City Council April 9, 2018 1 STUDY SESSION OVERVIEW I. Managed - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

City Council April 9, 2018 1

STUDY SESSION OVERVIEW I. Managed Growth and Development Tools II. Historical Growth Trends III. Recent Development Activity IV. Impact of State Housing Laws on Local Development 2

Managed Growth and Development Tools 3

REGULATING DEVELOPMENT 4

REGULATING DEVELOPMENT Land Use Diagram Development CAPs “ Policy 1.3 De Develo lopment Cap Capacit itie ies. Regulate building intensity and population density consistently with the ” designations established by the Land Use Diagram. 5

REGULATING DEVELOPMENT • • Set of local laws governing the specific standards for various An optional tool to implement the General Plan land uses and for development of structures. • Provides more place-specific land use policies • Includes standards for things such as setbacks, height, and • Pasadena has eight Specific Plans 6 density

Historical Growth Trends 7

Historical Growth Trends: Pre- 1994 WHAT IT WAS ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITS DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION GROWTH Limited the amount of residential Projects had to compete with other and non-residential development projects to obtain a development MANAGEMENT allocation INITIATIVE (GMI) LAWSUIT AGAINST GMI Approved in 1989 Argued that GMI conflicted with CA Redevelopment Law and CEQA Pre 1994 General Plan Out-of-court settlement approved in 1991 required the following: • GMI be placed on the November 1992 ballot for possible repeal, and • The City revise the Land Use and Circulation Elements to more specifically guide development This is led led to o th the e 1994 Gen eneral l Pla lan Update 8 8

Historical Growth Trends: 1994 GUIDING PRINCIPLES Informed by community outreach that determined major themes of importance 1994 GENERAL PLAN Direct response to growth management issues that developed throughout the 1980s 9 9

Historical Growth Trends: 1994 1994 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM La Land Use e De Desig ignations: • Low Density Residential • Low-Medium Density Residential • Medium Density Residential • Medium-High Density Residential • High Density Residential • General Commercial • Neighborhood Commercial • Industrial • Institutional • Open Space • Specific Plan 10 10

Historical Growth Trends: 1994 Specific Plans Appropriate locations to target residential and non-residential growth 1994 in order to preserve established single-family neighborhoods. GENERAL PLAN Specific Plan Residential CAP Non-residential CAP DEVELOPMENT Central District 5,095 units 6,217,000 sq. ft. CAPACITIES South Fair Oaks 300 units 1,550,000 sq. ft. West Gateway 700 units 268,750 sq. ft. East Pasadena 500 units 2,100,000 sq. ft. 1994 Development caps East Colorado 750 units 650,000 sq. ft. represented a significant North Lake 500 units 175,000 sq. ft. reduction compared to Fair Oaks/ Orange Grove 550 units 612,733 sq. ft. previous General Plan TOTAL 8,395 units 11,573,483 sq. ft. limits. 11 11

Historical Growth Trends: 2004 KEY POINTS • Development potential in the City had been reduced since 1994 • 1994 rezoning was designed to target Specific Plan Areas as the preferred 2004 location for future growth in order to preserve single-family neighborhoods GENERAL PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES REMAIN UNCHANGED Upd pdated the the 19 1994 94 Lan Land Use se Elem lement with ith min inor cha hanges an and d more re up-to up to-date in information. 12 12

Historical Growth Trends: 2004 Development Capacities and Utilization Specific Plan Residential Non-residential 2004 _1,700 units used_ _975,000 sq. ft. used_ Central District GENERAL PLAN 5,095 units cap 6,217,000 sq. ft. cap DEVELOPMENT 0 units used _ _260,000 sq. ft. used_ South Fair Oaks 300 units cap 1,550,000 sq. ft. cap CAPACITIES __0 units used_ __0 sq. ft. used__ West Gateway 700 units cap 268,750 sq. ft. cap Carried over from 1994 _0 units used_ _115,000 sq. ft. used_ East Pasadena 500 units cap 2,100,000 sq. ft. cap to manage growth in __5 units used_ _335,000 sq. ft. used_ East Colorado 750 units cap 650,000 sq. ft. cap Specific Plan areas _15 units used_ _30,000 sq. ft. used_ North Lake 500 units cap 175,000 sq. ft. cap _15 units used_ _75,000 sq. ft. used Fair Oaks/ Orange Grove 13 13 550 units cap 612,733 sq. ft. cap

Historical Growth Trends: 2004 Development Capacities Carried over from 1994 to manage growth in Specific Plan areas Land Use Map 2004 Land Use Designations remained generally unchanged from 1994 Land Use designations consists of: GENERAL PLAN • Low Density Residential • Low-Medium Density Residential • Medium Density Residential • Medium-High Density Residential • High Density Residential • General Commercial • Neighborhood Commercial • Industrial • Institutional • Open Space • Specific Plan 14 14

Recent Development Activity 15

Current Growth Trends – 2015 GUIDING PRINCIPLES INCLUDES ONE NEW PRINCIPLE 2015 GENERAL PLAN Upd pdated in initi itiated in in 20 2009 09 Sim Simila ilar r to the the 19 1994 94/2004 Lan Land Use se Elem lements, the the curr urrent Lan Land Use se Elem lement inclu in ludes s ob objectives an and d po poli licies des desig igned to res respond to the the up upda dated Gu Guid iding Princ rincip iples. 16 16

Current Growth Trends – 2015 2015 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM New map includes: • FAR and Density for all GP LU designations • Introduction of Mixed-Use and R&D Flex Space designations • Specific Plans now have LU designations, consistent with other areas of the City • Previous LU Maps only indicated “SP” for Specific Plans. LU information was contained in each Specific Plan. 17 17

Historical vs. Current Development Capacities 2015 GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES The e adopted deve velopment caps in in th the e 2015 Gen ener eral l Pla lan th that t gove vern deve velopment for 11,573,483 8,395 th the e next 20 yea ears (u (up to 2035) ) allo llow for les less deve velopment, as compared to previous years. 18 18

Historical vs. Current Development Capacities 1994 1994 RESIDENTIAL CAP NON-RESIDENTIAL CAP Fro rom the 1994 development caps, , the percent of act ctual construction 43% 64% is is lo lower than the maximum lim limit its. 11,573,483 sq. ft. cap 8,395 19 19

Current Growth Trends -2015 REMAINING REMAINING NON-RESIDENTIAL CAP RESIDENTIAL CAP 2015 GENERAL PLAN REMAINING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES 63% 56% (A (Accounts for proje jects 4,410,643 sq. ft. left 3,929 units left with ith iss issued per ermit its and those in in the 6,979 5,975,000 sq. ft. cap pip ipeli line) 20 20

Current Growth Trends ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS AND PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE SINCE 2015 GENERAL PLAN • Con oncentrated downtown an and alo along commercial l corrid idors • Away fro from si sing ngle fam amily neig neighborhoods • Hig igher r den densi sities around TODS aro • Pro roduce mor ore op opport rtunitie ies for r affordable aff le liv livin ing Issued Permits In Process 21 21

Current Growth Trends – 2015 Examples of projects wit ith is issued building permits 22 22

Impact of State Housing Laws on Local Regulations 23

California’s Housing Crisis St Statewide ho housin ing pro production ha has s sl slowed do down 2015-2025 sign si gnific icantly Projected housing need: 180,000 homes annually com ompare red to hi histori ric tr trends Statewide ho St housin ing production ha pro has s no not kep ept up up with ith dem demand of gro of growin ing po popula lation Source: California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities (CA Department 24 24 of Housing and Community Development) Jan 2017 Public Draft

California’s Housing Crisis Ren ents in in Cal alif iforn rnia ha have bee been steadily in increasin ing, an and d ha have no not dec decre reased even en du duri ring rec recession Actual l ren rents in in Pas asadena an and d su surroundin ing reg region ten end to be be hi high gher r tha than the the state media edian sh shown in in this this cha hart rt Source: California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities (CA Department 25 25 of Housing and Community Development) Jan 2017 Public Draft

California’s Housing Crisis Total Renter % Severely Rent Income % Rent Burdened 81% Households (million) Burdened Extremely Low-Income 1.27 90% 80% of of lo lower-in income Very Low-Income .95 87% 51% renter hou ren ousehold lds Low Income 1.11 65% 18% in in CA are are ren rent Subtotal of above burd bu rdened. All Lower-Income Renter 3.33 81% 51% Households (80% AMI and below) 51% Moderate- Income 1.03 35% 4% of of lo lower-in income Above Moderate-Income 1.54 8% 0% renter ho ren household lds All Renter Households Total 5.9 54% 30% in CA are in are se severe rely ly ren rent bu burd rdened. Ren ent t Bu Burdened means paying more than 30% of income toward housing costs. Severely Ren ent t Bu Burdened means paying more than 50% of income toward housing costs. 26 26