360 likes | 519 Vues
The General Plan UPDATE. City Council Meeting September 19, 2011. 2011 Resident’s Survey Results. City of Pasadena 2011 Resident’s Survey. 2011 Resident’s Survey Results. A. B. C. 2011 Resident’s Survey Results. 2011 Resident’s Survey Results. 2011 Resident’s Survey Results.
E N D
The General PlanUPDATE City Council Meeting September 19, 2011
2011 Resident’s Survey Results City of Pasadena 2011 Resident’s Survey
General Plan Schedule 2009 to Spring 2010 Identifying the Issues Phase I Outreach Presenting the Concept Plan; Completing the EIR Fall 2010 Drafting the Alternatives Workshops & Charrette Reviewing the Policies & Developing the Concept Plan Winter/Spring 2011 Analyzing & Selecting the Preferred Alternative Workshops & Survey 8 8
Draft Concept Plan • Guiding principles • General Plan survey results: • Citywide Components • Planning Areas • Economic Development Strategic Plan • Outreach on the policies • Environmental considerations such as greenhouse gas emissions Draft Concept Plan
2011 General Plan Update: Survey Results Presentation to City of Pasadena, Pasadena City Council September 19, 2011
Research Objectives • Assess the level of support and agreement with the guiding principles, themes and objectives of the City’s General Plan and • Determine preferences for each of the four land use alternatives with the City’s six planning areas and the factors influencing each preference. • Evaluate support for the existing mobility objectives.
Methodology • 2,893 responses to online and mail survey • Surveys completed: June 10 – July 13, 2011 • 1,848 completed mail surveys, 1,045 completed web surveys and more than 300 completed surveys from each of Pasadena’s six zip codes. • Survey offered and completed in English and Spanish for the mail survey • Household response rate for Pasadena residents was 5 percent
Land Use Alternatives: Central District None None None None None None None None C B D A C C C C C B B B B B D D D D D A A A A A C B D A C B D A
Land Use Alternatives: South Fair Oaks None None None None None None None None C C C C C C B B B B B B D D D D D D A A A A A A C B D A C B D A
Land Use Alternatives: North Lake None None None None None None None None C C C C C C B B B B B B D D D D D D A A A A A A C B D A C B D A
Land Use Alternatives: Fair Oaks / Orange Grove None None None None None None None None C C C C C C B B B B B B D D D D D D A A A A A A C B D A C B D A
Land Use Alternatives: East Colorado Cor. None None None None None None None None C C C C C C B B B B B B D D D D D D A A A A A A C B D A C B D A
Land Use Alternatives: East Pasadena None None None None None None None None C B D C C C C C C B B B B B B D D D D D D A A A A A A C B D A A
Conclusions I • A balanced response, from a diverse community • Over 300 completed surveys from each zip code • 94 percent of respondents live in Pasadena and 40 percent work or go to school in the City • Over 2,800 completed surveys via online & mail • There was strong support for 6 of the 7 existing principles evaluated • There was strong support for 2 of the 3 potential themes to be integrated into the guiding principles
Conclusions II • 35 percent of respondents selected the same alternative for each of the six planning areas (Alternative A: 2% of respondents, Alternative B: 6%, Alternative C 10%, Alternative D, 11%) or answered “None” or left the question blank. • Across all 2,893 respondents, 58 percent chose Alternative C for at least one planning area, 55 percent selected Alternative B, 39 percent Alternative D, 37 percent chose Alternative A, and six percent answered “None” or left the question blank.
Conclusions III • Alternative C was the most preferred alternative within each planning area, followed by Alternative B (except in the Central District). However support for any one alternative was never over 33%. • The preferred alternatives for the Central District were the most divided with three of the four alternatives receiving between 20% and 30% of responses indicating they were the preferred alternative.
Overall Response Rate by Zip Code Table 5: Source: U.S. Census, 2000