators are necessary? A rule of thumb gleaned from review of a sample of projects around the country suggests between a dozen and perhaps 50 indicators is sufficient to measure a variety of conditions without becoming too complex to manage or understand. Indicators often are grouped into categories or issue areas, the three most basic and common ones being environmental, social and economic. Other common categories include education, families and youth, crime and safety, housing, land use, transportation and mobility, recreation, equity, civic engagement and health. One of the most important qualities that lead to effective indicators is that they measure outcomes or conditions of a system or resource and not activities, effort or money spent to affect those conditions, although these may be useful milestones to monitor progress of action steps. Use of Indicators Indicators are like report cards to the community. They tell us where we are doing well and where we need to focus energies to improve. First, measurements are collected and produced for an indicator to establish “baseline” conditions in the community. In order to distinguish a good grade from a poor one, results need to be interpreted and given meaning before they are reported. Interpretation involves comparing measurements over time as well as placing them in a larger context. For example, reporting that median

2-88

2-89

household income was $38,000 for a given year does not tell us much. On the other hand, if median household income is shown to have increased five percent in a given period then we can begin to determine whether that indicates progress or not. A comparison over time does not tell us everything. We still need to provide some context in order to understand more fully what measurements mean. What if, in the median household income example, inflation increased in the same period by ten percent? What if median household income increased faster or slower in comparable communities, or in the state or nation as a whole? An effective indicator report should include this kind of analysis and comparisons whenever possible. Proposed Indicators The consultant team and a Task Force identified the following set of indicators.

Percentage of residential units in urbanized areas built at densities greater than or equal to 3.5 units per acre.

Percentage of non-residential development in urbanized areas built at greater than or equal to 0.25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

Percentage of 40-acre urban cells contiguous to the largest unbroken grouping of urban development in the study area.

Percentage of residential development concentrated in areas where residential uses are at least 25 percent of land area.

At least three-fourths of new residential development should occur within the first three rings of urban development.

Employment growth (number of jobs) in and around high-density employment centers.

Jobs per housing balance per census tract. Number of mixed-use developments constructed annually. Connectivity refers to number of road connections or “nodes” within subdivisions. Percentage of residential development with densities of one dwelling unit per

acre or higher that occurs in areas planned for sewer and water. Acres of land preserved in perpetual open space. Acres of environmentally sensitive lands in large contiguous sections acquired or

preserved by easement. Percentage of prime agricultural areas (measured in acres) still in active

agricultural production This initial set of indicators needs further refinement, adoption and identification of responsible agencies or mechanisms for data collection and reporting. Many of these proposed indicators require new data collection, manipulation, analysis and reporting of existing data from throughout the region by a single designated group or agency. Funding and staffing needs or issues must be addressed so that this effort can commence to effectively monitor and report progress at implementing the regional vision on an ongoing

2-89

2-90

annual basis. These issues will be taken up by the Implementation Steering Committee and Task Forces. Experiences of other regions teaches us that creation and measurement of indicators takes considerable time, but the effort to measure progress towards an integrated land use and transportation future for Tri-County will be worth the effort. “What gets measured gets done.”

2-90