1. The General Plan UPDATE City Council Meeting September 19, 2011

2. 2 2011 Resident’s Survey Results City of Pasadena 2011 Resident’s Survey

3. 3 A B C 2011 Resident’s Survey Results

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7 June 2011 General Plan Survey

8. 888 General Plan Schedule Fall 2010 Drafting the Alternatives Workshops & Charrette 2009 to Spring 2010 Identifying the Issues Phase I Outreach Winter/Spring 2011 Analyzing & Selecting the Preferred Alternative Workshops & Survey Reviewing the Policies & Developing the Concept Plan Presenting the Concept Plan; Completing the EIR

9. 9 Draft Concept Plan Guiding principles General Plan survey results: Citywide Components Planning Areas Economic Development Strategic Plan Outreach on the policies Environmental considerations such as greenhouse gas emissions

10. 2011 General Plan Update: Survey Results Presentation to City of Pasadena, Pasadena City Council September 19, 2011 10

11. Research Objectives Assess the level of support and agreement with the guiding principles, themes and objectives of the City’s General Plan and Determine preferences for each of the four land use alternatives with the City’s six planning areas and the factors influencing each preference. Evaluate support for the existing mobility objectives. 11

12. Methodology 2,893 responses to online and mail survey  Surveys completed: June 10 – July 13, 2011  1,848 completed mail surveys, 1,045 completed web surveys and more than 300 completed surveys from each of Pasadena’s six zip codes.  Survey offered and completed in English and Spanish for the mail survey  Household response rate for Pasadena residents was 5 percent 12

13. Seven Guiding Principles 13

14. Seven Guiding Principles 14

15. Additional Themes 15

16. Comments on Principles 16

17. Agreement with Mobility Statements 17

18. Land Use Alternatives: Description Alternative A Focuses on reducing future growth in the Central District and increasing capacity in East Pasadena and along major streets Alternative B Focuses on improving the City’s economic vitality by allowing new buildings and uses that would help create new jobs Alternative C Focuses future growth around Gold Line stations and along major streets where services, shopping, jobs and bus lines exist Alternative D Focuses on reducing future growth citywide 18

19. Land Use Alternatives: Planning Areas 19

20. Land Use Alternatives: Overall 20

21. Pasadena Zip Codes 21

22. Land Use Alternatives: Central District 22 ABD None C ABD C ABD CABD C ABD C ABD CABD C ABD C

23. Land Use Alternatives: South Fair Oaks 23 ABD None C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C

24. Land Use Alternatives: North Lake 24 ABD None C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C

25. Land Use Alternatives: Fair Oaks / Orange Grove 25 ABD None C ABD C ABD CABD CABD CABD CABD C ABD C

26. Land Use Alternatives: East Colorado Cor. 26 ABD None C ABD C ABD CABD CABD CABD CABD C ABDC

27. Land Use Alternatives: East Pasadena 27 A ABD None C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C ABD C BD C

28. Top Five Influencing Factors, by Area 28

29. Top Five Influencing Factors, by Area 29

30. Resident Zip Codes of Responses 30

31. Work or School Zip Codes of Response 31

32. Conclusions I A balanced response, from a diverse community Over 300 completed surveys from each zip code 94 percent of respondents live in Pasadena and 40 percent work or go to school in the City Over 2,800 completed surveys via online & mail There was strong support for 6 of the 7 existing principles evaluated There was strong support for 2 of the 3 potential themes to be integrated into the guiding principles 32

33. Conclusions II 35 percent of respondents selected the same alternative for each of the six planning areas (Alternative A: 2% of respondents, Alternative B: 6%, Alternative C 10%, Alternative D, 11%) or answered “None” or left the question blank. Across all 2,893 respondents, 58 percent chose Alternative C for at least one planning area, 55 percent selected Alternative B, 39 percent Alternative D, 37 percent chose Alternative A, and six percent answered “None” or left the question blank. 33

34. Conclusions III Alternative C was the most preferred alternative within each planning area, followed by Alternative B (except in the Central District). However support for any one alternative was never over 33%. The preferred alternatives for the Central District were the most divided with three of the four alternatives receiving between 20% and 30% of responses indicating they were the preferred alternative. 34

35. 35 Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow

36. Overall Response Rate by Zip Code 36 Table 5: Source: U.S. Census, 2000