MEMORANDUM - CITY OF PASADENA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DATE:

July 29, 2010

TO:

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION

FROM:

MARK YAMARONE, TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR

SUBJECT:

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND MOBILITY ELEMENT UPDATE METRICS REPORT

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Transportation Advisory Commission review and provide comment on the attached General Plan Update Metrics Report. Description of Metrics Report During outreach for the new General Plan Update in 2009, participants asked for objective data summarizing the changes in the community since the last General Plan Update. This report provides data regarding the statistical changes that have occurred in the City since the 1994 and 2004 General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements were adopted and provides status on the policy directives given those documents. This report can be used as a reference during the next steps of the update, which includes the development and selection of land use and mobility alternatives. The statistical analysis covers the following subject areas: • • •

Population growth Commercial development Transit

• • •

• • •

Central District changes Historic preservation Water and power

• •

Housing development Travel characteristics Transit oriented development Economic development Open space and parks

Transportation Advisory Commission General Plan Metrics Report July 29, 2010 Page 2

The section regarding the implementation measures of the General Plan provides information about the following: • • • • • •

Specific plans Zoning and Municipal Code amendments Economic Development and Employment Element Citywide design principles Redevelopment areas Environmental conservation

• • •

Zoning Map amendments Green Space and Conservation Element Arts and Culture Element

• •

Historic preservation Master development plans

The report also contains an Executive Summary, which paints a broad picture of what has changed since 1994 and an Appendix. The Appendix provides more than 75 tables, charts, and graphs for those that desire an in depth understanding.

Attachments: 1. General Plan Metrics Report & Appendix

GENERAL PLAN LAND-USE AND MOBILITY ELEMENT UPDATE

- DRAFT -

Metrics Report

City of Pasadena July 15, 2010

(this page is intentionally left blank)

Executive Summary During outreach for the new General Plan Update in 2009, participants asked for objective data summarizing the changes in the community since the last General Plan Update. This report provides data regarding the statistical changes that have occurred in the City since the 1994 and 2004 General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements were adopted and provides status on the policy directives given in those documents. A brief summary of key indicators is included below. The body of the report contains greater detail regarding each of the following categories and the appendix includes still greater detail in the form of tables, charts and graphs. ¾ Statistical Data Population Growth Since 1990, the City’s population has increased by approximately 9,600 people or about seven percent, from 131,591 to 141,180 people. This is approximately 87 percent of the General Plan’s total build out population. In comparison, the County of Los Angeles grew ten percent during the same time period. Housing Development The 1994 General Plan allowed for the construction of 11,038 net-new market rate units. Since that cap was created, a little over 4,700 units have been constructed. Of these new units, 81 percent were located in specific plan areas and nearly 70 percent of all residential units were constructed in the Central District Specific Plan area. Commercial Development The 1994 General Plan allowed for the construction of 21,305,325 net-new, nonresidential square feet. Since that cap was created, approximately 3,300,000 square feet have been constructed. Over 80 percent, or nearly 2,500,000 square feet, was located in specific plan areas. Forty percent of all non-residential square footage has been constructed in the Central District Specific Plan area. Travel Characteristics Residents of Pasadena average as many cars per household as do residents of the County as a whole. Driving a personal vehicle is the preferred mode of transportation in all cases, however Pasadenans are more likely to walk to do errands than are residents in the rest of the State or county. Traffic & Travel Times The data comparison from year 2006 to 2009 shows that the travel times and speeds have remained relatively constant with only minor fluctuations.

Transit In total, there are 704 bus stops throughout the City served my multiple transit agencies. Pasadena ARTS buses serve more than 400 bus stops including those that serve as essential transfer points at six Metro Gold Line Stations. Generally, a ¼ mile radius represents the distance and time (about a ten-minute walk) that most people would be willing to walk to public transportation. Transit services are distributed adequately across the City so that nearly 90 percent of the community is within a ¼ mile radius of a bus stop or rail station. Ridership on the ARTS buses has increased steadily with some existing lines reaching capacity at peak times of day. Metro Gold Line ridership has also shown a 20 percent increase since 2007 to average daily riders of 22,271. Transit Oriented Development Since 2000, approximately 3,785 net-new units were constructed in areas designated in the Zoning Code as Transit Oriented Districts. This is approximately 72 percent of all the units constructed citywide in that period. Between 1994 and 2009, 3,668 units were constructed as part of mixed use developments, or 78 percent of all the units constructed citywide in this time period. Nearly 90 percent of all the new mixed use construction since 1994 was constructed in the Central District Specific Plan. Another five percent was constructed in the East Pasadena Specific Plan. The Commercial zones, the Fair Oaks Orange Grove Specific Plan and the North Lake Specific Plan accounted for three percent or less of the mixed use units constructed Central District Changes Seventy percent of all residential units were constructed in the Central District. Between 1990 and 2009, the City estimates that the area’s population grew by 48 percent, from 11,014 to approximately 16,300. The Central District is at 72 percent of population build out and 87 percent of residential unit build out. Recent surveys show that residents of the Central District drive less and walk more. Economic Development The median income for Pasadena residents has remained steady since 1990, after adjusting for inflation, while numbers for the County of Los Angeles have declined slightly. The number of people working in Pasadena has increased slightly from 97,640 in 2002 to 100,947 in 2008. Property taxes, which make up approximately 18 percent of the City’s General Fund revenue for Fiscal Year 2009, increased 46 percent since 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

Historic Preservation In 1994, the City had one historic Landmark District and six National Register Districts citywide. Since 1994, the City added 16 historic landmark districts, for a current total of 17 districts. In addition, the City added seven National Register Districts, or a total of 13 Districts (with only one district as both a Landmark and National District). Of the 30,178 properties in the City, 3,693 are designated as historic (or 12 percent of properties citywide). Open Space and Parks Since the 2004 General Plan Update, the City has added 12 new acres of parkland for a total of 342.4 acres of developed parkland citywide. This includes neighborhood parks, community parks such as Victory Park and citywide parks such as Brookside Golf Course. In addition, the City has added 20.6 acres of passive open space area for a total of 522.9 acres of open space citywide. Open space areas include publicly owned natural open space areas such as the Arroyo Seco. The City revised a residential impact fee in December 2005 that has since collected more than $8.5 million in fees and has earned nearly $1 million in interest. As of September 2008, the City has appropriated or spent nearly $7.9 million on improvements to the park system. Water and Power Despite an increase in growth of both residential and non-residential square footage, water usage has decreased by 15 percent and the City’s gross peak energy load has been reduced by 5.42 megawatts since 2007. Since FY 2007, daily per capita water consumption has decreased from 204 gallons to 175 gallons. ¾ General Plan Policy Updates The 2004 General Plan Land Use Element included specific implementation measures. In response to those directives, seven specific plans have been adopted, with a new eighth plan under way. The Zoning Code and the Zoning Map were amended to protect single family neighborhoods, to codify specific plans, and to allow for mixed use and transit oriented districts. The Green Space, Recreation and Parks Element, and a corresponding Master Plan, were adopted. The Open Space and Conservation Element is currently being updated. The Cultural Nexus community plan for arts was adopted, as were Citywide Design Guidelines, design guidelines for six of the seven specific plan areas, and Commercial and Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines. Numerous historic resource surveys were conducted resulting in the addition of 16 historic landmark districts and a total of 13 National Register Districts. An update of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan is underway.

GENERAL PLAN LAND-USE AND MOBILITY ELEMENT UPDATE - DRAFT Metrics Report July 15, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Introduction

II.

Statistical Updates o Population o Overall Building Trends o Housing Development o Commercial Development o Travel Characteristics o Traffic & Travel Times o Transit o Transit Oriented Development o Focus on the Central District o Historic Preservation o Economic Development o Parks and Open Space o Water and Power

III.

Policy Updates

INTRODUCTION During outreach for the new General Plan Update in 2009, participants asked for objective data summarizing the changes in the community since the last General Plan Update. This report provides data regarding the statistical changes that have occurred in the City since the 1994 and 2004 General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements were adopted and provides status on the policy directives given those documents. ¾ DATA SOURCES Decennial Census The Decennial U.S. Census is a nationwide survey, required by the Constitution, that attempts to count every resident every ten years. Given the large sample size, the margin of error for census data is very low. Census data is broken down by geographic area ranging from nationwide to the census block level. For this report, year 2000 census block level data was used. While the 2010 Census was recently conducted, information has not yet been released. American Community Survey In response to the desire for information more frequently than every ten years, the Census Bureau, has created the American Community Survey (ACS). This survey queries a smaller sample of households every year and results are averaged over a three year period. For instance, the 2008 survey results are averaged with the results of the 2007 and 2009 results. The smaller sample size results in higher margin of error, making the data somewhat less useful. For example, the total population for the City of Pasadena has a margin of error of 9,000 people. California Department of Finance The California Department of Finance (DOF) publishes an estimate of every city and county’s population every year. DOF estimates are based on information provided by cities regarding the number of housing units completed each year. The DOF takes the average household size for each city and multiplies it by the number of units. Recent estimates for Pasadena using this methodology may not be accurate. More than 70 percent of the City’s recent growth has occurred in the Central District, where the average household size has historically been smaller than the City’s average. As a result, these estimates may be too high. City of Pasadena Permitting and Entitlement Tracking The City’s Planning and Development Department tracks development and reports on a quarterly basis the number of residential units and non-residential square footage that is in the process of obtaining approvals, has received a building permit, and that has received final occupancy approval. In addition, the City tracks all

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 1 of 32

entitlements that are approved by the City Council including Municipal and Zoning Code Amendments, General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments. Population Estimates City population estimates take the number of net new units from a particular year and multiplies it by the average household size of each district. City staff considers these estimates to be more accurate than other estimates, because it considers actual number of units constructed and variations in household size. Downtown Survey In 2010 the City completed an on-line survey of residents in the Central District (hard copies were also mailed, if requested). Approximately 14,000 surveys were emailed to Central District residents, and 900 surveys were completed, for a 6.4 percent response rate. The change in format may have skewed responses to a younger, more affluent, tech-savvy population. The survey area was limited to the 210 Freeway to the north, Pasadena Avenue to the west, California Boulevard to the south, and Catalina Avenue to the west. The boundaries are very similar to the block groups used for census data and to the boundaries of the Central District Specific Plan. Other City References City staff referred to several other City documents that include data including: 2007 Green Space, Recreation and Parks Master Plan, the 2009 Green City’s Green City Indicator’s Report and the 2009 Energy Integrated Resource Plan and the 2010-11 City Budget. Transit information for the ARTS buses was provided by the City’s Transit Division. Other Data Sources The American Commuter Survey and National Travel Household Survey provided information on transportation. Metro provided information on Gold Line ridership. The CoStar Group provided commercial real estate information and analysis. The US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies provided employment information.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 2 of 32

STATISTICAL DATA ¾ POPULATION Population Growth The City’s population increased rapidly from the years 1880 to 1950, increasing at an average of 44 percent over those decades, from 391 people to 106,268. The City’s growth slowed after the 1950s, but picked up again with 10 percent growth in the decade between 1980 and 1990 when the City reached a population of 131,591. Growth then slowed again with an increase of only 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2000, bringing the total population to 133,936. See Figure 1 and Figure 2, in the Appendix, for more detailed information regarding the City’s population change. Population Estimates Until the 2010 Census data is released, there are several sources for information on current population in the City. Each source uses a different methodology, however, and accordingly returns different results. o The American Community Survey’s 3-Year Rolling Average reported a population of 137,885 in 2007. The margin of error for this number is 10,185. o The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimate for 2009 was 150,185. This number is based on the application of an average-household size to the total number of new housing units. However, more than 70 percent of the City’s recent growth has occurred in the Central District, where the average household size has been smaller than the City’s average. As a result, these estimates may be too high o The City of Pasadena Planning Division estimated population at 141,180 in 2009. This estimate took the total number of net new units for each district and multiplies it by the average household size of each district. City staff considers this estimate to be more accurate than other estimates outlined above, because it considers the difference between the household size in the Central District and the City as a whole. Therefore, this report relies on the City’s Planning Division’s estimate for 2009 population. General Plan Population Projections The 2004 General Plan Land Use Element projected a population of 149,940 by the year 2015 and a population of 163,000 at build-out (no year was specified for buildout). Based on the City of Pasadena current population estimates, the City is at 94 percent of the 2015 population projections and 87 percent of the build-out projection.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 3 of 32

Relationship to Regional Population Growth Since 1990, the City’s population grew at a slower rate than the County as a whole. From 1990 to 2009, the City grew approximately seven percent (using the City’s estimate) while the County grew ten percent, based on the American Community Survey estimates. The average rate of growth per year for the City was .36 percent per year while the County reported .56 percent per year. See Figure 3 and Figure 4 in the Appendix for a graphic comparison of the City’s growth compared to the County of Los Angeles’ growth. ¾ OVERALL BUILDING TRENDS Since 1994, the City issued on average 2,772 building permits every year. The most active year was 2006 when 3,000 permits were issued and the least active was in 1996 when 2,200 permits were issued. In 2009, 2,500 permits were issued. While the number of building permits have remained relatively steady over the year, the valuation of the permits has varied more dramatically. The total of all building permits approved in an average year was $180.8 million. Permit valuations have ranged from a high of $302.9 million in 2001 to a low of $81.7 million in 1996. In 2009 the valuation was $149.7 million (numbers adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars). See Figure 5 below, and Figures 6, 7, and 8 in the Appendix for more detailed information and graphs showing building permit activity and valuations from 1994 to 2009. Figure 5 Building Permit Activity Total Value of and Number of Issued Residential and Non-Residential Building Permits 20,000

3,000

18,000 2,500

14,000 Permits Completed

2,000 12,000 10,000

1,500

8,000 1,000

6,000 4,000

Tens of Thousands of 2009 Dollars

16,000

500 2,000 0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Non-Residential Permits

1999

2000

2001

Residential Permits

2002

2003

2004

2005

Non-Residential Values

2006

2007

2008

0 2009 Fiscal Year

Residential Valuation

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 4 of 32

¾ HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Total Housing Units In 1994, the City contained 53,000 residential units. Since 1994, 4,709 units have been built throughout the City for a new total of 57,709 housing units. General Plan Housing Projections The 1994 General Plan allowed for 11,038 net new market rate residential units at build-out. It allocated these units mostly to the seven specific plan areas. Since 1994, 4,709 units have been built with 81 percent built in specific plan areas. Pace of Construction The Growth Management Initiative, which controlled growth prior to 1994, limited the number of residential units that could be built every year. The 1994 Land Use Element did not include regulations on the pace of development. Since 2000, the City has seen, on average, 377 residential units completed every year. The highest number of finalized building permits for new residential units occurred in 2002 with 744 units; the lowest number occurred just two years before when the City finalized 44 permits. In 2009, 351 net-new, market rate units were finalized. See Figures 10 and 11 in the Appendix for a table and graph detailing the pace of construction from 2000-2009. Multi-Family Vacancy Rate In 1990 the multi-family residential vacancy rate for the City and County were virtually identical, at 5.6 and 5.8 percent respectively. In 2000, the vacancy rate for the two areas dropped to 4.2 percent. See Figure 12, in the Appendix, for more information comparing vacancy rates in LA County, Pasadena, and the Central District. A survey by the Planning Division of 1,820 rental units in the City’s transit oriented districts in February of 2010 found that the average vacancy rate was 5.8 percent (see Figure 13 for a map of the City’s Transit Oriented Districts). The survey included – The Stuart, Trio, Paseo Colorado, Archstone Old Town Pasadena, Archstone Del Mar, Archstone Pasadena, and Holly Street Village. Housing Units by Specific Plan Area The 1994 General Plan Land Use Element targets most of the City’s growth in one of seven specific plan areas and in particular, the Central District and along major transit corridors. Each specific plan area has a cap on the total amount of construction that can occur (or development allocation). This development allocation is reported in dwelling units for residential uses and square footage for non-residential uses. In both cases, only net-new is used, and for residential uses only market rate units are calculated. The following section reports the amount of development that has occurred and the result of the development in terms of change in population. DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 5 of 32

The top geographic areas where residential growth occurred since 1994 include the: • Central District Specific Plan (3,250 units); • Multi-Family zoned areas (672 units); • Fair Oaks Orange Grove Specific Plan (205 units); and • East Pasadena Specific Plan (204 units). The Specific plan areas that showed the least amount of development include: • East Colorado Specific Plan (0); • West Gateway Specific Plan (0); and • North Lake Specific Plan (4). See Figure 9 below and Figures 10 and 14 in the Appendix, for more detailed information regarding net-new, market rate residential development. Figure 9 Net New Market Rate Residential Units Completed by Zoning Category 1994-2009 Total Units Percentage Geographic Area

Constructed

of Total

Cap

SPECIFIC PLANS 3250

69.0%

5,095

East Colorado Specific Plan

0

0.0%

750

East Pasadena Specific Plan

204

4.3%

500

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan

205

4.4%

500

4

0.1%

300

134

2.8%

75

0

0.0%

550

Central District Specific Plan

North Lake Specific Plan South Fair Oaks Specific Plan West Gateway Specific Plan Sub-Total

7,770

3797

OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG)

38

0.8%

No cap

Multi-Family (RM 12, RM-16, RM-32, RM-48)

735

15.6%

No cap

Single Family

139

3.0%

No cap

Sub-Total TOTAL

912 4709

100.0%

In compliance with the General Plan, this table reports net-new development. When a smaller building is demolished to construct a larger building, the difference in number of units between the two is reported. In compliance with the General Plan, units with affordable housing covenants are not counted in terms of growth, except in the Fair Oaks Orange Grove Specific Plan Area. Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 6 of 32

Remaining Development Capacity Each specific plan area has a cap (or development allocation) limiting the amount of net-new, market rate units. Both units constructed and units that have received building permits are included when determining remaining capacities. The top three specific plans closing in on their cap include the: • Central District Specific Plan (at 72 percent of its cap); • South Fair Oaks Specific Plan (at 45 percent of its cap); and • West Gateway Specific Plan (at 44 percent of its cap). The specific plans with the most capacity remaining include the: • East Colorado Specific Plan (at one percent of its cap); and • North Lake Avenue Specific Plan (at one percent of its cap). See Figures 15 and 16 in the Appendix for more information about the remaining development capacity in the Specific Plan areas and other zones. Affordable Housing In 2001, the City created an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which required residential and mixed use projects to dedicate 15 percent of the units as affordable housing or pay an in-lieu fee. In 2005, the City Council revisited the Ordinance, raising the in-lieu fee to further encourage the construction of affordable housing. The City’s Zoning Code also allows density bonuses for projects that include on-site affordable housing. Since 1994, 867 new affordable units were constructed throughout the City, nearly 15 percent of all units constructed. The top three areas where affordable units were constructed include the: • Central District Specific Plan (51 percent of all affordable units), • Fair Oaks Orange Grove Specific Plan (18 percent of all affordable units), and • Multi-Family zones (17 percent of all affordable units). See Figure 17 in the Appendix or a detailed table on the location of new affordable housing units constructed. ¾ Commercial DEVELOPMENT Total Commercial Development In 1994, the City contained approximately 39.9 million of non-residential square footage. Since 1994, 3.3 million square feet has been constructed throughout the City for a current total of 43.2 million of non-residential square footage.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 7 of 32

General Plan Commercial Projections The 1994 General Plan allowed for approximately 21.3 million net-new nonresidential square feet. This number was allocated into different zoning categories and targeted most of the growth into seven specific plan areas. As stated above, 3.3 million square feet has been constructed throughout the City since 1994, with 71 percent constructed in specific plan areas. See Figure 18 in the Appendix for the total number of net-new, non-residential square-feet constructed from 1994 – 2009. Pace of Construction Since 2000 the City has seen, on average, 254,458 of net-new, non-residential square footage completed every year. The highest number of finalized nonresidential building permits occurred in 2004 with 434,839 square feet; the lowest number occurred in 2008 with just 42,044 square feet completed. In 2009, 367,899 net-new, non-residential square footage was completed. See Figures 19 and 20 in the Appendix for a table and graph detailing the pace of construction from 20002010. Figures in Appendix. Commercial Vacancy Rates During the fourth quarter of 2009, the retail vacancy rate in Pasadena stood at four percent while the office vacancy rate stood at 20.8 percent. Vacancy rate information comes from the CoStar Group, a provider of commercial real estate information and analysis. In comparison, the office vacancy rate for Burbank and Glendale were 17 percent and 20 percent, respectively. The lowest vacancy rate for Pasadena in the last 13 years was 5.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005 and second quarter of 2006. Development by Specific Plan Area The top geographic areas where non-residential growth occurred include the: • Central District Specific Plan (1,328,329 square feet); • South Fair Oaks Specific Plan (606,879 square feet); • Public and Semi-Public zoned areas (469,047 square feet); and • East Colorado Specific Plan (373,335 square feet). The Specific plan areas that showed the least amount of development include: • West Gateway Specific Plan (800 square feet); • East Pasadena Specific Plan (41,061 square feet); and • North Lake Specific Plan (52,075 square feet). Projects in the Public and Semi-Public zoned areas include large institutions such as, Huntington Hospital, Cal Tech, Fuller University and other schools. Numbers in the East Pasadena Specific Plan factor in projects that demolished more square footage than was built. See Figure 18, below, and Figures 19, 20, and 21, in the Appendix, for more detailed information and charts for the location of non-residential development.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 8 of 32

Net New, Non-Residential Square Footage Completed by Zoning Category 1994-2009

Geographic Area

Total Sq Ft

Percentage of

Constructed

Total

Cap

SPECIFIC PLANS Central District Specific Plan

1,328,329

40.2%

6,217,000

East Colorado Specific Plan

373,335

11.3%

650,000

East Pasadena Specific Plan

41,061

1.2%

2,100,000

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan

93,702

2.8%

611,000

North Lake Specific Plan

52,075

1.6%

175,000

606,879

18.4%

1,550,000

800

0.0%

South Fair Oaks Specific Plan West Gateway Specific Plan Sub-Total OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG)

2,496,181

800,000 12,103,000

295,838

8.9%

No cap

Duplex (RM-12)

0

0.0%

No cap

Multi-Family (RM-16, RM-32, RM-48)

0

0.0%

No cap

46,117

1.4%

No cap

469,047

14.2%

No cap

0

0.0%

No cap

0

0.0%

No cap

Open Space* Public and Semi-Public Single Family Single Family - Hillsides Sub-Total TOTAL

811,002 3,307,183

100.0%

In compliance with the General Plan, this table reports net-new development. When a smaller building is demolished to construct a larger building, the difference in square footage between the two is reported. *Construction in the Open Space Zone has been limited to improvements to the Rose Bowl, the new Kidspace Museum, new bathrooms at parks, new picnic shleters, and the Police Department's new shooting range. Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

Remaining Development Capacity Each specific plan area has a cap (or development allocation) limiting the amount of net-new, non-residential square footage. The top three specific plans closing in on their cap include the: • East Colorado Specific Plan (at 58 percent of its cap); • South Fair Oaks Specific Plan (at 43 percent of its cap); and • North Lake Specific Plan (at 30 percent of its cap). The specific plans with the most capacity remaining include the: • West Gateway Specific Plan (at zero percent of its cap); and • East Pasadena Specific Plan (at three percent of its cap).

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 9 of 32

See Figures 22 and 23 in the Appendix for more information regarding the remaining development capacity in the Specific Plan areas. ¾ travel characteristics Vehicles Per Household Vehicle ownership is a contributing ingredient to the amount of travel that occurs in the City. The American Commuter Survey estimates that 40.3 percent of households in Pasadena have one vehicle and 34.5 percent have two vehicles. These figures are consistent when compared to Los Angeles County. Mode Share Trends Between 2000 and 2008, the percent of Pasadena residents who drove alone to work increased from 68.2 percent to 72.5 percent. During this same time period carpooling dropped, but transit use, walking and working at home all increased. See Figure 23a below for additional information on mode share. Figure 23a. Citywide Trends in Mode Share 1995-2008 Journey To Work 2000 Percent Drove Alone 68.2% Percent Carpool 12.8% Percent Transit 4.2% Percent Walk 5.1% Percent Work at Home 3.7%

2005-2008 72.5% 9.1% 7.0% 7.2% 4.2%

Source: The American Community Survey (ACS), 2000-2008 three year estimates

Trips by Purpose The mode of travel compared to the purpose of the trip provides additional detail on travel trends. Using personally owned vehicles (POV) is the preferred mode by far, regardless of the purpose of the trip. See Figure 23b below for more information on purpose of mode of travel.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 10 of 32

Figure 23b. Detailed Purpose: WHYTRP

To/Frm Work Work Related Shopping Family/Pers Bus School/Church Medical Visit Friends & Family Other Soc/Rec

POV

Public Transit

Mode Walk Bike

90.2 88.1 84.0 80.1 70.5 83.3 83.4

4.2 2.8 2.3 1.5 3.8 8.8 0.9

3.0 5.6 12.0 17.2 20.5 4.1 12.6

1.4 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 2.1

Percent of Person Trips, travelers 5 and older 14.6 2.3 20.9 20.8 11.3 2.5 5.9

72.0

1.4

23.0

2.5

20.1

Source: National Household Travel Survey, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Traffic & Travel Times Travel time studies are widely used to document congestion and to quantify the actual impact of mitigation improvements. Following the completion of the 2004 Land Use and Mobility Element update, the Department of Transportation worked closely with the Transportation Advisory Commission (TAC) to identify 30 corridors, to be studied (See Figures 24 to 31 in the Appendix for more information on the studied corridors). Out of the 30 total corridors, 11 corridors show improvement in the 2009 travel times versus 2006. These included Fair Oaks Avenue (north and south bound), Lake Avenue (north and southbound), Arroyo Parkway (southbound), California Boulevard (westbound), and Washington Boulevard (east and westbound). A total of 15 corridors showed an increase in time of less than one minute, when comparing 2009 to 2006. These included Colorado Boulevard (eastbound), Orange Grove Boulevard (east and westbound), Lincoln Avenue (north and southbound), Del Mar Boulevard (westbound), Foothill Boulevard (east and westbound) and California Boulevard (eastbound). A total of five corridors showed an increase of greater than one minute or 20 percent. They included Orange Grove Boulevard (north and southbound), Colorado Boulevard (westbound) and Del Mar Boulevard (eastbound). See Figure 31b below for the complete list of studied corridors and their change in travel time.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 11 of 32

Figure 31b Change in Travel Time Corridor & Direction of Travel IMPROVEMENT IN TIME Fair Oaks Ave NB *Green St EB Lake Ave SB Lake Ave NB Arroyo Pkwy SB California Bl WB Washington EB Washington WB Fair Oaks Ave SB San Gabriel NB **Union WB INCREASE IN TIME – LESS THAN ONE MINUTE Colorado Bl EB San Gabriel SB Lincoln Ave SB Orange Grove (E-W) EB Hill Ave NB Lincoln Ave NB Walnut EB Walnut WB Hill Ave SB California Bl EB Orange Grove (E-W) WB Foothill Bl WB Arroyo Pkwy NB Foothill Bl EB ***Del Mar Bl WB INCREASE IN TIME – MORE THAN ONE MINUTE OR 20% Orange Grove (N-S) SB Orange Grove (N-S) NB Colorado Bl WB ***Del Mar Bl EB

2009 vs. 2006 (min:sec)

% Change

-1:34 -1:13 -1:11 -1:01 -0:50 -0:33 -0:17 -0:11 -0:11 -0:10 -0:02

-16% -23% -17% -14% -16% -9% -9% -7% -2% -7% -1%

0:05 0:06 0:11 0:12 0:14 0:18 0:19 0:19 0:21 0:23 0:25 0:30 0:31 0:44 0:52

1% 5% 18% 3% 5% 11% 5% 4% 8% 6% 5% 10% 14% 14% 10%

0:44 0:54 1:03 1:08

20% 22% 10% 16%

*Green Street only includes Hill Avenue to Arroyo Pkwy segment **Union Street only includes Hill Avenue to Arroyo Pkwy segment ***Del Mar Blvd only includes Arroyo Pkwy to San Gabriel segment

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 12 of 32

Traffic counts have been collected by the Department of Transportation since the year 2000. See Figure 33 in the Appendix for a citywide map that indicates traffic counts for designated corridors. Gold Line Gate Times The at-grade railroad crossing often causes traffic delays during peak traffic hours. The data shows that in 2007 the gate down time at California Boulevard averaged 57 seconds for a single train and one minute and 44 seconds for dual trains. From 2003 to 2007, the gate down times remained the same for California Boulevard. However, since the opening of the Gold Line Eastside Extension, the number of duel trains has increased, which has resulted in an increase in delay for about onethird of the train crossings at Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard. See Figure 34 in the Appendix for the average gate down times for Glenarm, Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard. Traffic Improvement Programs SR-710 Corridor Improvements Despite the limited opportunities to increase street capacity in the Central District through road widening, the City completed over $28 million in street and intersection improvements in 2009 to address traffic impacted by the gap in the 710 corridor (currently the 710 freeway ends six miles to the south in Alhambra). Improvements include the addition of a right turn lane on California Boulevard between Raymond Avenue and Arroyo Parkway, improvements to Arroyo Parkway and Raymond Avenue as well as the improvements to the intersection of Lake Street and Walnut Avenue. This project also included the construction and installation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) allowing improved automated traffic signal control along major corridors through the City impacted by the gap in the 710 corridor. Kinneloa Avenue Extension In 2010, the City completed an extension of Kinneloa Avenue. The extension begins at Colorado Boulevard and extends north, under the 210 freeway, to Foothill Boulevard via Titley Street. This project also included the placement of four traffic signals, and street improvements on Walnut Avenue between San Gabriel Boulevard and Altadena Drive. The result of the extension will greatly improve traffic circulation in the immediate area, and in particular, the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Sierra Madre Villa Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Program The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is tasked with protecting neighborhoods from the negative effects of traffic. This comprehensive program reduces and manages traffic volume, travel speeds, and traffic related noise on local streets. Twelve neighborhood traffic programs have been completed and three more are scheduled for the coming year.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 13 of 32

Pasadena Trip Reduction Ordinance The Trip Reduction Ordinance was adopted to incorporate alternative travel programs and incentives into the design of new buildings. For instance, multifamily, mixed-use, and other non-residential buildings greater than 15,000 square feet must provide bicycle parking. The ordinance also requires large new projects to submit a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan that provides for a schedule of alternative travel programs and incentives. In 2008, the Trip Reduction Ordinance was strengthened and now requires compliance from all new non-residential projects greater than 75,000 square feet, multi-family projects with 100 units or more, and mixed use projects with 50 or more units. Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee Through the 2004 General Plan update, City Council directed staff to study a new “fair share” transportation impact fee to anticipate and mitigate the impacts of growth on City streets. In November 2006, the City Council established the Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee. Since 2007, the City has collected an estimated two million dollars in collected fees. Funds are used to implement traffic and transportation projects required to mitigate traffic generated by new development. Example projects include enhancing street capacity, improving intersections and traffic signals, and increasing the frequency of service of the ARTS buses. The fee is waived for non-residential projects in the Enterprise Zone Business Development Area and for affordable housing units built on-site. Projects that have workforce housing in at least 15 percent of the units pay a reduced fee. ¾ Transit Access to Transit In total, there are 704 bus stops throughout the City served my multiple transit agencies. Pasadena ARTS buses serve more than 400 bus stops including those that serve as essential transfer points at six Metro Gold Line Stations. Generally, a ¼ mile radius represents the distance and time (about a ten-minute walk) that most people would be willing to walk to public transportation. Transit services are distributed adequately across the City so that nearly 90% of the community is within a ¼ mile radius of a bus stop or rail station. See Figure 35 in the Appendix for a map showing transit coverage. Transit Frequency Transit frequency is targeted in the high density corridors and commercial centers like the Central District. These areas create adequate transit ridership to justify frequent service (see Figure 36 in the Appendix for a map showing route

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 14 of 32

frequencies). The Central District consistently has higher transit frequencies. The Central District also encompasses four Gold Line Stations. During the weekday peak periods, Colorado Boulevard, Fair Oaks Avenue and Arroyo Parkway are frequently serviced by Metro and ARTS buses. It is estimated that a bus travels through the Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard intersection every one to five minutes. All other major corridors such as Orange Grove Boulevard, Washington Avenue, North Fair Oaks Avenue, Los Robles Avenue, North Lake Avenue and Altadena Drive are serviced every 16 to 30 minutes. The lowest frequency areas are the Rose Bowl and Linda Vista Avenue, which are serviced every 46-60 minutes. ARTS Ridership The total number of passengers using each route provides an important look at service productivity. In Fiscal Year 2009, the total system carried an average of 30 passengers per hour, per line, which was a ten percent increase compared to Fiscal Year 2008. Routes 31/32, 20 and 40 have the highest ridership. These lines are considered Local Lines, which connect major neighborhood service areas to diverse community destination centers as well as schools, shopping centers and Gold Line stations. The combined ridership on these lines increased by nine percent, compared to Fiscal Year 2008. Ridership on Route 20 grew by four percent to 41 passengers per hour; ridership on Routes 31/32 increased by 14 percent to 42 passengers per hour; and ridership on Route 40 increased by 14 percent to 35 passengers. The Feeder Lines which include Routes 10, 51/52, 60 and 70 provide links between the business districts and Gold Line stations or connect low density residential neighborhoods to the Central District. Overall, the ridership on these lines increased by 16 percent. Route 10 had a 20 percent increase; Route 51/52 had an increase of seven percent; Route 60 had a 17 percent increase; and Route 70 had an increase of 39 percent. See Figure 37 in the Appendix for more information on changes in ridership. ARTS Bus Capacity Current data shows that Routes 20, 31/32 and 40 reach capacity generally around the AM and PM peak times. Route 20 running counterclockwise experiences passenger overloads most of the route between 1:20 p.m. and 4:20 p.m. This may be a result of the various schools and train stations along the route. Route 31 Westbound experiences high capacities between 2:00 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. See Figures 38 to 42 in the Appendix for a detailed map identifying passenger loads for Routes 20, 31/32 and 40.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 15 of 32

Gold Line Ridership Since the inception of the Metro Gold Line, ridership continues to grow on a year by year basis. The cities that are served by the Gold Line have seen an approximately 20 percent increase in ridership from 2007 to 2009. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) provided the City with ridership. Ridership on the average weekday increased from 17,564 in February 2007 to 19,541 in February 2008, to 22,271 in February 2009. See Figures 43 and 44 in the Appendix for the average boarding and alighting per Pasadena Gold Line station. ¾ TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Figure 45 Map of Transit Oriented Development Areas

Standards and Uses in Transit Oriented Districts Since 1994, the City has adopted standards to promote non-auto related trips in Transit Oriented Districts, or TODs. The City’s TOD areas include most of the Central District (the main exception being Lake Avenue south of Cordova Street) and areas within ¼ mile of a Gold Line light rail station. Figure 45 shows the Central District Transit-Oriented Area, and the TODs. The TOD standards prohibit uses that do not encourage pedestrian activity at the sidewalk or are geared to cars. For instance, in these zones uses such as vehicle services, storage, wholesale distribution, large-scale recycling facilities, and drivethrough businesses are prohibited. Additionally, to make walking more attractive, some specific plans include special design standards. These districts also prohibit

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 16 of 32

businesses from providing too many parking spaces to encourage people to use other means beyond their cars. At the same time, TODs in Pasadena allow higher density residential uses and mixed use developments with ground level commercial and upper level housing. Parking rates are also reduced in TODs: for an office use it is reduced by 25 percent, for other non-residential uses by 10 percent, and for multi-family residences from two spaces per unit to one and one-half spaces per unit. To further incent pedestrian activity, the Central District Specific Plan sets a minimum sidewalk width to ensure adequate room for people to enjoy moving around the area. TOD Residential and Mixed Use Developments Since 2000, approximately 3,785 net-new units were constructed in areas designated in the Zoning Code as Transit Oriented Districts. This is approximately 72 percent of all the units constructed citywide in that period. See Figure 46 in the Appendix for a map showing locations of all multi-unit construction in relation to the TOD areas since 1994. Between 1994 and 2009, 3,596 units were constructed as part of mixed use developments, or 64 percent of all the units constructed citywide in this time period. Nearly 90 percent of all the new mixed use construction since 1994 was constructed in the Central District Specific Plan. Another five percent was constructed in the East Pasadena Specific Plan. The Commercial zones and the Fair Oaks Orange Grove Specific Plan accounted for three percent of the mixed use units constructed. See Figures 47 and 48 in the Appendix for information about the locations of mixeduse development city-wide. ¾ FOCUS ON THE CENTRAL DISTRICT Since the 1994 General Plan, the Central District saw more residential and nonresidential growth than any other area of the city. Approximately 69 percent of all residential units and 40 percent of all non-residential square footage built in the City since 1994 was constructed in the Central District. General Plan Growth Projections The 2004 General plan allotted 5,095 residential units and 6,217,000 non-residential square-feet to the Central District. As of 2009, the Central District is at 72 percent of its cap for residential units but at only 23 percent of its cap for non-residential square footage. Population To calculate the Central District’s population, the City used the boundaries of the US Census block groups that covered the same geographic area as City’s Central District Specific Plan. However, the City tracks constructed residential units by specific plan area. While the boundaries of the block groups and specific plan area DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 17 of 32

are not identical, they are very consistent and both were used for calculating purposes. See Figure 49 in the Appendix or a map of the Central District and the Census block groups. The Central District’s population grew slowly in the 1990s, and only increased by four percent from 1990 to 2000 to 11,491. The City’s Planning Division estimates from 2000 to 2009 population of the Central District increased by 40 percent to approximately 16,270. During that time, 2,872 residential units were constructed in the Central District. Applying an average household size of 1.664 people per unit (2000 US Census figures for Central District Census block groups), would result in a total population of 16,270. Housing In 1994, the General Plan set a maximum number of 5,095 net-new, market rate units that could be built in the Central District and projected a corresponding population of 22,478 at build out. In terms of population, the Central District is at 72 percent of its build out, and in terms of units it is 87 percent of its build out. The percentage of residents who owned their own units remained relatively constant in the City as a whole from 1990 to 2000, decreasing slightly from 46.3 percent to 45.8 percent, and remained lower than the percentage of residents who owned their own units in the County overall. Current ownership data is not available except in the 2008 American Community Survey and Downtown Survey. The American Community Survey is not considered accurate because of its large margin of error for sub-areas such as the Central District. Of those who participated in the City’s 2010 Downtown Survey, 33 percent owned their own unit. See Figure 50 in the Appendix for a detailed table showing a comparison of renters and homeowners in the Central District, Pasadena, and LA County. Age Distribution Between 1990 and 2000 the Central District has maintained a distinctive age breakdown. There are a larger percentage of 25-34 year olds and a smaller percentage of people under 18, than the County and the City. In the 2000 Census, approximately 33 percent of the Central District was made up of 25-34 year olds, nearly double the figure for the County and the City’s population. While 23 percent of the City’s population and 28 percent of the County’s population were under the age of 18, only eight percent of the Central District’s population was under the age of 18. Of those who participated in the City’s 2010 Downtown Survey, 37 percent were made up of 25-34 year olds and four percent were under the age of 18. See Figure 51 in the Appendix for a detailed table showing the age of Central District residents.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 18 of 32

Average Household Size Average household size for the Central District has consistently been lower than the County and City. In the 2000 Census, the average household size for the Central District was 1.66, compared to 2.98 for the County and 2.52 for the City. Of those who participated in the City’s 2010 Downtown Survey, the average household size was 1.67 persons. How Residents Travel According to the 2000 Census, approximately 70 percent of Pasadena residents drove alone to work, and an additional 13 percent carpooled. An additional 4.7 percent used public transit, 5.3 percent walked and 3.8 percent worked at home. Within the Central District, 77 percent drove alone and 3.2 percent used public transit. Of those who participated in the City’s 2010 Downtown Survey, 51 percent of Central District reported driving alone. An additional 15.8 percent of residents were accounted for taking public transit to work. The Downtown Survey also included questions that asked people mobility questions outside the commute to work. Overall, respondents favored walking over biking and riding the bus or Gold Line for non-commute related trips. Thirty-five percent of respondents to the survey stated that they walked daily and another thirty-two percent stated they walk two to three times per week. The least favored mode of transportation for respondents to the survey appeared to be bus travel; nearly 90 percent said they either never take the bus or take it less than once a month. See Figure 52, for a graph showing the modes of transportation for Central District residents on non-commute related trips, or Figure 53, in the Appendix for the corresponding table. While Central District residents have fewer vehicles per household than do residents of the City and County, they also have more vehicles per person. This may be due to the fact that Central District households have fewer persons per household than other parts of the City. See Figure 54 and Figure 55 in the Appendix showing the number of vehicles per person.

¾ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Median Income The median income of Pasadena residents appears to be more stable than residents of Los Angeles County. While the County’s median income fell eight percent from $57,343 in 1990 to $52,736 in 2000, the City’s median income fell less than one percent, from $57,569 in 1990 to $57,515 in 2000 (when adjusted into 2009 dollars). The 2006-08 estimates (an average of the three years) from the American Community Survey are $54,961 to $56,037 for the County and $54,486 to $61,106 for the City (the range incorporates the survey’s margin of error). If the Survey’s estimate is correct, it would demonstrate that the City’s increase in median income since 1990

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 19 of 32

has been negligible. See Figures 56 and 57 in the Appendix for comparisons of the median income between the City and LA County. Employment According to the US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies estimates, the number of employees that work in the City of Pasadena has increased from 97,640 in 2002 to 98,636 in 2005 to 100,947 in 2008 (Note: these numbers do not include federal employees, self-employed workers and a worker’s second place of employment). In 2008, the five largest industries by type included: professional, scientific and technical services with 14,600 employees; education, 13,100; health care, 12,400; finance and insurance, 12,000; and retail, 10,400. Unemployment Rates The City’s unemployment rate averaged five percent from 1998 to 2009. The lowest unemployment rate recorded for the City occurred in 2006, at 3.6 percent and rose to its highest at 8.9 percent in 2009. The unemployment rates for the City follow similar trends for the County and the Nation, but are consistently lower. See Figures 58 and 59 in the Appendix for more information about unemployment rates. Growth in Enterprise Zones The City has two Enterprise Zones which provide tax credits for businesses and employees within the zones. These zones make up more than four square miles of the City, which is roughly one-fifth of the City’s land area. Since 2002, the Pasadena Enterprise Zones have issued over 5,000 hiring credit vouchers, generating $81 million in state tax savings for Pasadena companies. Assessed Value of Property The assessed value of property has increased by 64 percent since 1994 (when adjusted into 2009 dollars). The only period of decline occurred from 1994 to 1998, when property values declined by six percent. Properties subsequently regained their losses by 2001, three years later. See Figures 60 and 61 in the Appendix for a detailed graph and table showing the assessed valuation of taxable property. City Revenue The largest source of revenue to the City’s general fund comes from property taxes, followed by utility users’ taxes and sales taxes. Together, these taxes and others make up nearly 55 percent of the City’s general fund. One time fees - such as licenses, permits and fines, and charges for services - make up approximately 14 percent of the city’s general fund revenue. The City’s total general fund revenue has increased by 39 percent since 1994 (when adjusted for 2009 dollars). During that period there were nine years of growth and six years of decline in revenue, all nearly evenly spread out. See Figure 62 and 63 in the Appendix for a summary of the City’s Revenue sources.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 20 of 32

Tax Revenue The seven major tax revenue sources for the City’s general fund include: property tax, sales tax, utility users tax, transit occupancy tax, construction tax, business license tax, and franchise tax. Property taxes are the largest of these sources and have increased the most since 1994, nearly 46 percent (when adjusted in 2009 dollars). Sales taxes and utility users taxes have increased the least, 14 and 17 percent respectively. Of these sources, construction taxes vary the most from year to year and utility users’ taxes vary the least. See Figures 64, 65 and 66 in the Appendix for more information about sources of tax revenue.

¾ HISTORIC PRESERVATION Landmark and National Register Districts In 1994, the City had one historic Landmark District and six National Register Districts citywide. Since 1994, the City added 16 historic landmark districts, for a current total of 17 districts. In addition, the City added seven National Register Districts, or a total of 13 Districts (with only one district as both a Landmark and National District). Both the landmark and national districts include a broad range of commercial and residential areas. Many of the new districts were established as a result of completing historic surveys. Between 1999 and 2003, the City completed three historic resource surveys targeted to different thematic categories: Arts and Crafts Period Residential Architecture, Period Revival Residential Architecture, and Multi-Family Residential Architecture. Studies such as these and other geographically targeted studies inform the community on the extent of the City’s historic heritage and take steps to preserve it. Of the 30,178 properties in the City, 3,693 are designated as historic (or approximately 12 percent of properties citywide). Adherence to standards for rehabilitation of historic buildings ensures preservation of these buildings and neighborhoods. Mills Act Another tool, commonly called the Mills Act, offers tax incentives to property owners for preservation and improvements made to historic properties. So far, there are 104 properties that make use of this incentive.

¾ Open Space and Parks Total City Parkland Since the 2004 General Plan Update, the City has added 12 new acres of parkland for a total of 342.4 acres of developed parkland citywide. This includes neighborhood parks, community parks such as Victory Park and citywide parks such

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 21 of 32

as Brookside Golf Course. In addition, the City has added 20.6 acres of passive open space area for a total of 522.9 acres of open space citywide. Open space areas include publicly owned natural open space areas such as the Arroyo Seco. Residential Impact Fee In order to improve the park system, the City established a residential impact fee, which it revised in December 2005. Since January 2006, the City has collected more than $8.5 million in fees and has earned nearly one million dollars in interest. As of September 2008, the City had appropriated or spent nearly $7.9 million on improvements to the park system. Many of the project expenditure are detailed below. Green Space Acquisition and Development The 2004 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Nexus Study established a rationale and standard for determining park and recreation needs for residential development using existing park and open space acreage ratios. The existing ratio in 2004 was 2.17 acres per 1,000 residents for developed parkland, and 1.49 acres per 1,000 residents for open space (note: The Nexus Study did not include Pasadena golf courses, schools, and parkland and open space outside City boundaries.). The goals of the document was to maintain and increase the ratio as the population changed. Since 2004, the City has added 12 acres of parkland and 20.6 acres of open space: • In 2006 - converted 7.6 acres of unimproved park to the City’s first dog park. Besides changing the name of the park to Viña Vieja, the City also added play equipment and picnic tables. • In 2008, the City opened the 1.9 acre Linda Vista Park on land leased from the Pasadena Unified School District. • In 2010, the City expanded Robinson Park by 2.5 acres. • In 2009, the City purchased 20.6 acres of natural open space in Annandale Canyon for use as passive open space. The City estimates the population of Pasadena increased by 3,995 people since 2004. The ratios for the new green space to residents is higher than the ratios established in 2004, or 2.9 acres of developed parkland for each 1,000 new residents and 5.2 acres of passive open space for each 1,000 new residents. Other green space and public areas have been developed as part of private developments, with much of it in or near the central district. The Ambassador West project preserved many gardens and the great lawn as a public park. The Westgate project set aside areas for public green space, the Del Mar mixed-use project included a public courtyard at the Gold Line Station and the Paseo Colorado reestablished an important historic walkway as a public plaza. The City has worked closely with the Pasadena Unified School District to keep the following sites open to the public when the schools are not in use: Madison

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 22 of 32

Elementary, McKinley Elementary, Pasadena High and Muir High. Beyond establishing joint use agreements, the City also improved recreational space at these sites by installing new playground equipment at Madison Elementary in 2007 and at McKinley Elementary in 2008. Also, the City resurfaced ten tennis courts at Pasadena High School.

¾ WATER AND POWER Water Usage Water usage from single-family residential units in Pasadena are higher on a per unit basis compared to higher density construction. In a review of residential units constructed between August 2008 and January 2010, new single-family homes used approximately 20,500 more gallons of water in an average month than new units in high density residential zones (or the RM-48 zones, which allows up to 48 units per acre). This is approximately ten times the water usage. For comparison purposes, the average 20 foot by 40 foot swimming pool holds approximately 27,000 gallons. Multi-family units in medium density residential zones (or the RM-16 zone, which allows up to 16 units per acre) used approximately three times the amount of water in an average month as those in the high density zones. Average water usage for single-family lots is highly variable during the year, peaking during the summer months. Increased landscape irrigation causes this summer peak. Water usage is nearly constant throughout the year in RM48 zoning. See Figure 67 and Figure 68 in the Appendix for more details on water usage. Since Fiscal Year 2007, daily per capita water consumption has decreased from 204 gallons to 175 gallons (see the City’s 2009 Green City Indicator’s Report for more information). Additionally, since 2006, the City’s number of residential units and non-residential square footage has grown by 2.4 percent and 1.8 percent, respectively. Despite this increase in growth for residential unit and non-residential square footage growth, water usage has decreased. See Figure 69 and Figure 70 in the Appendix for more details on water usage. Energy Usage In 2009, the City Council adopted a 20-year Energy Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). This plan acts as a roadmap for ensuring reliable, environmentally responsible electric service, competitive rates and energy independence. The IRP includes targets to increase the proportion of green power in Pasadena Water & Power’s energy portfolio to 40 percent and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent by 2020. The City is in currently in the process of updating the Water Integrated Resource Plan; draft options will be presented at workshop in the Fall of 2010. Despite an increase in residential and non-residential development, the city’s gross peak energy load has been reduced by 5.42 megawatts since 2007. The City’s goal is to reduce peak electric load in 2012 from the projected 322 megawatts to 289

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 23 of 32

megawatts. In addition residential energy use has remained relatively constant at approximately 337,000 megawatts-hours from 2007 to 2009. Savings from energy efficiency programs have improved from 2006 to 2009 in both the residential and commercial sectors. Residential efficiencies increased from 1,300 megawatt-hours to 7,956 and commercial efficiencies from 3,201 megawatthours to 13,766. One megawatt hour of energy can sustain 1,000 average houses for one hour.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 24 of 32

GENERAL PLAN POLICY DIRECTIVES ¾ GUIDING PRINCIPLES Seven guiding principles were adopted as part of the 1994 General Plan update, and reaffirmed in 2004: 1. Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance the quality of life. 2. Change will be harmonized to preserve Pasadena’s historic character and environment. 3. Economic vitality will be promoted to provide jobs, services, revenues and opportunities. 4. Pasadena will be promoted as a healthy family community. 5. Pasadena will be a City where people can circulate without cars. 6. Pasadena will be promoted as a cultural, scientific, corporate, entertainment and education center for the region. 7. Community participation must be a permanent part of achieving a greater City. Each of the seven principles is supported with multiple policies and objectives, creating a complex and sometimes conflicting array of directives. Some of the policies and objectives read as simple affirmations regarding the kind of city Pasadena should be and others are worded in more specific terms, almost as action items. Because of this inconsistency and the broad scope encompassed by the principles, it is difficult to prepare a summary of what has been done to accomplish them. As a result, the following narrative focuses on the directives specifically called out in the plan as the implementation tools. While this is undoubtedly inadequate to describe all the work and progress that has been done under the principles, it allows a more manageable focus on those actions that were deemed the highest priority by the authors of the plan at the time. Lacking more detailed and potentially unwieldy documentation, it is still important to express that the seven guiding principles have served as the City’s vision for achieving a greater city and have guided many decisions at the City Council level and down through the organization.

¾ IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS The 1994 General Plan and 2004 updates included an implementation section. The 2004 implementation section identifies ten actions to implement the Guiding Principles as listed below.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 25 of 32

Specific Plans The 1994 General Plan called for the creation of the following seven specific plans, and targeted growth to them. The 2004 General Plan Update reaffirmed the need and purpose of the specific plans. The General Plan designates the intensity of development and the mix of allowed uses within each specific plan area. See Figure 71, in the Appendix, for a map of the specific plan areas. The specific plans contain detailed development standards, distribution of land uses, infrastructure requirements, and implementation measures for the development of its specific geographic area. Transit-oriented development, pedestrian-oriented development, urban villages and mixed use development were included in several of the plans. It is through these standards that the goals and policies of the General Plan are implemented. All seven plans have been completed. In addition, an eighth specific plan is currently underway for the North Lincoln Corridor. Figure 71a Date of Specific Plan Completion and Updates Year Completed 2004

Last Update --

East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan

2003

--

East Pasadena Specific Plan

2000

Fair Oaks / Orange Grove Specific Plan

2000

North Lake Specific Plan

1997

South Fair Oaks Specific Plan

1998

West Gateway Specific Plan

1998

2006 Minor changes 2006 Minor changes 2008 5-year update 2006 Minor changes --

Specific Plan Central District Specific Plan

See Figure 71 in the Appendix for a map showing the location of the plan areas. Other Planning Tools The 1994 General Plan and 2004 Update identified zoning map amendments and code revisions as key tools to implement the policies, objectives and policies of the General Plan.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 26 of 32

Zoning Map Amendments Since the adoption of the 1994 General Plan, the City implemented more than 20 zone changes intended to protect residential neighborhoods. These zone changes reduced future densities of multi-family zones adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. In addition to the density changes, a special height limit overlay was implemented in four neighborhoods where multi-family development was occurring at a height that was incompatible with existing residential development. See Figure 72 in the Appendix for a map showing the location of these overlays. Zoning and Municipal Code Revisions Since 2004, numerous zoning code amendments were adopted to implement the principles of the General Plan. One key amendment included a 2004 update to the City’s Hillside Ordinance, which reduced allowed floor area for larger lots and established neighborhood compatibility standards. In addition, a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code was completed in 2005, which codified all standards of the Specific Plan areas and established standards for Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs), mixed-use, urban housing and work-live projects. Numerous Code Amendments were completed between 2005 and 2010 to protect neighborhoods. Examples include an amendment prohibiting medical marijuana dispensary uses and others developing stricter regulations for sexually oriented businesses, pawn shops and massage uses, and wireless facilities. To further review the impacts of multi-family developments on single-family neighborhoods, an in-depth review of the City of Gardens standards (standards for multi-family development) was completed. This process resulted in updates to the Zoning Code which included additional second and third story setbacks for residential structures from single-family zoned areas. In 2009, the floor area for large single-family lots was reduced to address issues of mansionization. See Figure 73 in the Appendix for a more comprehensive list of Zoning Code Amendments. In 2002, the City Council adopted the Tree Protection Ordinance, which established requirements for protecting landmark, native and specimen trees on public and most private properties. An update to the ordinance was adopted in 2010, which increased the number of protected trees. In 2005, the City adopted the Green Building Practices Ordinance to increase the environmental performance standards of buildings in Pasadena by requiring developers to design large developments with the intent to meet LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards. All new municipal buildings and large renovations must also achieve LEED Silver standards. From Fiscal Year 2006 to Fiscal Year 2009, the number of LEED certified buildings increased from three to eight, and the number of LEED registered buildings increased from just five to 48. In

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 27 of 32

Fiscal Year 2008, building permits were issued for 1,052,058 square feet of new construction that met the threshold of the Green Building Ordinance, this accounted for approximately 63 percent of all new construction. Green Space and Conservation Element The 2004 General Plan directed that the Open Space Element be revised and renames the Green Space Element. It also called for the element to incorporate all existing plans prepared for open space and park areas and include new planning and implementation efforts. In addition, it called for the Conservation Element to be revised in tandem with the Green Space Element. In 2007, the City approved the Green Space, Recreation and Parks Element. The element included nine core principles related to natural open space, developed parklands, recreation facility use and distribution, recreation programs types and distribution, and organizational structure and ongoing community participation. At the same time, the City adopted the Green Space, Recreational and Parks Master Plan to provide a guide for the creative, orderly development and management of recreational facilities and programs for the City. The need for a separate element focusing on natural open space was identified during the development of the Green Space, Recreation and Parks Element. In 2008, the City initiated the process to incorporate open space into the existing Conservation Element and update the element as the Open Space and Conservation Element. That update is currently in process and is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. Arts and Culture Element The 2004 General Plan update directed the preparation of an Arts and Culture Element to address items such as creative support, cultural equity, education, funding, market and cultural tourism and public art. In 2005, the City adopted the Cultural Nexus: An Action Plan for the Cultural Sector in Pasadena, to address many of the items that would be incorporated in a General Plan element. The document includes a nexus vision, principles and policies to help advance the cultural life of the community by drawing together the City’s rich and diverse assets. In addition, a Master Public Art Plan is being prepared and several new programs have been implemented in response to the needs identified in Cultural Nexus. Those include a new community mural program, a rotating public art exhibition program, and art in vacant storefronts. Economic Development and Employment Element The 2004 General Plan update directed the preparation of an update to the Economic Development and Employment Element with goals and policies to guide decisions affecting economic opportunities and employment growth in the City. The City is currently in the process of updating this element. The element is anticipated to be completed at the same time as the Land Use and Mobility Elements.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 28 of 32

Citywide Design Principles In 1992, the City adopted broad Design Principles for all new development projects. These principles were updated and refined as part of the 2004 General Plan update. The principles include: enhance the surrounding environment, incorporate human values and needs, and show creativity and imagination. These general principles are to be used for projects throughout the City. The seven specific plans further refined these design principles into design guidelines and development standards. The Central District took this a step further and included detailed design guidelines. In 2009, the City approved the Commercial and Multi-Family Design Guidelines, which work in conjunction with the design guidelines that can be found in six of the seven specific plan areas (the exception being the more detailed Central District Specific Plan). The 2009 Design Guidelines reflect the concern in the community about the need for a building to reflect its context. The document is divided into three chapters. The first focuses on how a building should relate to and activate the street. The second chapter discusses how a building should relate to its surrounding context. The third chapter focuses on how a building’s mass, details, and materials should emphasize the building’s permanence. The Guidelines do not specify one design theme for the City, but offer designers flexibility and imagination – a concern offered during public outreach – while defining elements of popular styles. Other Design Tools Starting in January of 2010, two additional tools were added to help improve the design process and decisions. First, applicants can now submit for a preliminary consultation phase of design review. This allows building designers to obtain comments from city staff and, in some cases, the Design Commission, on their preliminary design concept prior to preparing formal design drawings. Second, applicant must now submit a three-dimensional, digital model of the proposed new building. The model can then be placed in the City’s three-dimensional model to view the project’s relationship with the surrounding built environment. Over the last 15 years the City has instituted a number of policies and regulations to help new development blend with the old. This includes revising the City of Gardens standards (standards for multi-family development), creating additional building height limit overlays, and requiring the 2nd and 3rd stories of multi-family and nonresidential structures to be setback further from single family zoned areas. In addition to the height limit overlays approved, the Central District Specific Plan called for height reductions, in some places this was as much as 80 feet. Historic Preservation The 2004 General Plan update identified the following strategies to achieve the goal of preservation of Pasadena’s historic character and environment: • Completing historic context/ property type reports; • Conducting Citywide survey of historic resources;

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 29 of 32

• • •

Long range program of conducting Certified Local Government funded intensive surveys; Identification of strategies to protect or minimize negative impacts to historic resources; and Cultural Heritage Ordinance; incorporation into the City’s Land Management System (now the City’s Tidemark System).

Landmark and National Registered Districts In 1994, the City had only one historic Landmark District and six National Registered Districts citywide. Between 1999 and 2003, the City completed three historic resource surveys targeted to different thematic categories: Arts and Crafts Period Residential Architecture, Period Revival Residential Architecture, and Multi-Family Residential Architecture. Studies such as these and other geographically targeted studies inform the community on the extent of the City’s historic heritage and take steps to preserve it. As a result of these studies, the City added 16 historic landmark districts since 1994, for a current total of 17 districts. In addition, the City added seven National Register Districts, or a total of 13 Districts (with only one district as both a Landmark and National District). Both the landmark and national districts include a broad range of commercial and residential areas. Adherence to standards for rehabilitation of historic buildings ensures preservation of buildings and neighborhoods. Of the 30,178 properties in the City, 3,693 are designated as historic (or approximately 12 percent of properties citywide). Code Amendments and Computer Tracking Besides designating structures as historic, the City also created tools to assist owners of historic structures. The City created a process in which it can modify zoning standards in order to make relocation and reuse of historic structures easier. Similarly, owners of historic structures in multi-family zones can apply to convert their buildings to office space or bed and breakfast lodges. Furthermore the City also created the adjustment permit, which allows sites of two acres or more to tailor zoning standards in cases of preservation of historic resources. This new permit provided the flexibility needed to create a design for the Ambassador West site, which garnered neighborhood support and preserved numerous buildings, structures, and landscapes. Information on historic properties (e.g. photographs, site plans, survey documents, etc.) are tracked on the City’s Tidemark computer system and mapped on the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS). Other Preservation Tools Another tool, commonly called the Mills Act, offers tax incentives to property owners for preservation and improvements made to historic properties. So far, there are 104 properties that make use of this incentive. Of the 30,178 properties in the City, 3,693 are designated as historic (or approximately 12 percent of properties citywide).

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 30 of 32

Redevelopment Areas The 2004 General Plan update stated that the Redevelopment Plans should define future development for those areas not in Specific Plan areas. The City contains eight redevelopment project areas: the Downtown, Fair Oaks, Halstead Sycamore, Lake Washington, Lincoln Avenue, Old Pasadena, Orange Grove, and Villa Parke. The majority of these are located in the Central District and Northwest Pasadena areas. Five year implementation plans, as required by the State of California, have been completed for Pasadena’s Redevelopment Areas, including those areas not within a Specific Plan area. The most recent plan was adopted for the planning period of 2009-2014. The plan describes the specific goals and objectives for the Redevelopment Agency and for the project areas related to reducing and eliminating blight, and describes how the Agency will implement the requirement to increase, improve and preserve low and moderate-income housing. Master Development Plans The 2004 General Plan update called for the City to continue using Master Plans as a tool to implement the objectives and principles of the General Plan. Since 1994, the City has approved or updated 13 master plans for property owned by major public institutions, including the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Fuller Theological Seminary, Las Encinas Hospital, private schools, churches, and clubs. Another five are in the process of being updated. The plans establish the rules of development on the property, including the maximum amount, type and location of future development during the lifespan of the Master Plan. See Figure 74 in the Appendix for a comprehensive list of existing Master Development Plans adopted by the City Council. Management and Administration The 2004 General Plan update identifies various management and administrative roles and implementation tools of the General Plan. They include General Plan updates, General Plan Amendments, development of GIS and other computer tools, and incorporating the General Plan in the City’s Budget Development Plan and Capital Improvements Programs. The 1994 General Plan and 2004 update called for annually updating various commissions and the City Council on the progress of meeting the plan’s goals and objectives. In May 1999, the City presented an update, or status report, on the General Plan’s progress to the City Council. In addition, the plan called for updating, or re-evaluating the General Plan at fiveyear intervals beginning in 1998. Citizen participation was to be incorporated in the re-evaluation. In 1999, the City initiated an update to re-evaluate the General Plan that update was completed in 2004. The current update was launched in 2009, or five years after the last update was completed.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 31 of 32

Since 1994, over 30 General Plan Amendments have been approved by the City Council. Nearly a third of them were to change the land use map from residential to institutional for existing churches, schools and public uses. Others included comprehensive updates to General Plan Elements and text changes within the Land Use or Mobility Elements. See Figure 75 in the Appendix for a comprehensive list of General Plan Amendments approved by the City Council. The 2004 General Plan Update called for the City to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS), a computerized land use mapping and information system. The City first started using GIS in 2001. A layer with the general plan land use designations was added in 2004 and another layer with the zoning districts and specific plan areas was added in 2006. Other layers that have been added since 2006 include historic districts, hillside overlays, redevelopment areas, business improvement districts, enterprise zones, schools and public facilities. The 2004 General Plan Update called for the plan to become a tool for setting spending priorities in the City’s Budget and the Capital Improvement’s Programs (CIP). To date, these tasks have not been fully integrated. Environmental Conservation Although environmental conservation was not called out as an implementation tool in the 1994 General Plan and 2004 Updates, it has become an important priority for the community. In 2006 the City adopted an Environmental Charter, and endorsed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords. The Accords identify 21 actions that will guide the City toward conservation. The City followed these endorsements by adopting the Green City Action Plan, which contains over 70 initiatives for addressing global warming, conserving energy and water, increasing renewable energy, reducing waste, protecting natural habitats, and reducing risks to public health. The City publishes its accomplishments in a reader-friendly annual Green City Reports and Indicator Reports.

DRAFT - General Plan Metrics Report

Page 32 of 32

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – City of Pasadena Percentage Population Change (Graph).....................................................................3 Figure 2 – Pasadena Population by Decade (Table)...................................................................................................4 Figure 3 – Population Comparison: Pasadena and County of LA (Graph) ..........................................................5 Figure 4 – Population Comparison: Pasadena and County of LA (Table) ............................................................6 Figure 5 – Building Permit Activity (Graph)...............................................................................................................7 Figure 6 – Building Permit Activity (Table).................................................................................................................8 Figure 7 – Building Permit Activity (Table).................................................................................................................8 Figure 8 – Building Permit Activity (Graph)...............................................................................................................9 Figure 9– Net-New, Market Rate Residential Units Completed by Zoning Category (Table) ..........................10 Figure 10 – Net-New, Market Rate Residential Units Completed by Zoning Category (Table).......................11 Figure 11 – Number of Net-New, Market Rate Units Constructed in Each Calendar Year (Graph)..............12 Figure 12 – Comparison of Vacancy Rates of Housing Units (Table)..................................................................12 Figure 13 – Transit Oriented Districts (Map) ...........................................................................................................13 Figure 14 – Location of Net-New, Market Rate Residential Development by Percentage of Total (Chart) ..13 Figure 15 – Net-New, Market Rate Units (Table) ....................................................................................................14 Figure 16 – Net-New, Market Rate Units (Graph) ..................................................................................................14 Figure 17 – Number of New Affordable Housing Units Completed by Year (Table) .......................................15 Figure 18 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Completed by Zoning Category (Table) ..................16 Figure 19 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Completed by Zoning Category (Table) ..................17 Figure 20 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Constructed 2000 – 2009 (Graph) ............................18 Figure 21 – Location of Net-New, Non-Residential Development by Percentage of Total (Chart)................19 Figure 22 – Non-Residential Construction Compared to Development Cap (Table) ........................................19 Figure 23 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Constructed 2009 (Graph) .........................................20 Figure 23a – Citywide Trends in Mode Share 1995-2008 (Table)..........................................................................20 Figure 23b – Purpose of Mode Travel (Table) .........................................................................................................21 Figure 24 – Travel Time Comparison – Arroyo Parkway .......................................................................................22 Figure 25 – Travel Time Comparison – Colorado Boulevard................................................................................24 Figure 26 – Travel Time Comparison – Fair Oaks ..................................................................................................25 Figure 27 – Travel Time Comparison – Green Street .............................................................................................26 Figure 28 – Travel Time Comparison – Lake Avenue.............................................................................................27 Figure 29 – Travel Time Comparison – Orange Grove ..........................................................................................28 Figure 30 – Travel Time Comparison – San Gabriel Boulevard............................................................................29 Figure 31 – Travel Time Comparison – Walnut Street............................................................................................30 Figure 31b - Change in Travel Time for Corridors (Table) ....................................................................................31 Figure 33 – Traffic Counts Map..................................................................................................................................32 Figure 34 – Gate Down Time Summary....................................................................................................................33 Figure 35 – Transit Accessibility Map ........................................................................................................................35 Figure 36 – Transit Frequency Map............................................................................................................................36 Figure 37 – ARTS Ridership All Routes FY 2008 and 2009 ..................................................................................37 Figure 38 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 20 Counterclockwise ...........................................................................38 Figure 39 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 20 Clockwise.........................................................................................39 Figure 40 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 31 ............................................................................................................40 Figure 41 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 32 ............................................................................................................41 Figure 42 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 40 ............................................................................................................42 Figure 43 – Metro Gold Line Ridership – Westbound............................................................................................43

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 1 of 73

Figure 44 – Metro Gold Line Ridership – Eastbound.............................................................................................44 Figure 45 – Map of Transit-Oriented Development Areas (Map).........................................................................44 Figure 46 – Comparison of New Residential Development to TOD Areas (Map) ............................................45 Figure 47 – Mixed Use Development Constructed Citywide (Table) ...................................................................46 Figure 48 – Mixed Use Development Constructed Citywide (Chart) ...................................................................47 Figure 49 – Map of Census Blocks Groups and Central District Specific Plan Boundaries (Map)..................48 Figure 50 – Owner vs. Renter Occupied Housing (Table) .....................................................................................49 Figure 51 – Age of Central District Residents (Table).............................................................................................49 Figure 52 – Alternative Travel Modes for Non-Commuter Trips in the Central District (Table)....................50 Figure 53 - Alternate Travel Modes for Non-Commuter Trips in the Central District (Table)........................51 Figure 54 – Approximate Number of Vehicles per Person (Table) ......................................................................51 Figure 55 – Vehicles Available Per Household (Table) ...........................................................................................52 Figure 56 – Median Household Income (Table).......................................................................................................52 Figure 57 – Median Household Income (Graph).....................................................................................................53 Figure 58 – Number of Employed and Unemployed Residents (Table) ..............................................................53 Figure 59 – Unemployment Rate for Pasadena and County of LA (Graph)........................................................54 Figure 60 – Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property (Table).................................................................................55 Figure 61 – Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property (Graph) ...............................................................................56 Figure 62 - Pasadena Total Revenues (Table) ...........................................................................................................57 Figure 63 – City of Pasadena Total Revenue (Graph) .............................................................................................58 Figure 64 – General Fund Revenue Sources (Table) ...............................................................................................59 Figure 65 – City of Pasadena Sources of Revenue (Table) .....................................................................................60 Figure 66 – City of Pasadena Sources of Revenue (Graph)....................................................................................61 Figure 67 – Average Water Usage Rate per New Unit (Table)...............................................................................61 Figure 68 – Average Water Usage Rate per Unit of New Construction (Graph)................................................62 Figure 69 – Residential Units and Water Consumption (Table) ............................................................................62 Figure 70 – Non-Residential Square Footage and Water Consumption (Table) .................................................63 Figure 71 – Specific Plan Areas (Map) .......................................................................................................................63 Figure 71a – Date of Specific Plan Completion and Updates (Table)...................................................................64 Figure 72 – Height Limit Overlays (Map)..................................................................................................................65 Figure 73 – Zoning Code Amendments (Table).......................................................................................................66 Figure 74 – Master Development Plans (Table) .......................................................................................................68 Figure 75 – General Plan Amendments (Table) .......................................................................................................69 Figure 76 - Citywide Household Vehicle Ownership (Graph) ...............................................................................71 Figure 77 – Comparison between Los Angeles County and Pasadena- Vehicles per Household (Table).......71 Figure 78 – Citywide Household Vehicle Trips (Table) .........................................................................................71 Figure 79 – Citywide Trends in Mode Share 1995-2008 (Table)............................................................................72 Figure 80 – Citywide Auto Occupancy (Table).........................................................................................................72 Figure 81 – Citywide Percent of Person Trips by Detailed Mode and Trip Purpose (Table)............................72 Figure 82 – Average Passenger Per Hour (Table) ....................................................................................................73 Figure 83 – Citywide Percent of Walk Trips for Utilitarian Purposes (Table) .....................................................73

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 2 of 73

Figure 1 – City of Pasadena Percentage Population Change (Graph) City of Pasadena Percentage Population Change 1880 - 2010 100% 92%

80% 70%

60% 46%

40%

40%

33%

23% 20%

7%

10%

9% -3%

4%

7% 2%

0% 1880-

1890-

1900-

1910-

1920-

1930-

1940-

1950-

1960-

1970-

1980-

1990-

2000-

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

-20%

Source: US Census; Planning and Development Department, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 3 of 73

Figure 2 – Pasadena Population by Decade (Table) Pasadena Population by Decade 1880-2010 Year

Population

1880

391

1890

4,882

4,491

92%

1900

9,117

4,235

46%

1910

30,291

21,174

70%

1920

45,374

15,083

33%

1930

76,086

30,712

40%

Difference % Change

1940

81,864

5,778

7%

1950

106,268

24,404

23%

1960

116,407

10,139

9%

1970

112,951

-3,456

-3%

1980

118,072

5,121

4%

1990

131,591

13,519

10%

2000

133,936

2,345

2%

2010

144,633

10,697

7%

Source: Census, City of Pasadena Planning and Development Departmen

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 4 of 73

Figure 3 – Population Comparison: Pasadena and County of LA (Graph) Population Comparison: Pasadena and County of LA 1990 - 2009 12.00%

10.00%

Percentage Change

8.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00%

County of Los Angeles

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

-2.00%

City of Pasadena

*Values between 2001 and 2009 are averages based on 2009 ACS and City estimates of population.

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 5 of 73

Figure 4 – Population Comparison: Pasadena and County of LA (Table) Population Comparison between City of Pasadena and County of Los Angeles 1990 - 2009

Year

Population LA County Pasadena

Annual Change LA County Pasadena

Total Change Since 1990 LA County Pasadena

1990

8,863,164

131,586

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1991

8,860,281

130,843

-0.03%

-0.56%

-0.03%

-0.56%

1992

9,060,246

131,238

2.26%

0.30%

2.22%

-0.26%

1993

9,083,691

131,793

0.26%

0.42%

2.48%

0.16%

1994

9,106,489

130,973

0.25%

-0.62%

2.73%

-0.46%

1995

9,101,122

130,994

-0.06%

0.02%

2.68%

-0.45%

1996

9,108,050

130,636

0.08%

-0.27%

2.75%

-0.72%

1997

9,185,584

130,872

0.85%

0.18%

3.60%

-0.54%

1998

9,265,811

131,430

0.87%

0.43%

4.48%

-0.11%

1999

9,394,293

132,297

1.39%

0.66%

5.86%

0.55%

2000

9,519,338

133,936

1.33%

1.24%

7.19%

1.79%

2001

0.37%

0.60%

7.56%

2.39%

2002

0.37%

0.60%

7.92%

2.99%

2003

0.37%

0.60%

8.29%

3.59%

2004

0.37%

0.60%

8.65%

4.19%

2005

0.37%

0.60%

9.02%

4.79%

2006

0.37%

0.60%

9.38%

5.39%

2007

0.37%

0.60%

9.75%

5.99%

2008 2009

9,832,137

141,180

0.37%

0.60%

10.11%

6.59%

0.37%

0.60%

10.48%

7.19%

Source: California Department of Finance, City of Pasadena Planning and Development Department

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 6 of 73

Figure 5 – Building Permit Activity (Graph) Building Permit Activity Total Value of and Number of Issued Residential and Non-Residential Building Permits 20,000

3,000

18,000 2,500

14,000 Permits Completed

2,000 12,000 10,000

1,500

8,000 1,000

6,000 4,000

Tens of Thousands of 2009 Dollars

16,000

500 2,000 0 1994

1995

1996

1997

Non-Residential Permits

1998

1999

2000

2001

Residential Permits

2002

2003

2004

2005

Non-Residential Values

2006

2007

2008

0 2009 Fiscal Year

Residential Valuation

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 7 of 73

Figure 6 – Building Permit Activity (Table) Building Permit Activity Fiscal Year 1994-2010 Total

Permit Type Non-Residential Permits

Average

13,182

775

1,340,249,881

78,838,228

Adjusted to 2009 Dollars 1,560,552,705

91,797,218

Valuation Residential Permits

33,949

1,997

1,336,976,409

78,645,671

Adjusted to 2009 Dollars 1,513,004,428

89,000,260

Valuation Total Permits

47,131

Valuation

2,772

2,677,226,290 157,483,899

Adjusted to 2009 Dollars 3,073,557,133 180,797,478 Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

Figure 7 – Building Permit Activity (Table) Building Permit Activity Fiscal Year 1994-2010 Fiscal Year

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Non-Residential Permits Valuation Adjusted to 2009 Dollars Reported in 10s of Thousands

728

702

50,897,822 34,582,512

1,549

829

29,621,473 37,503,562 71,602,299

87,799,988 103,079,797 113,784,266 92,592,083 135,330,233

84,616,217 116,395,161 72,304,679

91,428,171

98,237,720 73,917,439

72,783,885 48,069,692

39,988,989 49,879,737 93,799,012 112,383,985 126,788,150 137,678,962 110,184,579 156,983,070

95,616,325 126,870,725 76,642,960

94,171,016

98,237,720 73,917,439

7,278

4,807

1,537

1,462

806

681

817

3,999

4,988

9,380

1,452

1,705

851

11,238

740

699

773

12,679

13,768

11,018

1,694

1,969

2,008

691

678

738

715

601

15,698

9,562

12,687

7,664

9,417

9,824

7,392

2,308

2,405

2,550

2,718

2,531

2,254

1,893

Residential Permits Valuation Adjusted to 2009 Dollars Reported in 10s of Thousands

1,801

1,854

22,474,215 27,081,027

30,916,179 37,531,846 34,792,050

30,559,047

41,517,834 136,543,612 68,713,565

32,138,127 37,642,628

41,736,842 49,917,355 45,577,586

39,115,580

51,066,936 165,217,771 81,769,142 112,231,920 190,400,090 161,298,010 131,753,286 130,975,157 131,699,898 75,805,266

3,214

3,764

3,086

2,291

96,751,655 168,495,655 147,979,826 124,295,553 127,160,347 131,699,898 75,805,266

4,174

4,992

4,558

3,912

5,107

16,522

8,177

11,223

19,040

16,130

13,175

13,098

13,170

7,581

2,258

2,386

2,618

2,705

2,434

2,668

2,781

2,999

3,083

3,288

3,446

3,233

2,969

2,494

Total Permits Valuation Adjusted to 2009 Dollars Reported in 100s of Thousands

73,372,037 61,663,539

60,537,652 75,035,408 106,394,349 118,359,035 144,597,631 250,327,878 161,305,648 232,081,888 253,111,872 264,374,987 196,600,232 218,588,518 229,937,618 149,722,705

104,922,013 85,712,319

81,725,830 99,797,093 139,376,597 151,499,565 177,855,086 302,896,732 191,953,721 269,214,990 286,016,415 288,168,736 208,396,246 225,146,174 229,937,618 149,722,705

1,049

857

817

998

1,394

1,515

1,779

3,029

1,920

2,692

2,860

2,882

2,084

2,251

2,299

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 8 of 73

1,497

Figure 8 – Building Permit Activity (Graph) Building Permit Activity Total Value of and Number of Issued Building Permits

3,500

4,000 3,500

Permits Completed

3,000 2,500

2,500 Average Number of Permits = 2,772 2,000

2,000

Average Value of Permits = 1,808 1,500

1,500 1,000

1,000

100s of Thousands of 2009 Dollars

3,000

500

500 0

0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total Permits Issued

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Fiscal Year

Value of Permits

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 9 of 73

Figure 9– Net-New, Market Rate Residential Units Completed by Zoning Category (Table) Net New Market Rate Residential Units Completed by Zoning Category 1994-2009 Total Units Percentage Geographic Area

Constructed

of Total

Cap

SPECIFIC PLANS 3250

69.0%

5,095

East Colorado Specific Plan

0

0.0%

750

East Pasadena Specific Plan

204

4.3%

500

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan

205

4.4%

500

4

0.1%

300

134

2.8%

75

0

0.0%

Central District Specific Plan

North Lake Specific Plan South Fair Oaks Specific Plan West Gateway Specific Plan Sub-Total

550 7,770

3797

OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG)

38

0.8%

No cap

Multi-Family (RM 12, RM-16, RM-32, RM-48)

735

15.6%

No cap

Single Family

139

3.0%

No cap

Sub-Total

912

TOTAL

4709

100.0%

In compliance with the General Plan, this table reports net-new development. When a smaller building is demolished to construct a larger building, the difference in number of units between the two is reported. In compliance with the General Plan, units with affordable housing covenants are not counted in terms of growth, except in the Fair Oaks Orange Grove Specific Plan Area. Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 10 of 73

Figure 10 – Net-New, Market Rate Residential Units Completed by Zoning Category (Table) Net New Market Rate Residential Units Completed by Zoning Category 1994-2009

Geographic Area

Total Units

Percentage

Constructed

of Total

1994-

2000

2001

2002

Year 2004

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

SPECIFIC PLANS Central District Specific Plan

3250

69%

378

20

234

695

221

402

161

394

380

107

East Colorado Specific Plan

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

East Pasadena Specific Plan

204

4%

16

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

188

0

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan

205

4%

14

0

0

0

0

64

0

73

0

44

10

4

0%

-8

0

-2

-1

0

0

0

2

14

-1

0

134

3%

0

0

0

0

87

0

0

0

0

47

0

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

North Lake Specific Plan South Fair Oaks Specific Plan West Gateway Specific Plan Sub-Total

258

3797

OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG)

38

1%

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

22

14

1

0

Duplex (RM-12)

63

1%

20

4

2

0

3

1

11

5

7

4

6 64

Multi-Family (RM-16, RM-32, RM-48)

672

14%

169

9

36

42

37

84

57

49

36

89

Open Space

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Public and Semi-Public

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Single Family

80

2%

39

6

0

4

2

3

3

1

5

Single Family - Hillsides

59

1%

23

5

2

4

7

5

1

8

2

2

0

100%

651

44

272

744

357

559

234

554

458

485

351

Sub-Total TOTAL

4

13

912 4709

In compliance with the General Plan, this table reports net-new development. When a smaller building is demolished to construct a larger building, the difference in number of units between the two is reported. In compliance with the General Plan, units with affordable housing covenants are not counted in terms of growth. Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 11 of 73

Figure 11 – Number of Net-New, Market Rate Units Constructed in Each Calendar Year (Graph) Number of Net-New Market Rate Units Constructed in Each Calendar Year 2000-2009

800 744 700

Net New Market Rate Units

600

559

554

500

458

485

400 Average = 377

357

351

300 272 234 200

100 44 0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 12 – Comparison of Vacancy Rates of Housing Units (Table) Comparison of Vacancy Rates of Housing Units 2000

1990 LA County Pasadena Total Housing Units 2,989,552 50,199 Total Vacant Units 173,791 2,833 Vacancy Rate 5.8% 5.6% Source: Census 1990 and Census 2000

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Central

Central

District LA County Pasadena 6,138 3,270,909 54,114 495 137,135 2,287 8.1% 4.2% 4.2%

District 7,237 406 5.6%

Page 12 of 73

Figure 13 – Transit Oriented Districts (Map)

Figure 14 – Location of Net-New, Market Rate Residential Development by Percentage of Total (Chart) Location of Net-New Market Rate Residential Development from by Percentage of Total 1994-2010

Single Family - Hillsides 1%

Single Family 2%

Multi-Family, 14%

Duplex (RM-12) 1%

Commercial and Industrial, 1% South Fair Oaks Specific Plan, 3%

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan, 4% East Pasadena Specific Plan, 4%

Central District Specific Plan, 69%

Source: City iof Pasadena Planning and Development, 2009

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 13 of 73

Figure 15 – Net-New, Market Rate Units (Table) Net New Market Rate Units As of 12/31/2009

Specific Plan Area Central District

Completed Units % of Cap 3,250 64%

Under

Entitlment

Construction

Submitted

Cap

Remainder

Units % of Cap Units % of Cap Units Units % of Cap 403 8% 686 13% 5,095 756 15% 5 1% 0 0% 750 745 99%

East Colorado

0

0%

East Pasadena

204

41%

0

0%

180

36%

500

116

23%

4

1%

1

0%

0

0%

500

495

99%

134

45%

0

0%

0

0%

300

166

55%

0

0%

33

44%

0

0%

75

42

56%

205

37%

12

2%

16

3%

550

317

58%

3,797

49%

454

6%

882

11%

7,770

2,637

34%

North Lake South Fair Oaks West Gateway Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Total

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

Figure 16 – Net-New, Market Rate Units (Graph)

Net New Market Rate Units As of 12/31/2009 5,500

Cap = 5095

5,000

15% 4,500 4,000

Units

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000

Cap = 750

500

99%

Cap = 500

Cap = 500 23%

99%

Cap = 550 Cap = 300

55%

0 CDSP

ECSP

EPSP

Completed

NLAKE SP

Under Construction

SFO SP

Entitlment Submitted

36% Cap = 75 WGSP

0% FOOG SP

Remainder

Source: City of Pasadena Planning Department, 2009.

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 14 of 73

Figure 17 – Number of New Affordable Housing Units Completed by Year (Table) Number of Affordable Housing Units Completed by Year, Organized by Zone 1994-2009

Geographic Area

Total Units

Percentage

Constructed

of Total

Year 1994-1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2009

2008

SPECIFIC PLANS Central District Specific Plan

441

51%

146

18

0

23

0

17

16

193

22

6

0

East Colorado Specific Plan

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

East Pasadena Specific Plan

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

156

18%

12

0

0

0

0

65

0

43

0

36

0

13

1%

0

0

0

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

South Fair Oaks Specific Plan

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

West Gateway Specific Plan

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

12%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0

89

0

1

0%

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

146

17%

112

1

0

0

25

2

1

1

0

3

1

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan North Lake Specific Plan

Sub-Total OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG) Duplex (RM-12) Multi-Family (RM-16, RM-32, RM-48) Open Space

610

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

1%

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Single Family

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Single Family - Hillsides

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

TOTAL 867 100% Source: City of Pasadena Planning and Development Department, 2009

281

19

0

36

25

84

17

248

22

134

1

Public and Semi-Public

Sub-Total

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

257

Page 15 of 73

Figure 18 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Completed by Zoning Category (Table) Net New, Non-Residential Square Footage Completed by Zoning Category 1994-2009

Geographic Area

Total Sq Ft

Percentage of

Constructed

Total

Cap

SPECIFIC PLANS Central District Specific Plan

1,328,329

40.2%

6,217,000

East Colorado Specific Plan

373,335

11.3%

650,000

East Pasadena Specific Plan

41,061

1.2%

2,100,000

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan

93,702

2.8%

611,000

North Lake Specific Plan

52,075

1.6%

175,000

606,879

18.4%

1,550,000

800

0.0%

800,000

South Fair Oaks Specific Plan West Gateway Specific Plan Sub-Total

2,496,181

12,103,000

OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG)

295,838

8.9%

No cap

Duplex (RM-12)

0

0.0%

No cap

Multi-Family (RM-16, RM-32, RM-48)

0

0.0%

No cap

46,117

1.4%

No cap

469,047

14.2%

No cap

Single Family

0

0.0%

No cap

Single Family - Hillsides

0

0.0%

No cap

Open Space* Public and Semi-Public

Sub-Total TOTAL

811,002 3,307,183

100.0%

In compliance with the General Plan, this table reports net-new development. When a smaller building is demolished to construct a larger building, the difference in square footage between the two is reported. *Construction in the Open Space Zone has been limited to improvements to the Rose Bowl, the new Kidspace Museum, new bathrooms at parks, new picnic shleters, and the Police Department's new shooting range. Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 16 of 73

Figure 19 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Completed by Zoning Category (Table) Net New Non-Residential Square Footage Completed by Zoning Category 1994-2009 Total Sq Ft Percentage Constructed

Geographic Area

of Total

Year 1994-1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

SPECIFIC PLANS Central District Specific Plan

1,328,329

40%

124,282 169,864

East Colorado Specific Plan

373,335

11%

148,808

East Pasadena Specific Plan

41,061

1%

2,737

61,254 205,096 401,420 35,564

27,117 231,523 18,362

31,896

26

-308

-5,538

10,237 46,938

590

1,240 136,207

5,162

11,245 14,915

0

25,668 -87,747

2,134

-1,592 139,949

-21,320 -45,514

2,869

51,110

Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan

93,702

3%

39,255

13,875

2,297

-4,758

0

29,775

7,528

4,288

North Lake Specific Plan

52,075

2%

14,593

0

6,310

0

8,400

778

2,519

15,935

2,444

1,096

0

606,879

18%

355,872

1,652

0

0

0

0

1,361

1,505

58,348 34,060

154,081

800

0%

0

0

0

0

0

800

0

0

0

0

0

1,389

South Fair Oaks Specific Plan West Gateway Specific Plan Sub-Total

1,442

2,496,181

OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG)

295,838

9%

88,378

20,952

62,669

1,728

15,206

13,827

9,595

73,802

6,275

2,017

Duplex (RM-12)

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Multi-Family (RM-16, RM-32, RM-48)

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,375

784

8,658

0

400

29,600

700

0

0

49,016

35,812 157,671

3,000

0 23,123

14,942

6,000 22,330

157,153

Open Space* Public and Semi-Public

46,117

1%

469,047

14%

3,600

Single Family

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Single Family - Hillsides

0

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

749,868 197,978 248,717 405,006 239,971 434,839 86,769 157,938 377,623 42,044

367,899

Sub-Total TOTAL

811,002 3,307,183

100%

In compliance with the General Plan, this table reports net-new development. When a smaller building is demolished to construct a larger building, the difference in square footage between the two is reported. *Construction in the Open Space Zone has been limited to improvements to the Rose Bowl, the new Kidspace Museum, new bathrooms at parks, new picnic shleters, and the Police Department's new shooting range.

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 17 of 73

Figure 20 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Constructed 2000 – 2009 (Graph) Number of Net-New Non-Residential Square Footage Constructed 2000-2009 500,000 450,000

434,839

405,006 400,000

377,623

Net New Market Rate Units

367,899 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000

Average = 254,458

239,971

248,717

197,978 157,938

150,000 100,000

86,769

50,000

42,044

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 18 of 73

Figure 21 – Location of Net-New, Non-Residential Development by Percentage of Total (Chart) Location of Net-New Non-Residential Development by Percentage of Total 1994-2009

14%

Central District Specific Plan South Fair Oaks Specific Plan

9% 40% 1%

East Colorado Specific Plan Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan

1%

North Lake Specific Plan

2% East Pasadena Specific Plan

3%

West Gateway Specific Plan Open Space*

11%

Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG) 18%

Public and Semi-Public

Source: City of Pasadena Planning and Development, 2009

Figure 22 – Non-Residential Construction Compared to Development Cap (Table) Non-Residential Construction Compared to Development Cap As of 12/31/09 Completed Under Construction Entitlement Submitted Remainder Square Footage % of Cap Square Footage % of Cap Square Footage % of Cap Square Footage % of Cap 1,328,329 21% 147,025 2% 998,635 16% 3,671,671 59% Central District East Colorado 373,335 57% 900 0% 78,092 12% 247,963 38% East Pasadena 41,061 2% 13,042 1% 4,798 0% 1,999,683 95% North Lake 52,075 30% 0 0% 1,383 1% 117,925 67% South Fair Oaks 606,879 39% 66,035 4% 325,565 21% 551,521 36% West Gateway 800 0% 899 0% 407,806 51% 407,806 51% Fair Oaks/Orange Grove 93,702 15% 16,851 3% 34,510 6% 480,231 79% Sub-total 2,496,181 21% 244,752 2% 1,850,789 15% 7,476,800 62% Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena Specific Plan Area

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 19 of 73

Figure 23 – Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage Constructed 2009 (Graph)

Net-New, Non-Residential Square Footage As of 12/31/09 7,000,000 Cap=6,217,000

6,000,000

Square Footage

5,000,000

59%

4,000,000

3,000,000

Cap=2,100,000

2,000,000

Cap=1,550,000 36% 95%

1,000,000

Cap=800,000 Cap=611,000

Cap=650,000 38%

67%

51%

Cap=175,000

79%

0 CD

ECSP Completed

EPSP Under Construction

NLAKE

SFO

Entitlement Submitted

WGSP

FO/OGSP

Remainder

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

Figure 23a – Citywide Trends in Mode Share 1995-2008 (Table) Citywide Trends in Mode Share 1995-2008 Journey To Work 2000 2005-2008 Percent Drove Alone 68.2% 72.5% Percent Carpool 12.8% 9.1% Percent Transit 4.2% 7.0% Percent Walk 5.1% 7.2% Percent Work at Home 3.7% 4.2% Source: The American Community Survey (ACS), 2000-2008 three year estimates

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 20 of 73

Figure 23b – Purpose of Mode Travel (Table) Detailed Purpose: POV Public WHYTRP Transit

To/Frm Work Work Related Shopping Family/Pers Bus School/Church Medical Visit Friends & Family Other Soc/Rec

Mode Walk Bike

90.2 88.1 84.0 80.1 70.5 83.3 83.4

4.2 2.8 2.3 1.5 3.8 8.8 0.9

3.0 5.6 12.0 17.2 20.5 4.1 12.6

1.4 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 2.1

Percent of Person Trips, travelers 5 and older 14.6 2.3 20.9 20.8 11.3 2.5 5.9

72.0

1.4

23.0

2.5

20.1

Source: National Household Travel Survey, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 21 of 73

Figure 24 – Travel Time Comparison – Arroyo Parkway

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 22 of 73

Travel Time Data Collection Methodology The Department of Transportation staff drove assigned routes three times during each time period. Drivers were instructed to maintain a consistent driving style. The driver should drive with the flow of traffic and not to weave in and out of lanes. It is optimal for travel time studies to have a sample size from two to six runs for each time period and corridor studied. It was determined that three runs would be sufficient for each corridor. The gathering of data took approximately 2 weeks. The morning, mid-day and the evening peak travel periods were defined as the time periods to gather the data. The morning peak period is 7 a.m. to 10 a.m.; the mid-day peak is 10 am to 3 pm; and the evening peak period is 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. All data gathering runs were limited to Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. The Department of Transportation staff drove assigned routes three times during each time period. The results of the Time Travel Study are located in the Appendix of the report. Traffic Counts Data Collection Methodology Average daily traffic (ADT) counts represent 24-hr counts at any specified location usually conducted on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday when traffic volumes tend to be higher. In the appendix is a City map detailing traffic volumes

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 23 of 73

Figure 25 – Travel Time Comparison – Colorado Boulevard

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 24 of 73

Figure 26 – Travel Time Comparison – Fair Oaks

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 25 of 73

Figure 27 – Travel Time Comparison – Green Street

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 26 of 73

Figure 28 – Travel Time Comparison – Lake Avenue

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 27 of 73

Figure 29 – Travel Time Comparison – Orange Grove

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 28 of 73

Figure 30 – Travel Time Comparison – San Gabriel Boulevard

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 29 of 73

Figure 31 – Travel Time Comparison – Walnut Street

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 30 of 73

Figure 31b - Change in Travel Time for Corridors (Table) Change in Travel Time Corridor & Direction of Travel IMPROVEMENT IN TIME Fair Oaks Ave NB *Green St EB Lake Ave SB Lake Ave NB Arroyo Pkwy SB California Bl WB Washington EB Washington WB Fair Oaks Ave SB San Gabriel NB **Union WB INCREASE IN TIME – LESS THAN ONE MINUTE Colorado Bl EB San Gabriel SB Lincoln Ave SB Orange Grove (E-W) EB Hill Ave NB Lincoln Ave NB Walnut EB Walnut WB Hill Ave SB California Bl EB Orange Grove (E-W) WB Foothill Bl WB Arroyo Pkwy NB Foothill Bl EB ***Del Mar Bl WB INCREASE IN TIME – MORE THAN ONE MINUTE OR 20% Orange Grove (N-S) SB Orange Grove (N-S) NB Colorado Bl WB ***Del Mar Bl EB

2009 vs. 2006 (min:sec)

% Change

-1:34 -1:13 -1:11 -1:01 -0:50 -0:33 -0:17 -0:11 -0:11 -0:10 -0:02

-16% -23% -17% -14% -16% -9% -9% -7% -2% -7% -1%

0:05 0:06 0:11 0:12 0:14 0:18 0:19 0:19 0:21 0:23 0:25 0:30 0:31 0:44 0:52

1% 5% 18% 3% 5% 11% 5% 4% 8% 6% 5% 10% 14% 14% 10%

0:44 0:54 1:03 1:08

20% 22% 10% 16%

*Green Street only includes Hill Avenue to Arroyo Pkwy segment **Union Street only includes Hill Avenue to Arroyo Pkwy segment ***Del Mar Blvd only includes Arroyo Pkwy to San Gabriel segment

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 31 of 73

Figure 33 – Traffic Counts Map

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 32 of 73

Figure 34 – Gate Down Time Summary The Department of Transportation obtains data from the Metro Wayside Systems Engineering Group which downloads the data from an event recorder in the railroad cabinet from each at-grade crossings. GOLD LINE GATE DOWN TIME SUMMARY Tines are shown in minutes and seconds.

2003 Gold Line Gate Down Times for California Blvd. Del Mar Blvd. and Glenarm Street CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD 2/6/2007 NB SB

MAX 0:02:12 MIN 0:00:33 0:01:09 AVERAGE % Dual Trains DEL MAR BLVD

MAX MIN AVERAGE % Dual Trains

0:01:20 0:00:24 0:00:46

NB

2/6/2007 SB

0:02:28 0:00:44 0:01:23

0:01:13 0:00:26 0:00:44

SINGLE TRAIN 0:02:12 0:00:24 0:00:57

SINGLE TRAIN 0:02:28 0:00:26 0:01:04

DUAL TRAIN 0:02:49 0:00:58 0:01:44 13%

DUAL TRAIN 0:02:47 0:00:48 0:01:55 17%

GLENARM STREET 2/6/2007 NB MAX MIN AVERAGE

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

SB

0:01:19 0:01:48 0:00:43 0:00:42 0:00:50 0:01:05 % Dual Trains

SINGLE TRAIN 0:01:48 0:00:42 0:00:58

DUAL TRAIN 0:02:41 0:00:47 0:01:38 24%

Page 33 of 73

2010 Gold Line Gate Down Times CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD 04/22/2010 NB

SB

SINGLE TRAIN

MAX MIN AVERAGE

0:01:46 0:02:21 0:02:21 0:00:52 0:00:30 0:00:30 0:01:08 0:00:40 0:00:54 % Dual Trains DEL MAR BLVD 04/22/2010 NB

SB

SINGLE TRAIN

MAX MIN AVERAGE

0:03:40 0:02:47 0:03:40 0:00:50 0:00:33 0:00:33 0:01:20 0:01:05 0:01:12 % Dual Trains GLENARM STREET 04/20/2010 NB MAX MIN AVERAGE

SB

0:03:26 0:01:29 0:00:40 0:00:39 0:01:04 0:00:55 % Dual Trains

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

SINGLE TRAIN 0:03:26 0:00:39 0:00:59

DUAL TRAIN 0:02:57 0:00:43 0:01:44 31%

DUAL TRAIN 0:03:28 0:01:08 0:01:55 34%

DUAL TRAIN 0:03:33 0:01:09 0:02:03 18%

Page 34 of 73

Figure 35 – Transit Accessibility Map

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 35 of 73

Figure 36 – Transit Frequency Map

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 36 of 73

Figure 37 – ARTS Ridership All Routes FY 2008 and 2009

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000 July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

FY08

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

FY09

Page 37 of 73

Figure 38 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 20 Counterclockwise

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 38 of 73

Figure 39 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 20 Clockwise

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 39 of 73

Figure 40 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 31

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 40 of 73

Figure 41 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 32

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 41 of 73

Figure 42 – ARTS Capacity Map – Route 40

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 42 of 73

Figure 43 – Metro Gold Line Ridership – Westbound Gold Line Weekday Boarding and Alighting (Westbound) 700,000

600,000

500,000 SIERRA MADRE VILLA ALLEN LAKE AVENUE MEMORIAL PARK DEL MAR FILLMORE

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

FY2004

FY2005

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

FY2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

0

FY 2009

Page 43 of 73

Figure 44 – Metro Gold Line Ridership – Eastbound Gold Line Weekday Boarding and Alighting (Eastbound) 800,000

700,000

Number of Passengers

600,000

500,000

FILLMORE DEL MAR MEMORIAL PARK LAKE AVENUE ALLEN SIERRA MADRE VILLA

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

Alightings

Boardings

0

FY 2009

Fiscal Year

Figure 45 – Map of Transit-Oriented Development Areas (Map)

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 44 of 73

Figure 46 – Comparison of New Residential Development to TOD Areas (Map)

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 45 of 73

Figure 47 – Mixed Use Development Constructed Citywide (Table) Mixed Use Development Constructed Citywide 1994-2009 Total Units Constructed Geographic Area SPECIFIC ZONES Central District Specific Plan 3183 East Colorado Specific Plan 0 East Pasadena Specific Plan 188 Fairs Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan 103 North Lake Specific Plan 0 South Fair Oaks Specific Plan 0 West Gateway Specific Plan 0 Sub-Total 3474 OTHER ZONES Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG) 122 Duplex (RM-12) 0 Multi-Family (RM-16, RM-32, RM-48) 0 Open Space 0 Public and Semi-Public 0 0 Single Family Single Family - Hillsides 0 Sub-Total 122 TOTAL 3596 *Includes market rate and affordable units Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Percentage of Total 89% 0% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0%

3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Page 46 of 73

Figure 48 – Mixed Use Development Constructed Citywide (Chart) Mixed Use Development Constructed Citywide 1994 -2009

East Pasadena Specific Plan, 5%

Fairs Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan, 3%

Commercial and Industrial (CO, CL, & IG), 3%

Central District Specific Plan, 89%

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 47 of 73

Figure 49 – Map of Census Blocks Groups and Central District Specific Plan Boundaries (Map)

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 48 of 73

Figure 50 – Owner vs. Renter Occupied Housing (Table) Owner vs. Renter Occupied Housing 1990-2010 Region

Rent

Own

Central District 1990

82.2%

17.8%

2000

81.5%

18.5%

2010*

67.0%

33.0%

1990

53.7%

46.3%

2000

54.2%

45.8%

1990

51.8%

48.2%

2000

52.1%

47.9%

2008

51.1%

48.9%

Pasadena

LA County

*These numbers only reflect respondents to the 2010 Central District Survey, so they may not be a representative sample. Source: Census 1990; Census 2000; ACS 20062008 Estimates; Central District Survey 2010

Figure 51 – Age of Central District Residents (Table) Age of Central District Residents Source

Age

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Downtown Resident Survey, 2010 4% 37% 24% 15% 14% 6% Downtown Resident Survey, 2007 5% 28% 18% 16% 14% 18% Census, 2000 10% 36% 21% 12% 8% 13% Census, 1990 12% 36% 18% 9% 7% 16% Note: The Downtown Resident Surveys were conducted in two different manners, 2007 conducted by mail and 2010 conducted online, possibly providing an irregularity in respondents.

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 49 of 73

Figure 52 – Alternative Travel Modes for Non-Commuter Trips in the Central District (Table) Frequency of Alternative Travel Modes for Non-Commuter Trips in the Central District 2010

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Walk

Never

Less than once a month

Bike Once a month

Bus

2-3

times a Once a month week

Light Rail 2-3 times a

Daily

week Source: 2010 Downtown Resident Survey

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 50 of 73

Figure 53 - Alternate Travel Modes for Non-Commuter Trips in the Central District (Table) Frequency of Alternate Travel Modes for Non-Commuter Trips in the Central District 2010 Mode of Travel Frequency

Light Rail

Bus

Bike

Walk

Never

42%

76%

68%

3%

Less than once a month

29%

11%

8%

4%

Once a month

15%

4%

6%

3%

2-3 times a month

8%

5%

6%

9%

Once a week

3%

2%

5%

13%

2-3 times a week

3%

1%

5%

32%

Daily

1%

1%

3%

35%

Source: 2010 Downtown Resident Survey

Figure 54 – Approximate Number of Vehicles per Person (Table) Approximate Number of Vehicles Per Person Vehicles / Person Region Central Business District 0.66 Census, 1990 Census, 2000 0.68 Downtown Survey, 2010 0.84 Pasadena* Census, 1990 0.51 Census, 2000 0.51 LA County** 0.53 Census, 1990 Census, 2000 0.50 *Excludes the Central District **Excludes Pasadena Source: Census 1990, Census 2000, Downtown Survey 2010

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 51 of 73

Figure 55 – Vehicles Available Per Household (Table) Vehicles Available Per Household Number of Vehicles Per Household (% of Population) 0 1 2 >2 2.5% 52.4% 40.6% 4.5% 7.0% 56.0% 34.0% 3.0% 15.1% 57.4% 25.2% 2.3% 13.7% 57.5% 25.8% 3.0% 11.4% 39.2% 35.6% 13.9% 11.4% 38.4% 35.2% 15.0% 12.6% 36.9% 34.4% 16.1% 11.2% 35.7% 34.9% 18.2%

Region Year Central District*** 2010 Central District 2007 Central District 2000 Central District 1990 Pasadena* 2000 Pasadena* 1990 LA County** 2000 LA County** 1990 *Excludes the Central District **Excludes Pasadena

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

***Note that the 2010 Downtown Resident Survey may be less inclusive of older populations, which generally have less vehicles per household Source: 1990 Census; 2000 Census; 2007, 2010 Central District Resident Survey

Figure 56 – Median Household Income (Table) Median Household Income In 2009 Dollars 1990-2008

Region Pasadena** Pasadena Pasadena LA County** LA County LA County *In 2009 dollars

Year 2008 2000 1990 2008 2000 1990

Median Income* $54,486 - $61,106 $57,515 $57,569 $54,961- $56,037 $52,736 $57,343

** Due to margins of error in the American Community Survey, ranges are provided Source: Census 1990, Census 2000, American Community Survey 2008

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 52 of 73

Figure 57 – Median Household Income (Graph) Median Income for the City of Pasadena and Los Angeles County 1990 - 2008 $62,000

$60,000

In 2009 Dollars

$58,000

1990 Census

$56,000

2000 Census 2008 ACS + Margin of Error 2008 ACS Estimate

$54,000

2008 ACS - Margin of Error $52,000

$50,000

$48,000 Los Angeles County

Pasadena

Figure 58 – Number of Employed and Unemployed Residents (Table) Number of Employed and Unemployed Residents 2000-2009 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Pasadena Unemployment Rate Los Angeles County

4.10%

4.30%

5.10%

5.30%

4.90%

4.00%

3.60%

3.80%

5.60%

8.90%

Unemployment Rate 5.40% 5.70% Source: California Employment Development Department

6.80%

7.00%

6.50%

5.40%

4.80%

5.10%

7.50%

11.60%

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 53 of 73

Figure 59 – Unemployment Rate for Pasadena and County of LA (Graph) Unemployment Rate for Pasadena and Los Angeles County Residents 2000 - 2009

14.00%

12.00%

10.00%

8.00% Pasadena Los Angeles County

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00% 2000

2001

2002

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Page 54 of 73

Figure 60 – Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property (Table) Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property Fiscal Year 1994-2009 2009 Dollars Fiscal Year (in thousands) 1994 $12,678,259 1995 $12,582,365 1996 $12,509,374 1997 $11,913,764 1998 $11,878,240 1999 $12,193,232 2000 $12,437,826 2001 $12,832,988 2002 $13,358,808 2003 $14,053,336 2004 $14,961,532 2005 $15,513,230 2006 $16,468,126 2007 $17,764,057 2008 $18,737,685 2009 $20,752,287 Source: City of Pasadena Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 1994-2009

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 55 of 73

Figure 61 – Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property (Graph) Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property 1994-2009 $25,000,000

2009 Dollars (in thousands)

$20,000,000

$15,000,000

$10,000,000

$5,000,000

$0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Fiscal Year Source: City of Pasadena Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 1994-2009

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 56 of 73

Figure 62 - Pasadena Total Revenues (Table) Pasadena Total Revenues Fiscal Year 1994-2009

Fiscal Year In 2009 Dollars* 1994 $233,634 1995 $225,931 1996 $219,769 1997 $220,422 1998 $217,326 1999 $226,119 2000 $242,071 2001 $262,624 2002 $261,693 2003 $286,448 2004 $300,105 2005 $316,301 2006 $305,385 2007 $326,563 2008 $317,009 2009 $325,682 * Reported in thousands of dollars Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 57 of 73

Figure 63 – City of Pasadena Total Revenue (Graph) City of Pasadena Total Revenue 1994-2009

Total Revenues

(in thousands of 2009 dollars)

$350,000

$300,000

$250,000

$200,000 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Fiscal Year Source: City of Pasadena Finance Department's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, 1994-2009

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 58 of 73

Figure 64 – General Fund Revenue Sources (Table) General Fund Revenue Sources Projection for 2011 Source

Percentage

Re-Occuring Sources Property Tax

18%

Utility Users Tax

15%

Sales Tax

15%

Other Taxes

11%

One Time Fees Charges for Services

9%

Licenses, Permits & Fines

5%

Other Transfers

10%

Investment Earnings

10%

State and Federal

6%

Miscellaneous

1% Total

100%

Source: City of Pasadena Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2011

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 59 of 73

Figure 65 – City of Pasadena Sources of Revenue (Table) City of Pasadena Sources of Revenue (in thousands) Fiscal Years 1994-2009 Type of Tax

Utility Users

Transient

Tax* Occupancy Tax* Fiscal Year Property Tax* Sales Tax* 1994 $47,428 $28,987 $26,554 $5,169 1995 $42,985 $31,161 $27,257 $5,328 1996 $41,100 $29,199 $25,515 $5,485 1997 $40,540 $28,641 $25,097 $5,757 1998 $40,896 $31,626 $27,126 $6,436 1999 $43,154 $32,971 $28,546 $6,703 2000 $44,005 $34,390 $29,255 $7,398 2001 $44,739 $34,982 $31,508 $8,019 2002 $46,174 $35,080 $29,449 $7,683 2003 $50,127 $39,137 $28,246 $7,734 2004 $53,541 $37,018 $29,558 $8,005 2005 $50,895 $37,428 $29,303 $8,190 2006 $54,183 $36,032 $28,372 $8,990 2007 $63,588 $35,673 $28,905 $8,822 2008 $63,195 $36,373 $29,521 $8,813 2009 $69,062 $32,913 $31,162 $7,382 INCREASE $21,634 $3,926 $4,608 $2,213 % INCREASE 46% 14% 17% 43% Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena *Given in 2009 Dollars

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Construction

Business

Franchise

Tax* License Tax* $1,734 $4,547 $1,332 $4,584 $1,173 $4,372 $1,450 $4,405 $2,183 $4,303 $2,252 $4,275 $2,845 $4,274 $5,071 $4,672 $3,289 $4,809 $3,907 $4,705 $5,100 $5,454 $4,371 $4,562 $3,416 $5,606 $3,943 $5,481 $3,968 $5,582 $2,367 $5,861 $633 $1,314 36% 29%

Page 60 of 73

Tax* $1,859 $1,908 $1,593 $1,946 $1,715 $1,963 $1,878 $2,581 $2,269 $2,055 $2,310 $2,287 $2,326 $2,253 $2,100 $2,402 $543 29%

Figure 66 – City of Pasadena Sources of Revenue (Graph) City of Pasadena Sources of Revenue 1994-2009 $80,000

$70,000

In 2009 Dollars (in thousands)

$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

20 09

20 08

20 07

20 06

20 05

20 04

20 03

20 02

20 01

20 00

19 99

19 98

19 97

19 96

19 95

19 94

$0

Year Property Tax* Construction Tax*

Sales Tax* Business License Tax*

Utility Users Tax* Franchise Tax*

Transient Occupancy Tax*

Source: Planning and Development Department 2009, City of Pasadena *Given in 2009 Dollars

Figure 67 – Average Water Usage Rate per New Unit (Table) Average Water Usage Rate per New Unit Zoning RS (Single Family)

100 Cubic Feet

Gallons

31.28

23,397

RM-16 (Multi-family 16 units/acre)

9.44

7,058

RM32 (Multi-family 32 units/acre)

5.49

4,106

RM48 (Multi-family 48 units/acre)

3.82

2,855

27,000 gallons = swimming pool measuring 20' x 40' 27,000 gallons = covers an acre with 1 inch of water Source: City of Pasadena Water Division Billing Records

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 61 of 73

Figure 68 – Average Water Usage Rate per Unit of New Construction (Graph)

Average Water Usage Rate per Unit of New Construction Oragnized by Zoning Density

08/2008 - 01/2010

90 80 70

RS2 RS4 RS6 RM16 RM32 RM48

100 Cubic Feet

60 50 40 30 20 10

D ec -0 9

ct -0 9 O

Au g09

Ju n09

Ap r-0 9

Fe b09

ec -0 8 D

ct -0 8 O

Au g08

0

Source: City of Pasadena Water Division Billing Records

Figure 69 – Residential Units and Water Consumption (Table) Residential Units and Water Consumption 2006-2009 Water Use Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 Percent change

Residential Units 57,764 58,222 58,680 59,138

(in millions of gallons) 6,076 6,670 6,351 5,851

from 2006-2009 2.4% -3.7% Source: City of Pasadena Green Team 2009, Green City Indicators Report 2009.

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 62 of 73

Figure 70 – Non-Residential Square Footage and Water Consumption (Table) Non-Residential Square Footage and Water Consumption 2006-2009 Water Use Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 Percent change

Square Footage 43,771,218 44,148,841 44,190,885 44,558,784

(in millions of gallons) 5,609 6,157 5,862 5,400

from 2006-2009

1.8%

-3.7%

Source: City of Pasadena Green Team 2009, Green City Indicators Report 2009.

Figure 71 – Specific Plan Areas (Map)

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 63 of 73

Figure 71a – Date of Specific Plan Completion and Updates (Table)

Date of Specific Plan Completion and Updates Year Completed 2004

Last Update --

East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan

2003

--

East Pasadena Specific Plan

2000

Fair Oaks / Orange Grove Specific Plan

2000

North Lake Specific Plan

1997

South Fair Oaks Specific Plan

1998

West Gateway Specific Plan

1998

2006 Minor changes 2006 Minor changes 2008 5-year update 2006 Minor changes --

Specific Plan Central District Specific Plan

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 64 of 73

Figure 72 – Height Limit Overlays (Map)

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 65 of 73

Figure 73 – Zoning Code Amendments (Table) Zoning Code Amendments 2004 - 2010

Date 2004

Ordinance # 6974

1/10/2005

7000

9/12/2005 1/30/2006

7018 7028

3/27/2006

7033

4/3/2006

7034

4/3/2006

7035

5/1/2006

7038

7/31/2006

7056

7/31/2006

7057

9/18/2006

7064

11/6/2006

7074

12/11/2006

7077 & 7078

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Description Comprehensive Update of the Hillside Ordinance which established neighborhood compatibility requirements, reduced maximum floor area for larger lots, lowered maximum height, lowered thresholds to require a hillside permit. Comprehensive Update of the Zoning Ordinance. Items and updates incorporated in Zoning Code included: - Codification of all standards for the seven specific plan areas - Established maximum floor area for commercial districts outside specific plan areas. - Established Transit Oriented Development (TOD), mixed-use, urban housing and work-live development standards. - Reduced guest parking requirement for multi-family residential, increased parking requirement for medical office, and prohibited compact parking spaces. - Established standards for electronic game arcades and internet access studios. - Allowed conversion of residential structures in commercial areas to a commercial use. - Established separation requirements between pawn shops and other personal services uses (e.g. tattoo parlors, checking cashing, etc.). - Allowed the conversion of historic structures in multi-family residential zones to be converted to office use. - Reduce maximum height and floor area and increase setbacks for accessory structures in residential zones. - Allow variances to the development standards for historic buildings being relocated or being adaptively reused. - Allow adjustment permit of development standards to preserve historic buildings or provide open space. To add a definition for “medical marijuana dispensary” and prohibiting such use. To require on-site inclusionary units for projects displacing very low, low and/or moderate income households; extending the period for-sale, inclusionary units are required to remain affordable from 30 years to 45 years. To add “floor ratio adjustment for flat lots” in the hillside development permit process. To require condominium conversions meet the parking requirement of the district in which they are located and to prohibit compact parking spaces. To establish a height overlay district for certain parcels along North Allen Avenue and amending the development standards of the commercial and industrial zoning districts to limit the maximum height and lower the encroachment plane requirements when abutting residential districts. To change the development standards of the multi-family residential districts (RM-16, 32 and 48; City of Gardens), parking standards and the encroachment standards. Provide more flexible standards to the main garden area, building height, fence height and driveway requirements and provide an additional setback between single-family districts and two and three-story multi-family buildings; reduce parking requirements for one bedroom and studio units. To amend the density bonus provisions to comply with recent changes in State Law regarding density bonus. Amending various provision of the Zoning Code including: allowing the conversion of historic structures to offices in the West Gateway Specific Plan area, increasing the allowable size of accessory structures in the RM-12 district, transferring Zoning Administrator Hearing to the Hearing Officer and other amendments. Revised the requirements for sexually oriented businesses by requiring a distance requirement from residential districts and other adult use businesses. To allow noncommercial signs in residential districts without the requirement for a building permit. To establish licensing requirements and regulations for sexually oriented businesses for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.

Page 66 of 73

Figure 73 (Continued) Date 5/21/2007

Ordinance # 7099

Description To revise the following: revise home occupation permits to regulate their impacts on neighborhoods, revise regulations for recycling centers to limit impacts of small scale facilities, and implement regulations for take-out windows for restaurants. 9/10/2007 7111 To add a chapter relating to group homes for the disabled which are not licensed by the State and amending the definition of boarding house. 3/17/2008 7135 Regarding the regulations of massage establishments. 11/24/2008 7157 To modify the trip reduction requirements for new developments; new ordinance imposes an administrative penalty for repeated failure to produce a valid transportation demand management program plan without the limits allowed under the California Government Code. 3/2/2009 7159 To add new requirements and standards for donation collection facilities. 3/2/2009 7160 Amending various provision of the Zoning Code including: clarification of sign requirements in the Central District; adding distance requirements between boarding houses; allowing modification of parking requirements and codifying existing zoning code interpretations. 4/27/2009 7163 To give call for review authority to the Historic Preservation Commission, change the process for selecting Mills Act recipients, and require interim regulatory review in pending Landmark Districts. 5/18/2009 7164 Regarding ground-mounted wireless facilities in residential zones. Included development standards related to the type, location, height, separation and design of wireless antennas citywide. In addition, it established a permitting process and development standards for antennas in the public right-of-way. 6/22/2009 7169 To amend various provisions of the Zoning Code including: limiting continuances of public hearings and requiring renoticing thereof; regulating merchandise displays associated with personal property sales; allowing park and recreation facilities in the PS zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit; and a series of other minor amendments. 10/12/2009 7179 To reduce the maximum floor area and structure height for larger lots in the singlefamily zones; and to remove certain exceptions related to setbacks, height and encroachment plan for additions in the single-family zones. 10/12/2009 7180 To authorize a one-year extension for certain planning permits and land-use entitlements with expired time extensions. 3/15/2010 7184 Related to protection of trees to incentivize on-site retention of existing mature trees, expand the applicability of protections to more trees, promote the policies and procedures of the City toward arboricultural industry standards and require long-term condition monitoring for all projects with protected trees and/or replacement. 5/17/2010 7189 To remove certain exemptions to the public art requirement. Source: Pasadena Zoning Administrator Files, 2010

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 67 of 73

Figure 74 – Master Development Plans (Table) LIST OF MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Updated June, 2010

Name of Institution

Site Address

Date of First

Date of Last

Adoption

Amendment

Contains Regular Sunset Date

Review Provisions

All Saints Church

132 N. Euclid Av

In process

Annandale Golf Course

1 N San Rafael Av

09/02/86

-

None

N

Art Center College of Design

1700 Lida St

6/1989

on hold

5 yrs (1994)

N

Art Center College of Design - South Campus

950 S Raymond Av

03/24/05

-

10 yrs (2015)

N Y (5-yr)

California Institute of Technology

1200 E California Bl

5/1989

12/11/06

30 yrs (2019)

Chandler School

1005 Armada Dr

12/1987

06/16/08

15 yrs (2023)

Y (5-yr & annual traffic review)

651 N Orange Grove Bl

08/08/90

Fuller Seminary

135 N Oakland Av

11/20/06

Hillsides Children Home

940 Avenue 64

6/93

Huntington Memorial Hospital

100 W California Bl

02/17/87

In process

40 yrs (2027) Y (submitted for amendment

Confirmed Word Faith Center of Pasadena -

03/11/91

10 yrs (2001)

Y (5-yr)

-

20 yrs (2026)

Y (5-yr)

In process

10 yrs (2003)

N

MDP not implemented; site was later used for middle school use by New Horizons School in 2005

12/3/09) Lake Ave. Congregational Church

393 N Lake Av

12/19/85

-

None

Las Encinas Hospital

2900 E Del Mar Bl

03/12/87

09/21/09

10 yrs (2019)

Y (5-yr)

Mayfield Senior School

500 Bellefontaine St

11/17/86

11/20/06

10 yrs (2016)

Y (5&10-yr)

Monte Vista Grove

2889 San Pasqual St

12/90

01/08/07

20 yrs (2027)

Y (5-yr)

New Horizons School

651 N Orange Grove Bl

04/97

10 yrs (2007)

Y (5-yr)

1515 N Los Robles Av,

12/98

03/23/09

15 yrs (2024)

Y (5-yr)

Pasadena Christian School

Y (7 yrs after adoption)

1472 N Garfield Pasadena Historical Society

470 W Walnut St

3/88

-

10 yrs (1998)

N

Polytechnic School

1020 E California Bl

1992

04/11/05

10 yrs (2015)

Y (5&10-yr)

Saint Luke's Medical Center

2632 E Washington Bl

1986

-

None

N

Saint Philip's Parish

151 S Hill Av

07/18/05

-

10 yrs (2015)

Y (5-yr)

Valley Hunt Club

560 S Orange Grove Bl

03/04/86

In process

5 yrs (2005)*

N

Westridge School for Girls

324 Madeline Dr

11/93

09/24/07

10 yrs (2017)

Y (5-yr)

William Carey University

1539 E Howard St

11/06/06

-

10 yrs (2016)

Y (5-yr)

Source: City of Pasadena Planning Division * The City Council adopted an amendment to the 1986 plan on 10/30/2000. This included a 5 year sunset date.

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 68 of 73

Figure 75 – General Plan Amendments (Table) General Plan Amendments 1994-2010

Date 03/27/1995 04/24/1995 06/24/1996 08/18/1997 08/18/1997 09/22/1997 02/23/1998 08/10/1998 10/19/1998 12/07/1998 04/12/1998 08/13/2001 07/12/1999 10/18/1999 02/28/2000 04/02/2001 08/13/2001 06/18/2001 01/14/2002 08/19/2002

10/14/2002 10/14/2002 11/14/2002 12/09/2002 04/07/2003 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 08/14/2006 07/24/2006 11/20/2006 03/12/2007

Location 38-60 W. Mountain St. Harambee Family Christian Center 1581 Navarro Ave. Lincoln and Mountain Townhomes 415 W. Mountain St New Horizon School 651 N. Orange Grove Blvd. Cal Tech 263 S. Chester Ave. Valley Hunt Club 520 S. Orange Grove Blvd. Westridge School for Girls 324 Madeline Dr. Central District Pasadena Christian School 982 Seco St Crippled Children Society 3053 ½ E. Del Mar Blvd. Lake Avenue/Del Mar/Cordova 2495 E. Del Mar Blvd. 191-121 S. Altadena Dr. 2407-2499 Osewego St. Paseo Colorado 1880-1900 N. Fair Oaks Ave. 516 S. Orange Grove Blvd. (Valley Hunt Club) 1703-1735 Outpost Lane 2685 E. Washington Blvd. Five Acres Boys and Girls Club 2055 Lincoln Ave. Raymond/Summit Maple/Villa Altadena/Villa Study areas Citywide Citywide Citywide 235 Madeline Drive Westridge School Citywide N. Los Robles Ave. N. Los Robles Ave. 220 N. San Rafael Ave. Various Mayfield Senior School 465 Orange Grove Circle 40 N. Daisy Ave.

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Combined with Zone Change? Yes Yes

Combined with Master Plan? No No

From RS-6 to CL

Yes

No

From RM-12 to PS

Yes

Yes

From RS-6 to PS

Yes

Yes

From RM-16-1 and RS-4 to PS

Yes

No

From RS-6 to PS

Yes

Yes

Measurement of the interim building height would be changed from stories to feet RM-32 to PS RM-32 to PD-7 From OS to RS-6

No

No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No

Description From RM-12 to RM-16 From RS-6 to RM-12

Allow for residential uses in some areas of the Central District From RM-16 to 32

No

No

Yes

Yes

Amendment to Civic Center Specific Plan. From RM-16 to PS From RM-16 to PS

No Yes No

No No Yes

From OS to RS-2HD From OS to CL From RS-6 to CG-1

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

From RM-16 to RM-12

Yes

No

Update to the Noise Element Update to the Safety Element Update to the Housing Element From RS-4 to PS

No No No Yes

No No No Yes

Update to the Mobility Element From RM-16 and RM-32 to RM-12 From RM-32 to RM-16 Institutional to Low Density Residential Various properties throughout the City as adopted by the zoning map amendments to remain consistent with the new zoning code From RS-6 to PS

No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No

Yes

Yes

From EPSP-D1-IG to ECSP-CG-5

Yes

No

Page 69 of 73

Figure 75 (Continued) Date 5/21/2007

Ordinance # 7099

Description To revise the following: revise home occupation permits to regulate their impacts on neighborhoods, revise regulations for recycling centers to limit impacts of small scale facilities, and implement regulations for take-out windows for restaurants. 9/10/2007 7111 To add a chapter relating to group homes for the disabled which are not licensed by the State and amending the definition of boarding house. 3/17/2008 7135 Regarding the regulations of massage establishments. 11/24/2008 7157 To modify the trip reduction requirements for new developments; new ordinance imposes an administrative penalty for repeated failure to produce a valid transportation demand management program plan without the limits allowed under the California Government Code. 3/2/2009 7159 To add new requirements and standards for donation collection facilities. 3/2/2009 7160 Amending various provision of the Zoning Code including: clarification of sign requirements in the Central District; adding distance requirements between boarding houses; allowing modification of parking requirements and codifying existing zoning code interpretations. 4/27/2009 7163 To give call for review authority to the Historic Preservation Commission, change the process for selecting Mills Act recipients, and require interim regulatory review in pending Landmark Districts. 5/18/2009 7164 Regarding ground-mounted wireless facilities in residential zones. Included development standards related to the type, location, height, separation and design of wireless antennas citywide. In addition, it established a permitting process and development standards for antennas in the public right-of-way. 6/22/2009 7169 To amend various provisions of the Zoning Code including: limiting continuances of public hearings and requiring renoticing thereof; regulating merchandise displays associated with personal property sales; allowing park and recreation facilities in the PS zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit; and a series of other minor amendments. 10/12/2009 7179 To reduce the maximum floor area and structure height for larger lots in the singlefamily zones; and to remove certain exceptions related to setbacks, height and encroachment plan for additions in the single-family zones. 10/12/2009 7180 To authorize a one-year extension for certain planning permits and land-use entitlements with expired time extensions. 3/15/2010 7184 Related to protection of trees to incentivize on-site retention of existing mature trees, expand the applicability of protections to more trees, promote the policies and procedures of the City toward arboricultural industry standards and require long-term condition monitoring for all projects with protected trees and/or replacement. 5/17/2010 7189 To remove certain exemptions to the public art requirement. Source: Pasadena Zoning Administrator Files, 2010

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 70 of 73

Figure 76 - Citywide Household Vehicle Ownership (Graph) Number of Households by Vehicles per Household City of Pasadena 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 No vehicle available

1 vehicle available

2 vehicles available

3 vehicles available

4 or more vehicles available

High

5935

22039

18893

6258

2759

Estimate

5179

20924

17930

5565

2375

Low

4423

19809

16967

4872

1991

City of Pasadena Data: American Commuter Survey

Figure 77 – Comparison between Los Angeles County and Pasadena- Vehicles per Household (Table) Number of Vehicles

Los Angeles County

Pasadena

No Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicles 3 Vehicles 4 + Vehicles

13% 37% 34% 11% 4%

10% 40.3% 34.5% 10.7% 4.6%

Los Angeles County Data Source: http://www.city-data.com/county/Los_Angeles_CountyCA.html#ixzz0ri4T70Qb

Figure 78 – Citywide Household Vehicle Trips (Table) Count or HH members

1 2 3 4 5+

Count of Households (HH) vehicles 0 1 2 3+ Average Average Average Average Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Trips Trips Per Trips Per Trips Per Per HH HH HH HH 0.1 2.9 3.3 3.9 0.6 3.5 5.2 5.8 0.2 1.1 0.7

5.0 5.5 6.1

7.5 8.7 8.6

8.7 10.6 12.7

Source: National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), 2001 and 2009 (CA-Supplement), FHWA Office Policy and HTTP:\\NHTS.ORNL.GOV Transferability Model

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 71 of 73

Figure 79 Journey To Work

2000

Percent Drove Alone Percent Carpool Percent Transit Percent Walk Percent Work at Home

2005-2008

68.2% 12.8% 4.2% 5.1% 3.7%

72.5% 9.1% 7.0% 7.2% 4.2%

Source: The American Community Survey (ACS), 200-2008 three year estimates Figure 80 Analysis Variable : NUMONTRP Count Trip Purpose

Mean Count of Persons in Vehicle

Home Based Other Home Based Shop Home Based Social/Recreational Home Based Work Non Home Based All

1.9 1.7 1.9 1.1 1.8 1.7

Auto Occupancy (Te)Source: National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), 2001 and 2009 (CASupplement), FHWA Office Policy and HTTP:\\NHTS.ORNL.GOV Transferability Model

Figure 81 – Citywide Percent of Person Trips by Detailed Mode and Trip Purpose (Table)

Detailed Purpose: WHYTRP To/Frm Work Work Related Shopping Family/Pers Bus School/Church Medical Visit Friends & Family Other Soc/Rec

POV

Public Transit

Mode Walk

Bike

90.2 88.1 84.0 80.1 70.5 83.3 83.4

4.2 2.8 2.3 1.5 3.8 8.8 0.9

3.0 5.6 12.0 17.2 20.5 4.1 12.6

1.4 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 2.1

Percent of Person Trips, travelers 5 and older 14.6 2.3 20.9 20.8 11.3 2.5 5.9

72.0

1.4

23.0

2.5

20.1

Source: National Household Travel Survey, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 72 of 73

Figure 82 – Average Passenger Per Hour (Table) System Wide Route 10 Route 20 Route 31/32 Route 40 Route 50 Route 60 Route 70*

FY08 27 12 40 37 31 13 6 2

FY09 30 14 41 42 35 14 7 3

Variance +10% +20% +4% +14% +14% +6% +16% +38%

Source: City of Pasadena, Transit Division *Route 70 discontinued in 2010

Figure 83 – Citywide Percent of Walk Trips for Utilitarian Purposes (Table) Reason for Walking Utilitarian Walks Exercise/walk dog

Pasadena 71.4 28.5

Rest of CA

Rest of US

67.3 32.6

68.4 31.5

Source: National Household Travel Survey, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

General Plan Metrics Report (Appendix)

Page 73 of 73