Pasadena City Council
March 30, 2026

October 15, 2025
4PER030201
2 allowable capacity into the stormdrain system to match existing conditions will be evenly divided between Caltrans and the City of Pasadena at 7cfs each.

Hydrologic Calculations
Psomas delineated the overall drainage area contributing runoff the existing basin north of Del Mar Boulevard using available USGS LiDAR data and existing City and Caltrans stormdrain GIS mapping. The overall watershed was then divided into five distinct areas, one from each quadrant of the interchange and one within the future Caltrans right of way. As a conservative initial hydrology study for planning purposes, hydrologic calculations were performed using the LA County modified rational method assuming all runoff reaches the basin, and is not routed through any potential existing storage or limited by existing stormdrain capacities which may cause ponding or delayed and reduced peak flows into the basin. Peak flows and volumes were established for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50- and 100-year storm events. Results from the hydrologic calculations are summarized in Table 1.

Hydraulic Analysis Approach
Hydraulic analyses were performed in order to estimate the future detention/retention basin sizing necessary for the proposed future development which is planned within the existing basin footprint. One basin was sized for Caltrans and one sized for the City of Pasadena.

Under existing conditions, all runoff from north of the Ventura Freeway is conveyed through Caltrans Right of Way on its way to the existing basin. To determine a logical approach to splitting the runoff into areas that will continue to drain into a future Caltrans basin and areas that will drain into a future City basin, Psomas reviewed as build roadway and stormdrain plans, and considered future developments and improvements currently proposed as part of the Pasadena 710 Masterplan. Existing stormdrain elevations and other potential conflicts were used to set an approximate location for a new Caltrans basin which results in the NW, NE and Caltrans drainage areas going into it, as is shown on the attached exhibit with connections to those existing stormdrain systems. The remaining runoff from South of the interchange, SW and SE contributes runoff to the future City basin analyses.

Positive outflow elevations were set at an elevation of 815 for each basin and basin bottom set 10 feet below that to provide storage and infiltration as a desired goal for the basins while also providing for water quality treatment. An infiltration rate of 0.50 in/hr was assumed for the analysis and converted to cfs based on the proposed basin bottom area. Soils in the area likely provide a much higher infiltration rate, which can be fined tuned during final design and may reduce overall basin sizing needs, though its not expected to be a significant reduction when compared to the peak inflow volumes and flow rates. Above the positive outflow elevation, a peak discharge of 7cfs was added to the infiltration rate to be discharged into the City stormdrain system for each basin. Analysis was performed for each storm event up to the 100-year design storm event, using a bottom area of eight feet for the Caltrans Basin and five acres for the City Basin.

Pasadena 710 Masterplan

October 15, 2025
4PER030201
3 Table 1: Hydrologic Analysis Results
1-year Storm Event 2-year Storm Event
Drainage Area Area
(ac)
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume(acft) Drainage Area Area
(ac) Peak Flow (cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(ac-ft)
CalTrans 87.04 34.3 11 CalTrans 87.04 46.9 15.3
NE 128.13 50.4 16.5 NE 128.13 69 22.6
NW 58.59 23.1 7.4 NW 58.59 31.5 10.3
Total Caltrans
Drainage Area 273.76 Total Caltrans Volume 34.9 Total Caltrans Drainage Area 273.76 Total Caltrans Volume 48.2 SE 62.38 24.6 7.9 SE 62.38 33.6 11
SW 65.54 25.8 8.29 SW 65.54 35.2 11.3
Total City
Drainage Area 127.92 Total Volume 16.19 Total City Drainage Area 127.92 Total Volume 22.3 5-year Storm Event 10-year Storm Event
Drainage Area Area
(ac)
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume(acft) Drainage Area Area
(ac) Peak Flow (cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(ac-ft)
CalTrans 87.04 93 23 CalTrans 87.04 131.2 28.4
NE 128.13 116.9 34.4 NE 128.13 153.8 41.7
NW 58.59 66.2 15.5 NW 58.59 93.8 19.1
Total Caltrans
Drainage Area 273.76 Total Caltrans Volume 72.9 Total Caltrans Drainage Area 273.76 Total Caltrans Volume 89.2 SE 62.38 56.9 16.8 SE 62.38 73.5 20.6
SW 65.54 61 17.3 SW 65.54 87 21.4
Total City
Drainage Area 127.92 Total Volume 34.1 Total City Drainage Area 127.92 Total Volume 42 50-year Storm Event 100-year Storm Event
Drainage Area Area
(ac)
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume(acft) Drainage Area Area
(ac) Peak Flow (cfs)
Runoff
Volume(acft)
CalTrans 87.04 216 40.2 CalTrans 87.04 253.8 45.3
NE 128.13 261.2 59.2 NE 128.13 311 66.7
NW 58.59 156.3 27.1 NW 58.59 184.6 30.5
Total Caltrans
Drainage Area 273.76 Total Caltrans Volume 126.5 Total City Drainage Area 186.72 Total Caltrans Volume 142.5 SE 62.38 118.9 28.8 SE 62.38 141 32.5
SW 65.54 144 30.3 SW 65.54 172.9 34.12
Total City
Drainage Area 127.92 Total Volume 59.1 Total City Drainage Area 127.92 Total Volume 66.62 Pasadena 710 Masterplan

October 15, 2025
4PER030201
4 Hydraulic Analysis Results
Results from the analyses are summarized in Table 2 and provide required basin depths/volumes based on the basin bottom areas, assumed infiltration rate and allowable discharge above 10 feet in depth. Comparison of the total storage volume required to the total runoff volume from Table 1 indicates that the majority of runoff will be required to be retained/detained, which is logical considering the total peak inflow rates when compared to the allowable discharge rate. It also shows that 100 percent retention of up to the 10-year storm event is feasible at depths of less than 10 feet based on the assumed basin area and depths less than 17 feet for the 100-year storm event. Given the overall depth necessary below the positive outfall elevation, pumps will continue to be a necessary feature, at a minimum as a backup feature should the basins not drain adequately or need to be drained more efficiently. Pumping may also be provided to future reduce basin sizing, though at 7cfs max, will not be a large percentage of the overall storage volume. Alternative outfall locations, such as infiltration ponds outside of the master planning area may also be considered and may alleviate the need for pumping from the City basin.

Table 2: Hydraulic Analysis Results
Storm
Event Jurisdiction
Basin
Area
(acres)
Minimum
Basin
Depth w/o
Freeboard
Assumed
Infiltration
Rate (cfs)
Allowable
Discharge to City
Stormdrain
System (cfs)
Actual
Discharge to
City Stormdrain
System (cfs)
Total
Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
1-YR Caltrans 8 3.6 4.0 7.0 0.0 28.5
City 5 2.5 2.5 7.0 0.0 12.7
2-YR Caltrans 8 5.1 4.0 7.0 0.0 40.7
City 5 3.6 2.5 7.0 0.0 18.2
5-YR Caltrans 8 6.7 4.0 7.0 0.0 53.8
City 5 5.9 2.5 7.0 0.0 29.5
10-YR Caltrans 8 10.2 4.0 7.0 1.6 81.8
City 5 7.5 2.5 7.0 0.0 37.3
50-YR Caltrans 8 14.5 4.0 7.0 7.0 116
City 5 10.7 2.5 7.0 5.1 53.7
100-YR Caltrans 8 16.5 4.0 7.0 7.0 131.7
City 5 11.9 2.5 7.0 7.0 59.4
Conclusions
The results presented in this memorandum are intended to be used to kick off the conversation between Caltrans and the City of Pasadena regarding division of stormwater runoff detention/retention and treatment and to be used for planning purposes for basin siting, project funding and as a base from which further studies required can be identified.

DEL MAR BLVD

W GREEN ST

E COLORADO BLVD S PASADENA AVE S DE LACEY AVE
E UNION DR S ST. JOHN AVE W DAYTON ST

VALLEY ST

WAVERLY DR ORANGE GROVE BLVD WAVERLY DR

DEL MAR BLVD DEL MAR BLVD

E COLORADO BLVD
W GREEN ST I - 210 134 VENTURA FREEWAY 710 FWY
WALNUT ST MAPLE ST FAIR OAKS AVE HOLLY ST S PASADENA AVE CORSON ST I - 210 VILLA ST ORANGE GROVE BLVD CYPRESS AVE LINCOLN AVE EUREKA ST FAIR OAKS AVE I - 2 1 0 EA ST BOUND T UNNE L I - 2 1 0 E T U N N E L SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
EXIST. 48" CITY STORM DRAIN
FUTURE

MASTER PLAN

DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE

MASTER PLAN

DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE

MASTER PLAN
DEVELOPMENT SCALE: 1"=250' 0
125
250
500
750
Conceptual Plan
Caltrans Stormwater Diversion
710-134-210 Freeway Interchange
DATE: REVISED ON:

JOB No:

SHEET OF
5/23/25
4PER030201 1 3
PER-01
City of Pasadena Plotted - 5/23/2025 5:24:11 PM :: Saved - 5/23/2025 5:23:54 PM :: J:\SC\4PER030201\Engr\EXHIB\PER-01 Concept Caltrans SW.dwg :: lisidro LEGEND

STORM DRAIN DIVERSION TO DETENTION
& INFILTRATION BASIN

FORCE MAIN

DETENTION & INFILTRATION BASIN

SW VOLUME
AREA SHOWN INDICATES 10' DEPTH

BASIN OUTLET PIPE TO DISCHARGE TO

CITY STORM DRAIN

CONCEPTUAL RECONFIGURATION OF
210-134 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE WITH
THE REMOVAL OF 710 STUB AND NEW

ROUNDABOUT OPTION FOR LOCAL
ACCESS

NORTHWEST
AREA=58.59
ACRES

TO CALTRANS
BASIN

NORTHEAST
AREA=128.13
ACRES

TO CALTRANS
BASIN

SOUTHEAST
AREA=62.38
ACRES

DIRECT TO

FUTURE CITY
BASIN

SOUTHWEST
AREA=65.54
ACRES
DIRECT

TOWARDS

FUTURE CITY
BASIN

CALTRANS
AREA=87.04 ACRES

TO CALTRANS BASIN DRAINAGE AREA EXPANDS OFF SHEET
I - 210

WALNUT ST

MAPLE ST

ORANGE GROVE BLVD

CORSON ST
I - 210

VILLA ST

ORANGE GROVE BLVD

CYPRESS AVE

LINCOLN AVE

EUREKA ST FAIR OAKS AVE
I - 2 1 0 E A S T B O U N D T U N N E L
I - 2
1 0
E
T
U
N
N
E
L
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
INTERCEPT 24" SW
LINE 500 @
APPROX. IE 840
INTERCEPT 24" SW LINE
503 BEFORE IT GOES
UNDER THE TUNNEL @
APPROX INV. 826

ABANDON D/S SW LINE
INTERCEPT 24" SW U/S OF
LINE 501 BEFORE IT GOES
UNDER THE TUNNEL @
APPROX INV. 822
ABANDON D/S SW LINE 501

INTERCEPT DOWNSTREAM
CONNECTION FROM THE 2
CBs IN THE OPEN AREA

BETWEEN THE TUNNELS

AND INSTALL A FORCE

MAIN SYSTEM TO THE

DETENTION BASIN
INTERCEPT 60" SW LINE
200 @ APPROX INV. 826

ABANDON D/S SW LINE
INTERCEPT 48" SW
LINE 300 @
APPROX. IE 842

ABANDON D/S LINE
INTERCEPT 54" SW
LINE 100 @
APPROX. IE 824

ABANDON D/S LINE

ANY CATCHBASINS ON MAPLE

STREET THAT CONNECT TO
CALTRANS SW LINE 500 MUST

CONNECT TO THE FUTURE

CITY SW IMPROVEMENTS AS

INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT
24" ∅
24"
∅
24" ∅
54" ∅
48" ∅
18" ∅
24" ∅
24" ∅
60" ∅
24" ∅ SCALE: 1"=100'
0 50
100
200
300
Conceptual Plan
SW Diversion to
Detention & Infiltration Basin
DATE: REVISED ON:

JOB No:

SHEET OF
5/23/25
4PER030201
2 3
PER-02
City of Pasadena Plotted - 5/23/2025 5:24:20 PM :: Saved - 5/23/2025 5:16:26 PM :: J:\SC\4PER030201\Engr\EXHIB\PER-02 Caltrans SW large scale.dwg :: lisidro SEE SHEET 3

W GREEN ST

E COLORADO BLVD S PASADENA AVE

E UNION DR

E COLORADO BLVD
W GREEN ST 710 FWY

WALNUT ST
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
INTERCEPT 60" SW LINE
200 @ APPROX INV. 826

ABANDON D/S SW LINE
INTERCEPT 48" SW
LINE 300 @
APPROX. IE 842

ABANDON D/S LINE
INTERCEPT 30" SW
LINE 400 @
APPROX. IE 845

ABANDON D/S LINE

EXISTING CATCH BASINS
ALONG ST. JOHNS AVENUE TO

CONNECT TO FUTURE CITY

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

AS INCLUDED IN THE

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DIVERT

CONNECTIONS
FROM CBs IN 134

FREEWAY TO THE

DETENTION BASIN
814.50
30" INV
30" SW OUTLET

FROM THE

DETENTION BASIN
APPROX INV 814.50

EXISTING STORM DRAIN

ALONG JOHNS AVENUE TO

CONNECT TO FUTURE CITY

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

AS INCLUDED IN THE

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING STORM DRAIN

ALONG PASADENA AVE TO

CONNECT TO FUTURE CITY

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

AS PART OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING STORM DRAIN

ALONG PASADENA AVE &

CORSON ST TO CONNECT TO

FUTURE CITY STORM DRAIN

IMPROVEMENTS AS INCLUDED

IN THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT
PROP. 30" OUTLET
STORM DRAIN PIPE @

0.8% SLOPE
54" ∅
48" ∅
18" ∅
30" ∅ 30"
∅ 30"
∅
30" ∅
60" ∅
24" ∅
18" ∅
FUTURE

MASTER PLAN

DEVELOPMENT
W GREEN ST S PASADENA AVE S DE LACEY AVE S ST. JOHN AVE

W DAYTON ST

VALLEY ST

DEL MAR BLVD DEL MAR BLVD
W GREEN ST 710 FWY S PASADENA AVE
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
EXIST. 48" CITY STORM DRAIN

AS INCLUDED IN THE

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING STORM DRAIN

ALONG PASADENA AVE TO

CONNECT TO FUTURE CITY

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

AS PART OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING STORM DRAIN

ALONG JOHNS AVENUE TO

CONNECT TO FUTURE CITY

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

AS INCLUDED IN THE

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
CONNECT TO EXIST.
48" CITY STORM
DRAIN @ APPROX.

INV 812.00 30"
∅ 30"
∅ 30"
∅
FUTURE

MASTER PLAN
DEVELOPMENT SCALE: 1"=100'
0 50
100
200
300
DATE: REVISED ON:

JOB No:

SHEET OF
5/23/25
4PER030201
3 3
PER-02
City of Pasadena Plotted - 5/23/2025 5:24:36 PM :: Saved - 5/23/2025 5:16:26 PM :: J:\SC\4PER030201\Engr\EXHIB\PER-02 Caltrans SW large scale.dwg :: lisidro SEE SHEET 3 SEE BELOW LEFT

SEE ABOVE RIGHT
Conceptual Plan
SW Diversion to
Detention & Infiltration Basin
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS DEL MAR BLVD W GREEN ST E COLORADO BLVD

S PASADENA AVE

S DE LACEY AVE E UNION DR
S ST. JOHN AVE W DAYTON ST VALLEY ST WAVERLY DR W BELLEVUE DR ORANGE GROVE BLVD WAVERLY DR W BELLEVUE DR DEL MAR BLVD DEL MAR BLVD E COLORADO BLVD W GREEN ST I - 210 I - 210
134 VENTURA FREEWAY
710 FWY WALNUT STMAPLE ST

ORANGE GROVE BLVD HOLLY ST

FAIR OAKS AVE

S PASADENA AVE

CORSON ST
I - 210

VILLA ST ORANGE GROVE BLVD CYPRESS AVE LINCOLN AVEEUREKA ST

FAIR OAKS AVE
PEORIA ST I - 2 1 0 EA ST BOUND T UNNE L I - 2 1 0 E T U N N E L SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSD SD SD SD SD SD SDSD SD SDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD EXIST. 48" CITY STORM DRAIN FUTURE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT FUTURE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT FUTURE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCALE:
1"=300' 0 150 300 600 City of Pasadena 900 NORTHWEST AREA=58.59 ACRES

TO CALTRANS
BASIN

NORTHEAST
AREA=128.13
ACRES

TO CALTRANS
BASIN

SOUTHEAST
AREA=62.38
ACRES

DIRECT TO

FUTURE CITY
BASIN

SOUTHWEST
AREA=65.54
ACRES
DIRECT

TOWARDS

FUTURE CITY
BASIN

CALTRANS
AREA=87.04 ACRES

TO CALTRANS BASIN

SOUTHWEST
AREA=34.52
ACRES
DIRECT

TOWARDS

FUTURE CITY
BASIN

MOUNTAIN ST

ORANGE GROVE BLVD
Appendix E
Net Zero Feasibility – Reconnecting Pasadena
The Reconnecting Pasadena Vision Plan offers the opportunity to transform the former I-710 corridor into a healthy, resilient, and economically strong 21st-century district. By integrating Pasadena’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) from the outset, the project establishes sustainability and resilience as core requirements, ensuring long-term performance and financial stability.

This memo summarizes methods, case studies, comparable projects and potential actions for Project Area to achieve Net Zero energy.

To be considered “net zero” the Project’s renewable generation must balance its future annual energy use.

This directly supports Pasadena Water and Power’s Resolution 9977 to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030 and protects the project from future carbon-related costs.

Climate projections for the area predict heat stress days tripling by 2080. This will strain on the electrical grid and elevate public-health risks during outages. Buildings and public spaces must therefore maintain safe conditions even during extreme heat and power interruptions.

We recommend the project follow the following energy hierarchy:

AVOID energy use through passive design and all-electric buildings; REDUCE loads with high-efficiency systems and district-scale infrastructure; RECOVER energy with on-site renewable generation and integrated water-energy strategies; MITIGATE remaining emissions only as a last resort.

Focusing on the first three steps, the district to rely on clean, local resources while minimizing long-term operating costs. Given these findings, we recommend that the Reconnecting Pasadena plan prioritize “district-scale” or solutions that can cover multiple building sites, these would combine on-site energy generation, storage, and high-efficiency electric systems. There are several viable pathways to achieving this; the following memo summarizes the top strategies that can help the City deliver a net-zero-feasible, heatresilient, and future-ready district.

STRATEGY 1: FACILITATE ONSITE ENERGY GENERATION
District micro-grids are localized energy networks integrating multiple buildings with on-site power generation (e.g. solar, Photo Voltaic (PV), Combined Heat and Power CHP), energy storage, and advanced controls. They can operate connected to or independent from the main grid, optimizing energy use and reliability across the district.

Pasadena has been exploring microgrids for critical facilities. A feasibility study for Pasadena Water & Power identified a microgrid solution combining energy efficiency, 4 MW of solar PV, batteries, and controls to provide continuous power for emergency shelters[24][25]. Likewise, Santa Monica City Yards is implementing an advanced microgrid to power municipal facilities with 49% onsite solar generation[12], targeting significant GHG reductions. These 2 examples, alongside Caltech’s planned microgrid (Pasadena), show local momentum. Overall, district microgrids in the LA region promise lower energy use and carbon footprints while enhancing resiliency, albeit with careful financial structuring to manage upfront costs. Other notable examples in California include the UC Irvine campus microgrid and the Stone Edge Farm microgrid in Sonoma.

Below we summarize key performance metrics (A–E) for district micro-grids, based on literature and case studies:

A. Site Energy Use Reduction: District micro-grids typically enable 5–15% reductions in site energy use through load optimization and diverse energy sources[1][2]. In practice, microgrid projects that incorporate efficiency and load management have achieved even larger savings – for example, UC Irvine’s campus microgrid (with deep efficiency measures) cut campus energy loads by over 50% relative to business-as-usual growth[3]. Typical energy savings of 2– 5% can occur simply from coordinated controls and user behavior changes under a smart microgrid[4]. Additional savings come from CHP units in microgrids, which use waste heat to reach total system efficiencies of 60–80% (versus ~35–50% for separate grid power and boilers)[5], translating to significantly lower fuel use.

B. Operational Carbon Reduction: By integrating renewable energy and efficient generation, micro-grids can dramatically cut carbon emissions. Studies and projects report 20–50% reductions in CO2 for microgrids that replace or supplement grid power with clean resources[6]. For instance, the Stone Edge Farm solar microgrid in California achieved a 50% cut in carbon emissions within one year of operation, and is now targeting net-zero emissions[7][8].

Campus microgrids with CHP also prevent substantial emissions – e.g. a university microgrid’s CHP plant (75% efficient) was estimated to avoid ~43,000 tons CO2 per year compared to grid sourcing[9]. Overall, 30–50% carbon reductions at the district level are common when diesel generators are minimized and renewables and storage are maximized[7].

C. Cost Comparison (Initial & Life Cycle): Initial costs for a district microgrid are higher than a standard utility hookup – roughly $2–4 million per MW of capacity, depending on complexity[10]. This equates to an upfront cost premium on the order of 5–10% of construction cost (approximately \$15– \$30 per ft² for a commercial development, depending on load intensity). For example, a planned municipal microgrid in Santa Monica was estimated at \$3.6 million upfront for ~1.4 MW solar + battery + controls[11][12]. Life-cycle cost (LCC) analyses, however, show microgrids can pay back over time via energy savings and demand charge reductions. Typical payback periods for commercial microgrids (with solar and storage) are around 10–15 years[13], which has improved with incentives. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on welldesigned microgrids can range from ~8% up to 12%, especially when leveraging tax credits[14]. Performance contracting models are emerging to make microgrids cost-neutral: in California case studies, hosts pursued energy savings performance contracts (ESPC) and shared-savings agreements so that long-term bill savings offset the ~10–20% capital premium[15]. In summary, while initial capital costs are higher, microgrids often achieve positive 20–30 3 year NPVs and 10-year paybacks through avoided energy costs and improved resiliency[16].

D. Life Cycle Costs Operations and Maintenance (O&M): Key O&M cost drivers for microgrids include maintenance and replacement of distributed energy assets and control systems. Routine maintenance is required for generators/CHP units (fuel, filters, etc.) and for keeping solar PV panels clean and inverters functional (inverter replacement ~15 years).

Battery storage is a significant life-cycle cost – lithium-ion batteries typically need replacement every 10–15 years, so these costs must be factored into LCC analyses. Controls and switchgear require software updates and periodic testing. On the other hand, microgrids reduce some costs by peak shaving (lower utility demand charges) and improved power quality/reliability (avoiding outage-related losses)[17][18]. In essence, long-term costs involve component replacement cycles (e.g. battery augments, inverter upgrades) and operator management. Many projects plan for battery replacements and inverter overhauls in year 10–15 of operation and allocate O&M budgets accordingly.

Experience from campus microgrids shows that if designed correctly, O&M is manageable: for example, UC Irvine’s microgrid has been operated by the campus facilities department as part of their normal plant maintenance, with major assets like the central CHP plant on standard service schedules. Modern microgrid controllers can also minimize wear on equipment by balancing runtimes. Overall, O&M costs are lower than for equivalent stand-alone backup generators, but higher than a simple grid connection – thus, careful life-cycle planning (including warranty/service contracts for batteries and controls) is essential[16][19].

E. Financing & Return on Investment (ROI): District microgrids are often financed through innovative mechanisms that spread upfront costs and monetize long-term savings. Financing packages often stack multiple tools: a project might use an ESA with a third-party microgrid developer (who claims tax credits), combined with PACE or a Green Bank loan, and backed by the energy savings guarantee. This allows the district to achieve sustainability goals with minimal upfront cost to the district.

Common approaches include:
• Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing, which allows repayment via property tax assessments over 20+ years[20], and • Energy-as-a-Service (EaaS) or Energy Service Agreements (ESA) wherein a third party owns/operates the microgrid and the host pays a fixed rate (converting capital expense to operating expense).
• Public-private partnerships for example, the Blue Lake Rancheria microgrid combined grants with private investment and achieved a ~7- year payback even without grants[21].
• Utility incentive programs like California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) provide capital rebates for storage, improving ROI. • Green bonds or climate bonds have been issued by municipalities (e.g. for community microgrids) to access low-interest capital. According to a 4 financing study by NREL, many California microgrids deployed since 2018 relied on less than 50% public funding, with the remainder via private capital leveraging the project’s future energy cost savings[22][15].

Return on Investment (ROI) examples: Lincoln, NE schools saw ~10% ROI as geothermal microgrid savings paid back a 20–30% cost premium in ~10 years[16]; and one small city microgrid reported an ROI of ~15% with an annual energy cost reduction of \$250k on a \$1.7M investment (payback ~7 years)[21]. In general, ROI for microgrids falls in the 6–12% range, depending on rate structures and incentive capture. New incentives (e.g. IRA tax credits, direct-pay for tax-exempt entities) are further improving economics – taxexempt hosts can now receive a 30% investment tax credit as a refund, greatly enhancing project ROI[23].

STRATEGY 2: EXPLORE SUSTAINABLE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

2.1 All Electric Building Systems
This strategy mandates the use of highly efficient mechanical systems, centered on the requirement that all buildings be all-electric. This eliminates the use of natural gas, a critical step for decarbonization and alignment with PWP's goals.

All electric buildings may be mandated by the time of construction. For Pasadena it makes sense - since there is no existing infrastructure on site, going all electric will be cost effective – allowing the development to avoid new gas lines infrastructure and labor cost, connection fees and future infrastructure upgrades costs. Avoided gas also reduces fire hazards, gas leaks due to seismic events, and combustion ventilation requirements in buildings Avoided emissions from day 1 with CA clean grid and a path to NZ emissions:
as the grid moves toward 100% clean energy by 2045, electric systems trend toward zero carbon—while gas locks in ongoing emissions Heat pumps deliver 2 to 4 times the efficiency of gas, reducing heating energy by 30 to 60 percent and cutting carbon emissions by 40 to 90 percent. From a cost standpoint, new all-electric buildings are often cost-neutral or cheaper, since avoiding gas piping offsets equipment costs. Many California developers report little to no premium in multifamily projects, especially with incentives. So electrifying mechanical systems delivers resilience, efficiency, and long-term savings—while aligning Pasadena with a clean energy future.

2.2 APPLY DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR URBAN EFFICIENCY AND

RESLIENCE
The study area can leverage district-level solutions, which achieve efficiencies impossible in single-building designs. These "game-changer" technologies include Ground Source Heat Exchange, Municipal Waste Heat Recovery, Thermal Storage Tanks, and a Central Utility Plant.
5 Sharing Power for Maximum Efficiency - District Energy Systems (DES) supply heating and cooling centrally to multiple buildings, significantly increasing efficiency. This strategy capitalizes on mixed-use load diversity; because different buildings have different heating and cooling needs throughout the day, the district system can recover waste heat from one building (e.g., an office cooling down) and instantly reuse it to warm another building (e.g., a residential structure requiring hot water). This energy sharing maximizes resource use, supports centralized maintenance, and minimizes the equipment footprint required within individual buildings.

A network of connected buildings can balance energy across time and uses.

Mixed-use clusters like offices, schools, and housing are especially well-suited, since their peak loads occur at different times. Another key benefit is futureproofing. In short, district systems deliver efficiency, flexibility, and resilience, while providing Pasadena with a clear pathway toward zero-carbon operations at scale.

The city can identify an Integrated Energy Services Provider (IESP) who will be responsible for creating a business model that allows for phasing of energy infrastructure in alignment with the development.

Shallow geothermal district systems – often implemented as ground-source heat pump (GSHP) networks – tap the stable underground temperature (~15°C/59°F in SoCal) to provide heating and cooling for multiple buildings. In a district configuration, a common closed-loop ground heat exchanger (horizontal trenches or vertical boreholes) serves a network of buildings via water pipes, with heat pumps in each building extracting or rejecting heat to the ground loop.

This fifth-generation district heating/cooling approach (5GDHC) is highly efficient and well-suited to Pasadena’s climate.
6 Illustration of a geothermal district heating and cooling system using shared shallow ground loops and heat pumps to serve multiple buildings.

While Pasadena/LA area has few large-scale geothermal districts yet, comparable climate projects offer guidance. In Stockton, CA, a Delta Electronics facility installed a shallow geothermal system under its campus parking, integrating it with 1.6 MW of solar and battery storage[47][48]. This project demonstrates synergy between geothermal and microgrid technologies:
solar PV supplies the heat pumps, and the battery shifts peak loads, resulting in 70% energy reduction and minimal carbon output[28]. At the community scale, the National Western Center in Denver (climate similar to inland SoCal) is implementing a 5GDHC network that will use sewer heat exchange and geo loops to achieve net-zero carbon for a multi-building district[49]. Though not in California, it showcases the viability of district geothermal even in warm summers (with adequate loop design). These case studies underscore that shallow geothermal can be adapted to urban settings (vertical boreholes under city lots or even beneath buildings) and scaled to both residential neighborhoods and commercial districts.

Key performance findings from studies and case projects are summarized below:

A. Site Energy Use Reduction: District GSHP systems drastically cut HVAC energy use. Typical site energy savings range from ~30% up to 70% for heating/cooling loads compared to conventional HVAC[26][27]. The U.S. DOE reports that geothermal heat pumps use 30–70% less energy for heating and 20–50% less for cooling versus furnaces and standard AC[26]. In a showcase project at Delta Electronics (Fremont, CA), a shallow-ground-loop GSHP system now provides ~80% of the 175,000 ft² facility’s HVAC needs and helped cut total building energy use to 15,500 Btu/ft² – 70% lower than the average LEED office building[28]. Likewise, schools in Lincoln, NE with geothermal heat pump systems had 50% lower HVAC energy costs than identical schools with boiler/chiller systems[29][30] (translating to similar energy use reduction). 7 Overall, multiple studies confirm one-third to two-thirds reduction in site energy for heating/cooling when switching to well-designed GSHP networks[26][31].

The exact savings depend on baseline efficiency and climate: colder climates see the largest absolute energy drops, while in Pasadena’s mild climate, GSHPs eliminate nearly all gas heating use with only a small increase in efficient electric use (one ORNL study found adding GSHPs to California homes raised annual electricity <10% while eliminating propane/gas use entirely[32][33]).

B. Operational Carbon Reduction: Shallow geothermal can slash operational carbon emissions by ~50–80%, especially as the electric grid gets cleaner.

Replacing gas-fired heating with electric heat pumps cuts direct on-site CO₂ to zero. Modeling by LBNL for 5GDHC systems in three U.S. climates found 72– 81% lower CO₂ emissions for GSHP-based district systems versus conventional HVAC (gas heat + grid AC)[34][35]. This dramatic reduction is because geothermal heat pumps have 300–500% efficiency (COP 3–5), using much less energy per unit of heating/cooling delivered. In practice, Lincoln’s geothermal schools cut carbon ~60–70% per square foot relative to the gas baseline[36][29]. Pasadena’s climate (heating-dominated) offers big CO₂ savings by displacing natural gas furnaces – every kWh of heat pump use (if powered by Pasadena’s increasingly renewable electricity mix) avoids emissions from burning ~0.02 therms of gas. RMI notes that geothermal heat pumps produce zero on-site GHG emissions and, when paired with renewable electricity, can render building operations carbon-neutral[27]. Even in grids not yet fully green, GSHPs reduce emissions via efficiency: e.g. a study in Massachusetts found a 55% carbon reduction for a GSHP retrofit of a multifamily building, due to the high COP of geothermal (despite the grid mix)[37]. Thus, a typical range of 50–80% operational CO₂ reduction is observed, with higher end achievable as California’s grid approaches 100% clean power[35].

C. Cost Comparison (Initial & LCC): Initial costs for district geothermal systems are higher than standard HVAC. Borehole drilling and loop installation contribute to a capital premium of roughly 20–30% over conventional systems[16]. For example, the upfront cost for Lincoln Public Schools’ GSHP systems was ~20–30% higher than equivalent gas boiler/chiller installations[16].

In commercial terms, GSHP installations often range \$50–\$70 per ft² (vs \$30–\$50/ft² for conventional HVAC) – a premium that can be on the order of \$10–\$20 per ft² of building served. However, life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis typically shows this premium is recouped through energy savings and lower utility bills. In Lincoln’s case, the 10-year utility savings offset the higher capital cost, yielding a payback period ~10 years[16]. Similarly, a California office retrofit to GSHP reported a 12-year simple payback with net-positive savings thereafter[38]. Over a 30-year horizon, GSHP networks often come out ahead:
an NBI study found net present cost parity or better for net-zero districts using geothermal vs. business-as-usual[39][40]. Key LCC advantages include long system life (ground loops 50+ years) and protection from fuel price volatility.

Many analyses incorporate maintenance saving for GSHPs (no combustion, 8 fewer moving parts than boilers). That said, the LCC depends on financing and incentives: with the 30% federal tax credit (or direct-pay for municipalities), upfront costs are effectively lowered, improving NPV and making paybacks of 5–10 years increasingly common[41]. For instance, a multifamily project in the Southwest using IRA incentives saw an estimated 7-year payback for its geo system, compared to ~15 years pre-incentive. Cost metric: Initial cost premiums can also be expressed per ton of capacity – typically \$3,000– \$5,000/ton for geothermal versus \$1,500–\$2,000/ton for a standard system, roughly a 50–100% premium. But over lifecycle, GSHPs often save \$10–\$20 per square foot per year in energy costs (as seen in Delta’s case:
15,500 Btu/ft² vs 50,000 Btu/ft² average)[28], making them economically attractive long-term.

D. Life Cycle Costs (O&M): Shallow geothermal systems are known for low O&M requirements. There are no fuel deliveries or combustion tune-ups – the primary O&M items are circulation pumps, heat pumps, and fluid monitoring.

The underground loops themselves typically last 50+ years with minimal maintenance (closed-loop pipes just need leak monitoring). Heat pump units (compressors) have lifespans of 20–25 years and may require replacement once or twice in a 30-year span. Key long-term costs include pump electricity (which is accounted for in energy use), periodic checks of fluid chemistry (to ensure no corrosion or biofouling in loops), and mechanical maintenance of the heat pumps similar to conventional HVAC (e.g. compressor servicing).

Lincoln Schools’ experience showed the ground loop portion was “bulletproof,” with issues only arising from improper design/operation in one case[42]. In Boulder, CO, schools have had some heat pump unit failures after ~15 years, but the ground field performed flawlessly. Thus, major O&M costs boil down to HVAC component replacements (planned like any other HVAC system) and pumping energy. The latter can be optimized by variable-speed pumps and seasonal control. Unlike cooling towers or boilers, GSHPs have no cooling water treatment or stack cleaning costs, and no direct emissions requiring permits.

Some additional minor costs: maintaining any supplemental backup (if used) and periodic loop flushing if needed. Overall, studies indicate annual O&M costs for GSHP systems are 10–30% lower than for conventional HVAC[43].

When implemented at district scale, economies of scale can further reduce perbuilding maintenance costs (e.g. one central “energy station” to monitor the whole loop).

Bottom line: Long-term costs are dominated by electrical consumption (already accounted in energy savings) and capital replacement of heat pumps on ~20- year cycles. Proper design (sizing the bore field correctly, as emphasized in case studies[44]) is crucial to avoid any unexpected performance issues that could raise O&M costs (like adding auxiliary coolers if loops overheat).

E. Financing & ROI: District-scale geothermal projects often leverage creative financing to manage the high upfront cost. However, the long lifespan and energy price stability of geothermal make it attractive to financiers as a longterm asset, especially in an era of carbon mandates. 9 ROI for geothermal networks also tend to be solid when incentives are included: for Lincoln Schools, the ROI was calculated such that the 20–30% cost premium was recovered in 10 years, implying an annual ROI on that investment of ~10%[16]. Many campus and developer-led projects target 5– 15% IRR on geothermal investments, often achievable with utility demand charge savings and avoided gas infrastructure costs.
• Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing is a popular tool – for example, Greenworks Lending has financed GSHP installations via CPACE, allowing building owners to repay over 20–30 years through property tax assessments[45].
• Utility incentive programs and rebates play a role: in California, the CEC EPIC grants have funded pilot district geothermal systems (e.g. the DOE GTO’s Community Geothermal program is funding 5 pilot communities for district GSHP[46]). Utilities like Southern California Edison also offer custom rebates for electrification projects that reduce peak demand. • Federal incentives: The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) now provides 30% credit for geothermal heat pump systems, and importantly, non-taxable entities (cities, schools) can get this as a direct cash payment (IRA 2022)[23]. This dramatically improves ROI – essentially a 30% grant.

Some projects also use
• New Market Tax Credits or green bonds to attract low-cost capital. Thirdparty ownership models are emerging: ESCOs or energy service providers install the geo system and charge a service fee (like a heating/cooling subscription). This is akin to a thermal Purchase Power Agreement (thermal PPA) or Energy Service Agreement – the provider finances the loop and equipment, and the district pays over time from the energy savings.
• Another financing mechanism used is bond financing for public districts – for instance, a city might issue a municipal bond or green bond to cover loop installation, then recoup costs via slightly higher utility rates or assessments on participants.
• State-level Green Banks (like the California CLEEN program) can provide low-interest loans for district energy systems, improving NPV. In summary, multiple financing avenues (PACE, tax credits, bonds, ESCO agreements) have been successfully used to fund shallow geothermal systems, making projects viable with typical ROI in the high single digits to low double digits and paybacks ~10 years or less in many cases[16].

Conclusions
Both district microgrids and shallow geothermal networks offer significant energy and carbon reduction potential at the district scale. Microgrids can typically reduce overall site energy use by 5–15% (by optimizing distributed resources) and cut operational carbon by 20–50% or more when renewables are prioritized[6][3].
10 Shallow geothermal systems can yield even greater HVAC-specific savings – often 30–70% energy reduction for heating/cooling and up to 70–80% emissions reduction by eliminating on-site fossil fuels[34][28].

Both strategies entail higher upfront costs (~20–30% premiums), but through innovative financing (PACE, ESPCs, tax incentives) and energy savings, they achieve strong life-cycle economics (paybacks on the order of a decade, and long-term ROI in the 8–12% range)[16][13]. O&M considerations are manageable: microgrids require battery and inverter replacements and careful asset management, while geothermal loops have minimal maintenance beyond heat pump upkeep[16].

Importantly, these two measures can complement each other in a district. A microgrid provides clean electricity and control that can power geothermal heat pumps with solar or other local generation – effectively decarbonizing heating/cooling. In turn, the geothermal system reduces the electrical peak loads in summer (by providing efficient cooling) and winter (via efficient heating), which right-sizes the microgrid’s generation/storage needs. This synergy leads to a more stable, balanced energy profile: for example, excess solar PV in midday can charge batteries and also drive heat pumps to “store” cooling or heating in the ground (thermal storage), improving overall system efficiency. District planning guides note that integrated thermal and electric strategies unlock load diversity benefits – exchanging waste heat between buildings and using microgrid controls to dispatch resources optimally[50][51].

In a Pasadena context, this could mean office buildings rejecting heat to the ground loop during the day, while residences pull that heat out at night – all coordinated by a microgrid energy management system. Both measures also share financing and implementation structures (e.g. a combined energy service company could install the microgrid and geothermal loop together, leveraging economies of scale). By coupling a renewable-powered microgrid with a geothermal district system, a community can approach net-zero energy and carbon much more readily than with either measure alone.

In summary, district microgrids and shallow geothermal systems are proven, complementary strategies for deep energy and carbon reductions at the community scale. Research and case studies – including those relevant to the Pasadena/LA region – demonstrate that when implemented thoughtfully, these measures deliver quantifiable savings (30%+ energy, 50%+ carbon)[35][7], with affordable life-cycle costs and multiple co-benefits (resilience, air quality, and local green jobs). Communities in Southern California can look to these solutions as synergistic building blocks of a sustainable, low-carbon district energy future.

Sources: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL, 2018–2025); Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI); California Energy Commission (CEC) EPIC case studies; New Buildings Institute; Energy and Buildings journal; and industry reports (Facilities Dive, Microgrid 11 Knowledge). All data presented are drawn from peer-reviewed studies or validated pilot projects[3][34][16][7].
[1] [11] [12] [17] [18] Final Project Report, Santa Monica City Yards Advanced Energy District
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2019- 032.pdf
[2] [PDF] Microgrid Case Studies
https://atleducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CETI-5171-MicrogridSection2.pdf [3] apep.uci.edu
https://www.apep.uci.edu/PDF/Microgrid_Research_UCI_Microgrid_UCIMG_09 0921.pdf
[4] Smart Grid Master Planning at NC State - District Energy magazine https://www.districtenergydigital.org/districtenergy/2014Q3/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=17475 63 [5] Combined Heat and Power (CHP) | Missouri Department of Natural ... https://dnr.mo.gov/energy/energy-resources/combined-heat-power-chp [6] [7] [8] Solar Microgrid on Vineyard Can Island, Reduces Carbon Emissions | Microgrid Knowledge
https://www.microgridknowledge.com/home/article/11432521/solarmicrogrid-on-vineyard-can-island-reduces-carbon-emissions [9] [PDF] Microgrids & District Energy - Case Studies - Raab Associates http://www.raabassociates.org/Articles/Microgrids%20&%20District%20Energ y%20-%20Pathways%20to%20Sustainable%20Development%20-
%20Case%20Studies.pdf
[10] Phase I Microgrid Cost Study: Data Collection and Analysis of Microgrid Costs in the United States
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/67821.pdf
[13] [14] How Does the IRA Impact Microgrid Payback Periods? | Microgrid Knowledge
https://www.microgridknowledge.com/featured-premiumvideos/article/33006686/how-does-the-ira-impact-microgrid-payback-periods [15] [19] [22] Microgrid Analysis and Case Studies Report - California, North America, and Global Case Studies | California Energy Commission https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2018/microgrid-analysis-and-casestudies-report-california-north-america-and-global [16] [23] [29] [30] [36] [41] [42] [44] Geothermal heat pumps: 8 factors to consider in commercial buildings | Facilities Dive
https://www.facilitiesdive.com/news/geothermal-heat-pumps-commercialbuildings-schools-sustainability/709894/ [20] [45] Greenworks Lending funds efficiency, renewable and microgrid ... https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/implementationmodels/greenworks-lending-funds-efficiency-renewable-and-microgridimprovements [21] How One Small US Town Will Save Millions with a Microgrid https://www.cesa.org/one-small-us-town-will-save-millions-microgrid/ 12 [24] [25] August 6, 2001
https://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/2024%20Agendas/Mar_25_24/AR%2013%2 0ATTACHMENT%20A.pdf
[26] Innovative Energy & Research - Exploring the Potential of ... https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/exploring-the-potential-ofgeothermal-hvac-systems-as-sustainable-alternatives-for-energyefficientheating-and-cooling-a-comprehen-124820.html [27] Clean Energy 101: Geothermal Heat Pumps - RMI
https://rmi.org/clean-energy-101-geothermal-heat-pumps/ [28] [47] [48] Geothermal Heat Pump Case Study: Delta Electronics | Department of Energy
https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-heat-pump-case-studydelta-electronics [31] [32] [33] Mobile Homes and Municipalities Find Heat Pumps To Fit Their Needs | NREL
https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/program/2024/mobile-homes-andmunicipalities-find-heat-pumps-to-fit-their-needs [34] [35] Large-Scale Geothermal Collector Systems as a Heat Source for 5gdhc in the U.S. – a Case Study of Three Different Cities and Climate Conditions by Robin Zeh, Tianzhen Hong, Volker Stockinger :: SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4965567 [37] (PDF) CO2 savings of ground source heat pump systems https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237743270_CO2_savings_of_grou nd_source_heat_pump_systems_-_A_regional_analysis
[38] Geothermal Heat Pumps: Reputation vs. Reality - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/geothermal/comments/16btiab/green_building_adv isor_geothermal_heat_pumps/
[39] [40] rmi.org
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Insight-brief_Net-zeroenergy8_2.pdf [43] [PDF] America's Top Colleges for Renewable Energy 2020 - The Public ... https://publicinterestnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/07/FLE20Campus20Renewables20Report20Sum20- web.pdf
[46] District-Scale Geothermal Energy Pilots
https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/district-scale-geothermal-energypilots [49] [50] [51] Combating Climate Change through High-Performance Districts - RMI
https://rmi.org/combating-climate-change-through-high-performance-districts/ DRAFT - Scenario Feasibility
Analysis
City of Pasadena
February, 2026
DRAFT
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 2
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3 Study Area Overview....................................................................................................... 5 Pro Forma Modeling Development.................................................................................. 7 Development Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................7 Vertical Cost Assumptions..............................................................................................................................................8 Horizontal Cost Estimates..............................................................................................................................................8 Revenue Estimates ........................................................................................................................................................9 Financing & Development Assumptions.......................................................................................................................10 Feasibility Analysis .........................................................................................................11 Sensitivity Testing.........................................................................................................................................................12 Value Capture Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................14 Funding & Financing Opportunities ............................................................................... 16 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A – Acronyms................................................................................................. 18 Appendix B – Development Programs .......................................................................... 19 Appendix C – Sensitivity Testing ................................................................................... 23 Appendix D – Funding & Financing Strategy................................................................. 27 Appendix E – General Limiting Conditions .................................................................... 30 Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 3
Executive Summary
Through a collaborative, multi-year effort with Caltrans, the relinquishment of the SR-710 Northern Stub transportation network (the Site) was approved by the California Transportation Commission on June 29, 2022, and transferred to the City of Pasadena on August 15, 2022. This Site occupies a transition area between the higher intensity mixed-use areas of Downtown Pasadena to the east and the lower intensity residential and commercial areas along Orange Grove Boulevard to the west, bounded by I210 to the north and California Boulevard to the south.

The SR-710 Northern Stub was constructed in phases during the early 1970s and resulted in the displacement of at least 4,000 residents and the demolition of approximately 1,500 homes. Today, the Site presents a significant opportunity for the City to advance a catalytic redevelopment that repairs historic harms, reconnects Pasadena’s urban fabric, and supports existing residents, visitors, and local industries, while positioning the City to respond to evolving real estate, demographic, and economic trends.

In 2024, AECOM prepared a Market Opportunity Analysis, benchmarked to the 2024 markets, to identify supportable development types for the approximately 60-acre Site. The findings of that analysis informed the selection of two development programs that were shortlisted for further evaluation.

This Scenario Analysis represents the next phase of that effort. AECOM evaluated the development economics of the two shortlisted programs to assess their relative feasibility, estimate potential land values, and analyze associated fiscal impacts. The results, which are a snapshot of market conditions as of 2025, provide insight into each scenario’s capacity to generate property tax revenue and support potential funding sources for site infrastructure and public realm improvements. This memorandum summarizes the comparative feasibility, land value, and property tax generation of the two shortlisted development scenarios. It also describes the analytical methodology and key assumptions and includes a technical appendix with supporting data.

The Scenario Analysis reflects market conditions and costs modelled in late 2024, with targeted adjustments made in 2025 to reflect evolving market conditions. As such, certain inputs, such as interest rates, market rents, and construction costs, will continue to shift over time and impact the feasibility of a given project. The intent of the analysis is to provide a high-level assessment of the development conditions that impact feasibility and the potential for development at the Site. The analysis can be used to facilitate discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of the two shortlisted programs and their potential capacity to fund infrastructure and/or community benefits.

Key Findings
• All four scenarios are potentially feasible, but none support full market feasibility under baseline assumptions without public funding, phasing, or other development incentives. Feasibility was assessed using several financial thresholds detailed below. • Scenario B.2 (60% residential, Boulevards and Paseos) performs best overall, showing the strongest net profit, equity multiple, levered internal rate of return (IRR), and resilience to affordability and timing sensitivities.
• Higher commercial shares modestly improve feasibility, reflecting current demand dynamics and revenue performance. Residential land uses assume 20% Affordable Housing in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Potential phasing strategies involve phasing and clustering the development of market-rate and affordable housing to increase overall feasibility.

Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 4
• Affordability requirements meaningfully affect feasibility, particularly at lower AMI levels and higher affordable housing shares. Scenarios vary in their sensitivity, with Scenario B.2 showing the greatest capacity to absorb affordability without becoming infeasible. • Horizontal infrastructure costs are unlikely to be fully reimbursed by private development under current conditions, indicating a need for public-sector funding mechanisms such as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Facility Districts (CFDs), grants, or long-term financing.
• The primary value capture opportunity is long-term property tax generation, not near-term land payments. Cumulative City property tax revenues could exceed $2 billion over 100 years. • Phased development and longer hold periods materially improve feasibility, supporting strategies that prioritize flexibility, incremental delivery, and long-term ownership or public-private partnership structures.
• Additional funding streams and approaches will likely be needed to support the type of high-quality, sustainable, resilient, and equitable development the City seeks to reach its policy goals. • The analytical framework is intentionally adaptable, allowing the City to revisit assumptions and update feasibility as market conditions, policy priorities, and project design evolve.

Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 5
Study Area Overview
The City of Pasadena is a vibrant urban center in the San Gabriel Valley, characterized by a diverse economic base, strong educational and cultural institutions, and a high quality of life. With the largest workforce and commercial inventory in the subregion, Pasadena functions as a leading regional economic hub, particularly for knowledge-based and institutional employment.

As of 2022, Pasadena’s population was 134,214. Following a sharp reduction in employment during the early pandemic period, when total jobs declined by approximately 5.5% between 2019 and 2020, overall job counts have since rebounded and now exceed pre-pandemic levels. Post-pandemic job growth in Pasadena has been driven primarily by the public and institutional sectors.

The Reconnecting Pasadena site encompasses approximately 60 acres along the existing SR-710 stub. The site occupies a transitional area between the higher intensity mixed-use areas of Downtown Pasadena to the east and the lower intensity residential and commercial areas along Orange Grove Boulevard to the west, bounded by I-210 to the north and California Boulevard to the south.

Surrounding land uses reflect a mix of residential, retail, institutional, and employment-serving uses (Figure 1). The site’s proximity to universities, research institutions, and major employment centers creates strong potential for life sciences, research-oriented office, and other innovation-driven uses.

Pasadena’s high educational attainment and entrepreneurial activity further support its attractiveness for business investment and employer expansion. The site has no General Plan designation nor any existing zoning designations.

Figure 1. City of Pasadena Land Use
Source: Reconnecting Pasadena Advisory Group Presentation The site also presents an opportunity to explore creative housing solutions that respond to remote and hybrid work trends, diversify housing types, and support workforce retention. Strategically pairing residential growth with job creation is critical to improving jobs–housing balance and strengthening local economic resilience.

Redevelopment of the SR-710 stub occurs within a challenging real estate and construction environment. The current market of high construction material costs, elevated labor costs, and sustained high interest rates have significantly constrained development feasibility. These conditions are evidenced by a marked slowdown in the new construction pipeline across the region in recent years.

Financial feasibility is a particular concern for high-density and high-rise development typologies in current market conditions, especially given conservative financing environments and limited appetite Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 6
among lenders for taller or more complex projects. In addition, retail viability remains uncertain at this time, with ongoing challenges related to tenant demand, changing consumer behavior, and the cost of maintaining and modernizing commercial space.

Together, these constraints suggest that redevelopment scenarios must carefully balance ambition with market realism, phasing strategies, and flexible land use assumptions to ensure long-term feasibility. It is also important to note that groundbreaking remains several years away. While this narrative reflects a rear-view-mirror assessment of recent market conditions, future conditions may differ, and uses that are considered challenging today may become more or less feasible by the time development begins.

Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 7
Pro Forma Modeling Development
AECOM developed a high-level, static financial pro forma to compare the development economics of the four shortlisted program scenarios for the Pasadena 710 Stub site. The pro forma is structured to support planning-level decision-making and incorporates a level of detail appropriate for early-stage scenario evaluation, including rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) estimates for development costs and revenues.

The pro forma analyzes the feasibility of the current land use assumptions under each scenario from a real estate developer’s perspective. Inputs reflect prevailing market conditions and standard development assumptions at the time of analysis. Given the long-term nature of the site and the evolving market context, the model is intended as a comparative tool rather than a definitive forecast of financial outcomes. The pro forma tool is designed to allow the City and consultant team to adjust these assumptions and re-evaluate feasibility as market conditions evolve or as additional project details become available.

The baseline assumptions include $0 land value payment from the developer to the City and $0 direct reimbursement for horizontal infrastructure costs from the developer to the City. These assumptions allow the analysis to isolate underlying project feasibility and sensitivity to programmatic and density choices before introducing additional financial obligations. Potential land value payments, infrastructure cost sharing, or other public-benefit contributions can be layered into the model in subsequent phases as feasibility allows.

Development Scenarios
In collaboration with the City of Pasadena, the Consultant team developed four potential program scenarios to explore the capacity, impact, and feasibility of different development options for the Pasadena 710 site.

The four options explore the relative feasibility of two key parameters. The first is their layout and total area dedicated to public open space, and the second is their mix of land uses. Option A (1 and 2) utilizes the design typology, “Gardens and Terraces,” with open space running through the middle of the development, while Option B (1 and 2) utilizes the design typology, “Paseos and Boulevards,” with the open space concentrated on the periphery of the development area. While the latter allows for more total open space, the former improves overall access to open space because of its central location. The other key differentiating factor is the percentage of total land use dedicated to residential uses. Options A.1 and B.1 both dedicate 75% of the total development program to residential land uses, while Options A.2 and B.2 dedicate 60% of the total development program to residential land uses. The pro forma model incorporates these assumptions for key development program variables, including land use mix, affordable housing unit provision, and parking ratios (Table 1).

Table 1. Development Program
Scenario A.1
Gardens &
Terraces
75% Residential
Scenario A.2
Gardens &
Terraces
60% Residential
Scenario B.1
Boulevard &
Paseos
75% Residential
Scenario B.2
Boulevard &
Paseos
60% Residential
Residential Square
Feet (SF)

2.6 million 2.1 million 2.4 million 1.9 million
Total Residential
Units
2,380 1,907 2,176 1,757
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 8
Affordable Units (%) 20% 20% 20% 20%
Commercial SF 874,000 1.4 million 800,000 1.3 million
Retail 45,000 120,000 17,000 41,000
Restaurant 45,000 110,000 24,000 41,000
Office 67,000 447,000 0 45,000
Life Science / Medical 717,000 717,000 759,000 1.1 million Parking SF 1.3 million 1.3 million 1.2 million 1.2 million Total SF 4.8 million 4.8 million 4.4 million 4.4 million Source: Perkins Eastman, AECOM
Vertical Cost Assumptions
Vertical development cost assumptions are informed by multiple data sources. AECOM drew upon RSMeans cost data, pro formas from comparable and recent development projects, and input from internal AECOM cost estimators. Key vertical cost assumptions are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.

These vertical cost estimates reflect early-stage planning assumptions and are intended to provide a preliminary understanding of potential building construction costs. All figures should be considered approximate and subject to change based on future architectural and engineering design development, building code requirements, sustainability and resiliency standards, permitting processes, and prevailing market conditions, including labor and material costs.

Table 2. Hard Cost Assumptions
Land Use Type Construction Cost
Life Science / Medical $600 per SF
Office $400 per SF
Retail $350 per SF
Restaurant $375 per SF
Residential $425 per SF
Open / Green Spaces $25 per SF
Structured Parking $50,000 per space
Source: RSMeans, AECOM
Table 3. Soft Cost Assumptions
Fee Type Construction Cost
Project Management & Construction
Administration
7% of Hard Costs
Professional Fees 7% of Hard Costs
Permits, Inspection, & Other Fees 3% of Hard Costs
Contingency Included in Hard Costs
Source: AECOM
Horizontal Cost Estimates
For purposes of preliminary feasibility testing, AECOM prepared a ROM estimate for select “horizontal” roadway infrastructure elements to inform planning-level analysis, summarized in Table 4. The Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 9
horizontal cost estimates include roadway infrastructure within the public right-of-way (ROW), such as streets, sidewalks, curbs, landscaping, and street lighting. Major water, sewer, and utility infrastructure costs are excluded, as sufficient information is not available at this stage to reliably estimate those elements.

Preliminary modeling indicates that under current market conditions, a significant portion of horizontal infrastructure costs would likely need to be funded by the City, potentially through an EIFD or a similar mechanism, for vertical development scenarios to achieve baseline financial feasibility.

These estimates reflect early-stage assumptions and are intended to provide a preliminary understanding of potential infrastructure costs. All figures should be considered approximate and subject to change based on future design development, permitting requirements, utility coordination, and market conditions.

Table 4. Horizontal Roadway Infrastructure Cost Estimates Cost Estimates Scenarios A.1 & A.2 Scenarios B.1 & B.2
Filled Slab
Low Range $127 million $235 million $339 million
Estimated Probable Cost $132 million $247 million $355 million High Range $147 million $272 million $392 million
Source: AECOM
Revenue Estimates
Revenue estimates are informed by market data obtained from CoStar for comparable properties, including recent sales, leasing activity, and transaction trends. These data are used to establish planning-level assumptions for rents, sales values, and absorption across the modeled land uses (Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7).

All figures should be considered approximate and subject to change based on future market conditions, project design and unit mix, absorption and leasing performance, affordability requirements, subsidy availability, and broader economic factors.

Table 5. Residential Revenue Estimates
Unit Type Monthly Revenue
Market Rate Studio $2,700 per unit
Market Rate 1-Bedroom $3,100 per unit
Market Rate 2-Bedroom $4,100 per unit
Market Rate 3-Bedroom $5,300 per unit
Affordable Studio (90% AMI) $2,385 per unit
Affordable 1-Bedroom (90% AMI) $2,556 per unit
Affordable 2-Bedroom (90% AMI) $3,066 per unit
Affordable 3-Bedroom (90% AMI) $3,544 per unit
Source: CoStar, AECOM
Table 6. Commercial Revenue Assumptions
Space Type Monthly Revenue
Retail & Restaurant Rental Rate $40 per SF
Office Rental Rate $45 per SF
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 10
Medical Office Rental Rate $50 per SF
Commercial Lease Type Triple Net (NNN)
Source: CoStar, AECOM
Table 7. Parking Revenue Assumptions
Parking Revenue Monthly Revenue
Parking Rental Rate $150 per spot
Parking Spaces per Residential Unit 1.25
Parking Spaces per 1,000 SF of Commercial
Space

1.0 Source: Perkins Eastman, AECOM
Financing & Development Assumptions
Financing and development assumptions are based on prevailing market data and standard industry rules of thumb commonly used in early-stage real estate feasibility analysis. These assumptions reflect typical capital structures, financing terms, and development timelines appropriate for planning-level scenario modeling. Key financing and development assumptions are summarized in Table 8 and Table

9. All figures should be considered approximate and subject to change based on evolving market conditions, interest rate environments, lender and investor requirements, public-sector participation, and project-specific design and phasing decisions.

Table 8. Financing Assumptions
Financing Variable Assumption
Construction Loan Interest Rate 6%
Permanent Loan Interest Rate 5%
Equity Contribution 35%
Loan-to-Cost (LTC) Ratio 65%
Source: AECOM
Table 9. Development Assumptions
Development Variable Assumption
Construction Period 16 months
Absorption Period 6-12 months
Holding Period 15 years
Exit Capitalization Rate 5.0%
Source: AECOM
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 11
Feasibility Analysis
AECOM used the pro forma models to evaluate the current relative financial feasibility of the four shortlisted development program scenarios. Feasibility was evaluated using a range of return metrics, including levered and unlevered IRR, equity multiple, net present value (NPV), and nominal stabilized yield-on-project-cost (YoPC). These metrics are intended to be considered collectively rather than in isolation, as each captures a different dimension of project performance and risk.

The feasibility analysis relies on a set of financial thresholds that reflect generally accepted industry benchmarks for large-scale, mixed-use development under current market conditions. These thresholds are used to evaluate the likelihood that a project would attract private development interest without significant public intervention. Positive results for multiple parameters would be a strong indication of development feasibility, while mixed or marginal results suggest that additional incentives, cost reductions, or phasing strategies may be required (Table 10). The key thresholds for this analysis are outlined in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 10. Feasibility Assessment Descriptions & Implications Feasibility Assessment Description Implications
Highly Feasible Project exceeds feasibility thresholds
among all return metrics
Project can support horizontal cost
sharing and/or ground lease payments
Feasible Project meets feasibility thresholds
among most return metrics
Project is likely to be able to support
horizontal cost sharing and/or ground
lease payments
Potentially Feasible Project meets feasibility thresholds among some return metrics
Project is unlikely to be able to support
horizontal cost sharing and/or ground
lease payments
Not Feasible Project does not meet feasibility
thresholds
Project cannot support horizontal cost
sharing and/or ground lease payments
Source: AECOM
Table 11. Feasibility Thresholds
Not Feasible Potentially
Feasible
Feasible Highly Feasible
Unlevered IRR Less than 6% 6% ≥ x < 8% 8% ≥ x < 10% ≥ 10% Levered IRR Less than 7% 7% ≥ x < 10% 10% ≥ x < 15% ≥ 15% Equity Multiple Less than 1.5x 1.5x ≥ x < 2.0x 2.0x ≥ x < 2.5x ≥ 2.5x Stabilized YoPC Less than 4.5% 4.5% ≥ x < 6% 6% ≥ x < 8.5% ≥ 8.5% Source: AECOM
Under the current set of assumptions, preliminary results indicate that all four program scenarios fall within the “potentially feasible” range (Table 12). None of the scenarios consistently exceed feasibility thresholds across all return metrics, suggesting that, under baseline assumptions, strategic phasing, infrastructure cost sharing, and potential public funding or policy interventions may be required to advance redevelopment of the Site.

Across both Option A and Option B, scenarios with a higher commercial share generally perform modestly better than those with a greater emphasis on residential uses. Among the four scenarios, Option B.2 (60% residential) demonstrates the strongest overall performance, with the highest net profit, equity multiple, and levered IRR, indicating comparatively stronger upside potential for equity investors. Option A.2 (60% residential) also performs well, particularly on stabilized net operating income (NOI), levered IRR, and stabilized YoPC.

Commented [NS1]: Need to explain thresholds of feasibility and results
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 12
Table 12. Feasibility Metrics by Scenario
Feasibility Metric Scenario A.1 Scenario A.2 Scenario B.1 Scenario B.2 Stabilized NOI (12-month) $109M $119M $103M $110M
Net Profit (Levered Cash Flow) $1.8B $1.8B $1.8B $2.0B
Unlevered IRR 6.7% 7.4% 6.8% 7.1%
Levered IRR 8.2% 7.7% 8.4% 9.0%
Equity Multiple 2.24x 2.23x 2.32x 2.42x
Stabilized YoPC 5.2% 5.7% 5.3% 5.5%
Source: AECOM
Sensitivity Testing
To evaluate the development’s sensitivity to key assumptions, AECOM conducted a series of sensitivity tests examining the relationships among the following variables:
• Area Median Income (AMI) level, share of affordable housing units, and net profit (levered cash flow)
• AMI level, the share of affordable housing units, and YoPC • AMI level, the share of affordable housing units, and levered IRR • Exit capitalization rate, hold period, and levered IRR The full inventory of sensitivity testing results is provided in Appendix C.

Sensitivity Test: Impact of Affordability Assumptions on Net Profit (Levered Cash Flow) This sensitivity test highlights the trade-offs associated with affordability requirements. Figure 2 illustrates the financial trade-offs associated with affordability requirements. Across all scenarios, increases in the share of affordable housing units generally reduce net profit and increase the required financing gap. For example, under Scenario A.1, increasing the affordable housing share from 20% to 30% at 90% AMI rent restrictions reduces net profit by approximately $39 million.

However, the magnitude of this impact diminishes as the AMI level increases. At higher AMI thresholds, the negative effect of additional affordable units on net profit is reduced and becomes positive at the 120% AMI level.

Figure 2 illustrates the impact of affordability assumptions on net profit for Scenario B.2 (60% residential), which demonstrates comparatively greater resilience to affordability requirements than other scenarios.

Figure 2. Scenario B.2 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Net Profit (Levered Cash Flow) Source: AECOM
Sensitivity Test: Impact of Affordability Assumptions on Yield-on-Project Cost Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 13
Across all scenarios, stabilized YoPC remains constrained but generally falls within the “potentially feasible” range across affordability assumptions. While lower affordability requirements modestly improve YoPC, the variation across AMI levels and affordable housing shares is relatively limited. As a result, YoPC should be interpreted in conjunction with other feasibility metrics rather than as a standalone indicator.

Given that a 20% affordable housing requirement is consistent with the City of Pasadena’s inclusionary housing policies, this level represents a reasonable baseline assumption for balancing affordability objectives with development feasibility.

Figure 3 illustrates the impact of affordability requirements on YoPC for Scenario A.2 (60% residential).

Figure 3. Scenario A.2 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Yield-on-Project Cost Source: AECOM
Sensitivity Test: Impact of Affordability Assumptions on Levered IRR Levered IRR exhibits greater sensitivity to affordability assumptions than YoPC. For several scenarios, levered IRR falls below the “potentially feasible” threshold at lower AMI levels and higher affordable housing shares. For example, under Scenario A.2 (60% residential), the project becomes not feasible at:
• 20% affordable housing units at 30% AMI
• 30% affordable housing units at 60% AMI
• 35% affordable housing units at 70% AMI (Figure 4)
These results indicate that Scenario A.2 is more sensitive to affordability constraints and may require additional subsidy or policy support to remain feasible under deeper affordability requirements.

Figure 4. Scenario A.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR Source: AECOM
In contrast, Scenario B.2 (60% residential) demonstrates greater resilience. Levered IRR for this scenario remains within the “potentially feasible” range across all tested AMI levels and affordable Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 14
housing shares, indicating a stronger capacity to accommodate affordability objectives while maintaining market-supported returns (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Scenario B.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR Source: AECOM
Sensitivity Test: Impact of Timing Assumptions on Levered IRR Sensitivity testing indicates that levered IRR is most strongly influenced by timing assumptions such as exit capitalization rates and hold periods. Lower exit capitalization rates and longer hold periods consistently result in higher levered IRRs across all scenarios.

While exit capitalization rates are difficult to predict and subject to market conditions at stabilization, the analysis shows that extending the period improves project feasibility in all scenarios. This finding supports consideration of phased development approaches, longer-term ownership strategies, or public-sector participation structures that enable extended hold periods to enhance financial performance.

Figure 6 illustrates the impact of timing assumptions on levered IRR for Scenario B.2 (60% residential), which again demonstrates the strongest performance under a range of tested conditions.

Figure 6. Scenario B.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR Source: AECOM
Value Capture Opportunities
Preliminary pro forma modeling indicates that, under current market conditions and baseline assumptions, the proposed vertical real estate development is unlikely to support land acquisition or lease payments to the City, or direct reimbursement of horizontal infrastructure costs, while maintaining financial feasibility. As a result, traditional upfront value-capture mechanisms tied directly to the development pro forma appear constrained at this stage.

Instead, the primary value capture opportunity associated with redevelopment of the site is the incremental property tax revenue generated by new development over time. As part of this analysis, AECOM quantified the potential increase in property tax revenues associated with full build-out of the Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 15
proposed development programs, including estimates of how those revenues would be distributed among the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County, and other taxing entities in a typical stabilized year.

Preliminary analysis indicates that cumulative 100-year property tax revenues could exceed $10 billion in total, with approximately $2 billion accruing to the City of Pasadena (Table 13). These long-term revenues represent a significant public-sector return associated with redevelopment, even in the absence of near-term land payments.

Table 13. Property Tax Proceeds
Scenario A.1
75% Residential
Scenario A.2
60% Residential
Scenario B.1
75% Residential
Scenario B.2
60% Residential
100-Year Property Tax
Proceeds
$12.1 billion $11.4 billion $11.0 billion $10.3 billion Estimated City Share
(20%)
$2.4 billion $2.3 billion $2.2 billion $2.1 billion
Land Acquisition / Lease
Revenue
$0 $0 $0 $0
Horizontal Cost
Reimbursement
$0 $0 $0 $0
Source: AECOM
In addition to property taxes, the project is expected to generate substantial other public revenues over its lifecycle, including sales tax, income tax, hotel occupancy tax (where applicable at nearby sites), and other transaction-based taxes at the local, state, and federal levels. Fee revenues, such as permit fees, impact fees, and planning fees, are also anticipated and are embedded within the construction cost assumptions used in the pro forma analysis.

As with all planning-level analyses, these value capture estimates reflect current market conditions and baseline assumptions and will evolve over time as project design, phasing, policy frameworks, and economic conditions change.

Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 16
Funding & Financing Opportunities
The 710 Stub site is well positioned to leverage a layered funding and financing strategy that combines development-based contributions, local value capture tools, as well as regional, state, and federal programs.

At the project level, development-based funding sources such as impact fees, development agreement provisions, exactions, and direct developer equity and conventional debt represent the most immediately available and controllable tools. These mechanisms are directly tied to project phasing and entitlement and can support a wide range of on-site infrastructure, including streets, utilities, open space, and vertical development.

Land-secured and municipal financing mechanisms provide opportunities to supplement developmentbased funding and support larger-scale horizontal improvements. CFDs and EIFDs are particularly strong fits for the site, as they allow the City to capture future value created by redevelopment through parcel-based assessments or tax increment to fund infrastructure, public facilities, and transit-oriented improvements. Climate Resilience Districts (CRDs) could provide an additional tool to finance resilience-focused infrastructure, such as stormwater management, cooling, and other climate adaptation investments. While General Obligation (GO) bonds and parcel taxes offer broader funding capacity, their reliance on voter approval and citywide priorities make them less reliable as primary sources.

Regional, state, and federal programs represent a critical source of catalytic capital, particularly for affordable housing, transportation, green infrastructure, and climate resilience improvements.

Affordable housing development can be supported through a combination of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds (PAB). Non-residential and community-serving components of the project may leverage New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) to support job-generating commercial and mixed-use development.

Transportation, stormwater, and public realm investments are especially well aligned with regional, state, and federal grant programs, including Measure M, Measure W, Active Transportation Program, Prop 1 Stormwater Grant Program, Urban Greening, and CalFire Urban Forestry. These programs support complete streets, multimodal access, green infrastructure, heat mitigation, and nature-based solutions, all of which are central to reconnecting the site to surrounding neighborhoods. Larger-scale transportation and infrastructure improvements may also be eligible for federal credit assistance through Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) or long-term financing through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Section 108. Collectively, these sources can significantly reduce the local funding burden while advancing equity, climate resilience, and economic development goals.

Overall, the strongest funding strategy for the 710 Stub site will rely on a coordinated approach that aligns development-based contributions and value capture tools with targeted state and federal grants and financing programs. This approach allows the City to maximize leverage, phase infrastructure investment alongside development, and align funding sources with specific project components.

A list of funding and financing mechanisms applicable to the 710 Stub site is provided in Appendix D.

Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 17
Conclusion
The scenario analysis for the SR-710 Northern Stub site demonstrates both the scale of opportunity and the complexity of delivering catalytic redevelopment under current market conditions. While all four development scenarios are found to be potentially feasible at a planning level, none achieve full market feasibility under baseline assumptions without some combination of strategic phasing, public-sector participation, and targeted funding and financing tools. These findings reflect broader real estate and capital market constraints, including elevated construction costs, higher interest rates, and conservative lending environments.

Among the scenarios tested, programs with a higher share of commercial uses and more flexible openspace configurations perform modestly better from a financial perspective. Scenario B.2 (60% residential) demonstrates the strongest overall performance across key feasibility metrics and the greatest resilience to affordability and timing sensitivities.

As a result, the primary public-sector return associated with redevelopment of the site is expected to accrue over time through long-term property tax generation rather than upfront value capture.

Preliminary analysis indicates that full build-out of the site could generate more than $10 billion in cumulative property tax revenues over a 100-year period, with approximately $2 billion accruing to the City of Pasadena.

Overall, the analysis underscores the importance of a flexible, phased implementation strategy that balances market realities with long-term public objectives. As market conditions evolve and project details are refined, the analytical framework developed through this effort can be updated to inform future decisions related to land value, infrastructure funding, and public-private partnership structures.

Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 18
Appendix A – Acronyms
Acronym / Abbreviation Expanded Form
AMI Area Median Income
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CFD Community Facility District
CRD Climate Resilience District
EIFD Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
GO General Obligation
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
LTC Loan-to-Cost
NMTC New Markets Tax Credits
NNN Triple Net
NOI Net Operating Income
NPV Net Present Value
PAB Private Activity Bonds
ROM Rough-Order-of-Magnitude
ROW Right-of-Way
SF Square Feet
SIB State Infrastructure Bank
TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act YoPC Yield-on-Project Cost
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 19
Appendix B – Development Programs
OpA.1: 75% Resi
Timing Assumptions Residential Assumptions
Available Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Unit Count 2,380 units Start Date 1/1/2026 Average Unit Size 1,100 sf
Land Acquisition 1/1/2026 Monthly Market Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,700 per unit Horizontal Duration 3 months Monthly Market 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,100 per unit Horizontal Construction End Date 3/31/2026 Monthly Market 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $4,100 per unit Vertical Construction Start Date 4/1/2026 Monthly Market 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $5,300 per unit End of Vertical Construction Start Month 4/30/2026 AMI Level 90% AMI Vertical Duration 12 months Monthly Affordable Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,385 per unit Vertical Construction End Date 3/31/2027 Monthly Affordable 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $2,556 per unit Absorption Start Date 4/1/2027 Monthly Affordable 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,066 per unit Residential Absorption Duration 6 months Monthly Affordable 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,544 per unit Residential Absorption End Date 9/30/2027 Residential Parking Revenue ($/Spot/Unit) $150.00 per spot Commercial Absorption Duration 12 months Other Residential Revenue 5.0% Commercial Absorption End Date 3/31/2028 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Holding Period (Years) 15 years Residential Vacancy Rate 4.5% Holding Period (Months) 180 months Residential Operating Expenses 25.0% Model End Date 9/30/2042 Pre-leased Residential Share 10% Project Duration 16.00 years Pre-leased Residential Units 238 units Full Residential Occupancy Timing 6 months
Development Program
Site Acreage 38.02 acres Commercial Assumptions
Site SF 1,656,287 sf Commercial Lease Type NNN
Residential RBA 2,617,577 sf Annual Retail Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Commercial RBA 874,021 sf Annual Restaurant Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Retail RBA 44,976 sf Annual Office Rental Rate $45.00 per sf Restaurant RBA 44,976 sf Annual Medical Office Rental Rate $50.00 per sf Office RBA 67,092 sf Pre-leased Commercial SF 597,047 sf Medical Office RBA 716,977 sf Pre-leased Retail Share 10% Total Residential Units 2,380 Pre-leased Retail SF 4,498 sf Total Market Rate Residential Units 1,904 Pre-leased Restaurant Share 10% Market Studio Units 381 Pre-leased Restaurant SF 4,498 sf Market 1-Bedroom Units 761 Pre-leased Office Share 75%
Market 2-Bedroom Units 571 Pre-leased Office SF 50,319 sf Market 3-Bedroom Units 190 Pre-leased Medical Office Share 75% Share Affordable Residential Units 20% Pre-leased Medical Office SF 537,733 sf Total Affordable Residential Units 476 Other Commercial Revenue 2.0% Affordable Studio Units 95 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Affordable 1-Bedroom Units 190 Retail Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 2-Bedroom Units 143 Restaurant Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 3-Bedroom Units 48 Office Vacancy Rate 8.0%
Total RBA 3,491,598 sf Medical Office Vacancy Rate 8.0% Parking Spaces Per Residential Unit 1.25 Commercial Operating Expenses 15.0% Residential Parking Spaces 2,975 Commercial Insurance $0.35 per sf Parking Spaces Per 1k Commercial SF 1.00 Full Commercial Occupancy Timing 12 months Parking Spaces by Commercial SF 874
Total Parking Spaces 3,849 Purchase & Sale Information
SF/Parking Space 350 sf Land Price ($/SF) $0.00 per sf
Share Below Grade Parking 100% Total Land 1,656,287 sf
Share Below Grade Parking 0% Land Acquisition Price $0
Below Grade Parking SF 1,346,989 sf Land Acquisition Fees (as % of Purchase Price) 6.0% Total Parking Area SF 1,346,989 sf Land Acquisition Fee $0 Total Building + Parking Area SF 4,838,588 sf Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Residential Going Out Cap Rate 5.0%
Construction Assumptions Retail & Restaurant Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Construction Cost Escalation 0.00% Office & Medical Office Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Demolition Costs $0 Disposition Fee (as % of Sale Price) 2.0% Discount Rate 5.0%
Property Tax Information Cost of Sale (as % of Sale Price) 4.0% Bottom-Line Rate 1.189%
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 20
OpA.2: 60% Resi
Timing Assumptions Residential Assumptions
Available Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Unit Count 1,907 units Start Date 1/1/2026 Average Unit Size 1,100 sf
Land Acquisition 1/1/2026 Monthly Market Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,700 per unit Horizontal Duration 3 months Monthly Market 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,100 per unit Horizontal Construction End Date 3/31/2026 Monthly Market 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $4,100 per unit Vertical Construction Start Date 4/1/2026 Monthly Market 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $5,300 per unit End of Vertical Construction Start Month 4/30/2026 AMI Level 90% AMI Vertical Duration 12 months Monthly Affordable Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,385 per unit Vertical Construction End Date 3/31/2027 Monthly Affordable 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $2,556 per unit Absorption Start Date 4/1/2027 Monthly Affordable 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,066 per unit Residential Absorption Duration 6 months Monthly Affordable 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,544 per unit Residential Absorption End Date 9/30/2027 Residential Parking Revenue ($/Spot/Unit) $150.00 per spot Commercial Absorption Duration 12 months Other Residential Revenue 5.0% Commercial Absorption End Date 3/31/2028 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Holding Period (Years) 15 years Residential Vacancy Rate 4.5% Holding Period (Months) 180 months Residential Operating Expenses 25.0% Model End Date 9/30/2042 Pre-leased Residential Share 10% Project Duration 16.00 years Pre-leased Residential Units 191 units Full Residential Occupancy Timing 6 months
Development Program
Site Acreage 38.02 acres Commercial Assumptions
Site SF 1,656,287 sf Commercial Lease Type NNN
Residential RBA 2,097,499 sf Annual Retail Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Commercial RBA 1,394,099 sf Annual Restaurant Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Retail RBA 119,683 sf Annual Office Rental Rate $45.00 per sf Restaurant RBA 110,159 sf Annual Medical Office Rental Rate $50.00 per sf Office RBA 447,280 sf Pre-leased Commercial SF 896,177 sf Medical Office RBA 716,977 sf Pre-leased Retail Share 10% Total Residential Units 1,907 Pre-leased Retail SF 11,968 sf Total Market Rate Residential Units 1,525 Pre-leased Restaurant Share 10% Market Studio Units 229 Pre-leased Restaurant SF 11,016 sf Market 1-Bedroom Units 610 Pre-leased Office Share 75%
Market 2-Bedroom Units 458 Pre-leased Office SF 335,460 sf Market 3-Bedroom Units 229 Pre-leased Medical Office Share 75% Share Affordable Residential Units 20% Pre-leased Medical Office SF 537,733 sf Total Affordable Residential Units 381 Other Commercial Revenue 2.0% Affordable Studio Units 57 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Affordable 1-Bedroom Units 153 Retail Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 2-Bedroom Units 114 Restaurant Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 3-Bedroom Units 57 Office Vacancy Rate 8.0%
Total RBA 3,491,598 sf Medical Office Vacancy Rate 8.0% Parking Spaces Per Residential Unit 1.25 Commercial Operating Expenses 15.0% Residential Parking Spaces 2,384 Commercial Insurance $0.35 per sf Parking Spaces Per 1k Commercial SF 1.00 Full Commercial Occupancy Timing 12 months Parking Spaces by Commercial SF 1,394
Total Parking Spaces 3,778 Purchase & Sale Information
SF/Parking Space 350 sf Land Price ($/SF) $0.00 per sf
Share Below Grade Parking 100% Total Land 1,656,287 sf
Share Below Grade Parking 0% Land Acquisition Price $0
Below Grade Parking SF 1,322,167 sf Land Acquisition Fees (as % of Purchase Price) 6.0% Total Parking Area SF 1,322,167 sf Land Acquisition Fee $0 Total Building + Parking Area SF 4,813,766 sf Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Residential Going Out Cap Rate 5.0%
Construction Assumptions Retail & Restaurant Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Construction Cost Escalation 0.00% Office & Medical Office Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Demolition Costs $0 Disposition Fee (as % of Sale Price) 2.0% Discount Rate 5.0%
Property Tax Information Cost of Sale (as % of Sale Price) 4.0% Bottom-Line Rate 1.189%
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 21
OpB.1: 75% Resi
Timing Assumptions Residential Assumptions
Available Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Unit Count 2,176 units Start Date 1/1/2026 Average Unit Size 1,100 sf
Land Acquisition 1/1/2026 Monthly Market Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,700 per unit Horizontal Duration 3 months Monthly Market 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,100 per unit Horizontal Construction End Date 3/31/2026 Monthly Market 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $4,100 per unit Vertical Construction Start Date 4/1/2026 Monthly Market 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $5,300 per unit End of Vertical Construction Start Month 4/30/2026 AMI Level 90% AMI Vertical Duration 12 months Monthly Affordable Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,385 per unit Vertical Construction End Date 3/31/2027 Monthly Affordable 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $2,556 per unit Absorption Start Date 4/1/2027 Monthly Affordable 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,066 per unit Residential Absorption Duration 6 months Monthly Affordable 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,544 per unit Residential Absorption End Date 9/30/2027 Residential Parking Revenue ($/Spot/Unit) $150.00 per spot Commercial Absorption Duration 12 months Other Residential Revenue 5.0% Commercial Absorption End Date 3/31/2028 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Holding Period (Years) 15 years Residential Vacancy Rate 4.5% Holding Period (Months) 180 months Residential Operating Expenses 25.0% Model End Date 9/30/2042 Pre-leased Residential Share 10% Project Duration 16.00 years Pre-leased Residential Units 218 units Full Residential Occupancy Timing 6 months
Development Program
Site Acreage 38.02 acres Commercial Assumptions
Site SF 1,656,287 sf Commercial Lease Type NNN
Residential RBA 2,394,045 sf Annual Retail Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Commercial RBA 800,387 sf Annual Restaurant Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Retail RBA 17,107 sf Annual Office Rental Rate $45.00 per sf Restaurant RBA 24,079 sf Annual Medical Office Rental Rate $50.00 per sf Office RBA 0 sf Pre-leased Commercial SF 573,519 sf
Medical Office RBA 759,200 sf Pre-leased Retail Share 10% Total Residential Units 2,176 Pre-leased Retail SF 1,711 sf Total Market Rate Residential Units 1,741 Pre-leased Restaurant Share 10% Market Studio Units 261 Pre-leased Restaurant SF 2,408 sf Market 1-Bedroom Units 696 Pre-leased Office Share 75%
Market 2-Bedroom Units 522 Pre-leased Office SF 0 sf
Market 3-Bedroom Units 261 Pre-leased Medical Office Share 75% Share Affordable Residential Units 20% Pre-leased Medical Office SF 569,400 sf Total Affordable Residential Units 435 Other Commercial Revenue 2.0% Affordable Studio Units 65 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Affordable 1-Bedroom Units 174 Retail Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 2-Bedroom Units 131 Restaurant Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 3-Bedroom Units 65 Office Vacancy Rate 8.0%
Total RBA 3,194,431 sf Medical Office Vacancy Rate 8.0% Parking Spaces Per Residential Unit 1.25 Commercial Operating Expenses 15.0% Residential Parking Spaces 2,721 Commercial Insurance $0.35 per sf Parking Spaces Per 1k Commercial SF 1.00 Full Commercial Occupancy Timing 12 months Parking Spaces by Commercial SF 800
Total Parking Spaces 3,521 Purchase & Sale Information
SF/Parking Space 350 sf Land Price ($/SF) $0.00 per sf
Share Below Grade Parking 100% Total Land 1,656,287 sf
Share Below Grade Parking 0% Land Acquisition Price $0
Below Grade Parking SF 1,232,312 sf Land Acquisition Fees (as % of Purchase Price) 6.0% Total Parking Area SF 1,232,312 sf Land Acquisition Fee $0 Total Building + Parking Area SF 4,426,744 sf Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Residential Going Out Cap Rate 5.0%
Construction Assumptions Retail & Restaurant Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Construction Cost Escalation 0.00% Office & Medical Office Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Demolition Costs $0 Disposition Fee (as % of Sale Price) 2.0% Discount Rate 5.0%
Property Tax Information Cost of Sale (as % of Sale Price) 4.0% Bottom-Line Rate 1.189%
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 22
OpB.2: 60% Resi
Timing Assumptions Residential Assumptions
Available Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Unit Count 1,757 units Start Date 1/1/2026 Average Unit Size 1,100 sf
Land Acquisition 1/1/2026 Monthly Market Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,700 per unit Horizontal Duration 3 months Monthly Market 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,100 per unit Horizontal Construction End Date 3/31/2026 Monthly Market 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $4,100 per unit Vertical Construction Start Date 4/1/2026 Monthly Market 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $5,300 per unit End of Vertical Construction Start Month 4/30/2026 AMI Level 90% AMI Vertical Duration 12 months Monthly Affordable Studio Rental Rate / Unit $2,385 per unit Vertical Construction End Date 3/31/2027 Monthly Affordable 1-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $2,556 per unit Absorption Start Date 4/1/2027 Monthly Affordable 2-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,066 per unit Residential Absorption Duration 6 months Monthly Affordable 3-Bed Rental Rate / Unit $3,544 per unit Residential Absorption End Date 9/30/2027 Residential Parking Revenue ($/Spot/Unit) $150.00 per spot Commercial Absorption Duration 12 months Other Residential Revenue 5.0% Commercial Absorption End Date 3/31/2028 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Holding Period (Years) 15 years Residential Vacancy Rate 4.5% Holding Period (Months) 180 months Residential Operating Expenses 25.0% Model End Date 9/30/2042 Pre-leased Residential Share 10% Project Duration 16.00 years Pre-leased Residential Units 176 units Full Residential Occupancy Timing 6 months
Development Program
Site Acreage 38.02 acres Commercial Assumptions
Site SF 1,656,287 sf Commercial Lease Type NNN
Residential RBA 1,932,164 sf Annual Retail Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Commercial RBA 1,262,268 sf Annual Restaurant Rental Rate $40.00 per sf Retail RBA 41,173 sf Annual Office Rental Rate $45.00 per sf Restaurant RBA 41,173 sf Annual Medical Office Rental Rate $50.00 per sf Office RBA 44,810 sf Pre-leased Commercial SF 893,176 sf Medical Office RBA 1,135,111 sf Pre-leased Retail Share 10% Total Residential Units 1,757 Pre-leased Retail SF 4,117 sf Total Market Rate Residential Units 1,405 Pre-leased Restaurant Share 10% Market Studio Units 281 Pre-leased Restaurant SF 4,117 sf Market 1-Bedroom Units 562 Pre-leased Office Share 75%
Market 2-Bedroom Units 422 Pre-leased Office SF 33,607 sf Market 3-Bedroom Units 141 Pre-leased Medical Office Share 75% Share Affordable Residential Units 20% Pre-leased Medical Office SF 851,334 sf Total Affordable Residential Units 351 Other Commercial Revenue 2.0% Affordable Studio Units 70 Annual Revenue Appreciation 3.0% Affordable 1-Bedroom Units 141 Retail Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 2-Bedroom Units 105 Restaurant Vacancy Rate 8.0% Affordable 3-Bedroom Units 35 Office Vacancy Rate 8.0%
Total RBA 3,194,431 sf Medical Office Vacancy Rate 8.0% Parking Spaces Per Residential Unit 1.25 Commercial Operating Expenses 15.0% Residential Parking Spaces 2,196 Commercial Insurance $0.35 per sf Parking Spaces Per 1k Commercial SF 1.00 Full Commercial Occupancy Timing 12 months Parking Spaces by Commercial SF 1,262
Total Parking Spaces 3,458 Purchase & Sale Information
SF/Parking Space 350 sf Land Price ($/SF) $0.00 per sf
Share Below Grade Parking 100% Total Land 1,656,287 sf
Share Below Grade Parking 0% Land Acquisition Price $0
Below Grade Parking SF 1,210,268 sf Land Acquisition Fees (as % of Purchase Price) 6.0% Total Parking Area SF 1,210,268 sf Land Acquisition Fee $0 Total Building + Parking Area SF 4,404,699 sf Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Residential Going Out Cap Rate 5.0%
Construction Assumptions Retail & Restaurant Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Construction Cost Escalation 0.00% Office & Medical Office Going Out Cap Rate 5.0% Demolition Costs $0 Disposition Fee (as % of Sale Price) 2.0% Discount Rate 5.0%
Property Tax Information Cost of Sale (as % of Sale Price) 4.0% Bottom-Line Rate 1.189%
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 23
Appendix C – Sensitivity Testing
AMI Level
$ 1,825,000,000 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% $ 1,860,000,000 $ 1,902,000,000 $ 1,915,000,000 $ 1,929,000,000 $ 1,943,000,000 $ 1,957,000,000 $ 1,984,000,000 10% $ 1,738,000,000 $ 1,821,000,000 $ 1,849,000,000 $ 1,876,000,000 $ 1,904,000,000 $ 1,931,000,000 $ 1,986,000,000 15% $ 1,617,000,000 $ 1,740,000,000 $ 1,782,000,000 $ 1,823,000,000 $ 1,864,000,000 $ 1,906,000,000 $ 1,988,000,000 20% $ 1,495,000,000 $ 1,660,000,000 $ 1,715,000,000 $ 1,770,000,000 $ 1,825,000,000 $ 1,880,000,000 $ 1,990,000,000 25% $ 1,373,000,000 $ 1,579,000,000 $ 1,648,000,000 $ 1,717,000,000 $ 1,786,000,000 $ 1,855,000,000 $ 1,992,000,000 30% $ 1,251,000,000 $ 1,499,000,000 $ 1,581,000,000 $ 1,664,000,000 $ 1,746,000,000 $ 1,829,000,000 $ 1,994,000,000 35% $ 1,130,000,000 $ 1,418,000,000 $ 1,515,000,000 $ 1,611,000,000 $ 1,707,000,000 $ 1,804,000,000 $ 1,996,000,000 Lower Net Profit Higher Net Profit
AMI Level A
$ 1,813,000,000 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% $ 1,851,000,000 $ 1,885,000,000 $ 1,896,000,000 $ 1,908,000,000 $ 1,919,000,000 $ 1,930,000,000 $ 1,953,000,000 10% $ 1,748,000,000 $ 1,816,000,000 $ 1,839,000,000 $ 1,861,000,000 $ 1,883,000,000 $ 1,906,000,000 $ 1,951,000,000 15% $ 1,646,000,000 $ 1,747,000,000 $ 1,781,000,000 $ 1,814,000,000 $ 1,848,000,000 $ 1,882,000,000 $ 1,949,000,000 20% $ 1,543,000,000 $ 1,678,000,000 $ 1,723,000,000 $ 1,768,000,000 $ 1,813,000,000 $ 1,858,000,000 $ 1,948,000,000 25% $ 1,440,000,000 $ 1,609,000,000 $ 1,665,000,000 $ 1,721,000,000 $ 1,777,000,000 $ 1,834,000,000 $ 1,946,000,000 30% $ 1,337,000,000 $ 1,539,000,000 $ 1,607,000,000 $ 1,675,000,000 $ 1,742,000,000 $ 1,810,000,000 $ 1,945,000,000 35% $ 1,234,000,000 $ 1,470,000,000 $ 1,549,000,000 $ 1,628,000,000 $ 1,707,000,000 $ 1,785,000,000 $ 1,943,000,000 Lower Net Profit Higher Net Profit
OpB.1 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Net Profit (Levered Cash Flow) OpB.1 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Y AMI Level A
$ 1,764,000,000 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% $ 1,808,000,000 $ 1,846,000,000 $ 1,859,000,000 $ 1,872,000,000 $ 1,885,000,000 $ 1,898,000,000 $ 1,923,000,000 10% $ 1,690,000,000 $ 1,767,000,000 $ 1,793,000,000 $ 1,819,000,000 $ 1,844,000,000 $ 1,870,000,000 $ 1,921,000,000 15% $ 1,573,000,000 $ 1,688,000,000 $ 1,727,000,000 $ 1,765,000,000 $ 1,804,000,000 $ 1,843,000,000 $ 1,920,000,000 20% $ 1,455,000,000 $ 1,609,000,000 $ 1,661,000,000 $ 1,712,000,000 $ 1,764,000,000 $ 1,815,000,000 $ 1,918,000,000 25% $ 1,338,000,000 $ 1,531,000,000 $ 1,595,000,000 $ 1,659,000,000 $ 1,723,000,000 $ 1,787,000,000 $ 1,916,000,000 30% $ 1,221,000,000 $ 1,452,000,000 $ 1,529,000,000 $ 1,606,000,000 $ 1,683,000,000 $ 1,760,000,000 $ 1,914,000,000 35% $ 1,103,000,000 $ 1,373,000,000 $ 1,463,000,000 $ 1,553,000,000 $ 1,642,000,000 $ 1,732,000,000 $ 1,912,000,000 Lower Net Profit Higher Net Profit
AMI Level
$ 1,971,000,000 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% $ 1,997,000,000 $ 2,028,000,000 $ 2,038,000,000 $ 2,048,000,000 $ 2,058,000,000 $ 2,068,000,000 $ 2,089,000,000 10% $ 1,907,000,000 $ 1,968,000,000 $ 1,989,000,000 $ 2,009,000,000 $ 2,029,000,000 $ 2,050,000,000 $ 2,090,000,000 15% $ 1,817,000,000 $ 1,909,000,000 $ 1,939,000,000 $ 1,970,000,000 $ 2,000,000,000 $ 2,031,000,000 $ 2,092,000,000 20% $ 1,728,000,000 $ 1,849,000,000 $ 1,890,000,000 $ 1,931,000,000 $ 1,971,000,000 $ 2,012,000,000 $ 2,093,000,000 25% $ 1,638,000,000 $ 1,790,000,000 $ 1,841,000,000 $ 1,892,000,000 $ 1,942,000,000 $ 1,993,000,000 $ 2,095,000,000 30% $ 1,548,000,000 $ 1,731,000,000 $ 1,791,000,000 $ 1,852,000,000 $ 1,913,000,000 $ 1,974,000,000 $ 2,096,000,000 35% $ 1,458,000,000 $ 1,671,000,000 $ 1,742,000,000 $ 1,813,000,000 $ 1,884,000,000 $ 1,955,000,000 $ 2,098,000,000 Lower Net Profit Higher Net Profit Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units OpA.2 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Net Profit (Levered Cash Flow) OpB.2 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Net Profit (Levered Cash Flow) Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 24
OpA.1: 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Yield-on-Project Cost OpA.1: 75% Resi - Sensit AMI Level

5.2% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4%
10% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4%
15% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4%
20% 4.9% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4%
25% 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4%
30% 4.7% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4%
35% 4.5% 4.8% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible AMI Level

5.7% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8%
10% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8%
15% 5.5% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8%
20% 5.4% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8%
25% 5.3% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8%
30% 5.2% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.8%
35% 5.1% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6% 5.7% 5.8%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible OpB.1 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Yield-on-Project Cost OpB.1: 75% Resi - Sensit AMI Level

5.3% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5%
10% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5%
15% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5%
20% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.5%
25% 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4%
30% 4.7% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4%
35% 4.6% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible AMI Level

5.5% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%
10% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6%
15% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6%
20% 5.2% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6%
25% 5.1% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6%
30% 5.0% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6%
35% 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units OpA.2 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Yield-on-Project Cost Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units OpB.2 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Yield-on-Project Cost Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 25
OpA.1: 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR OpA.1: 75% Resi - Sensitivity T AMI Level Ca

8.2% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 8.3% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.6% 8.6% 8.7%
10% 7.9% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 8.5% 8.5% 8.7%
15% 7.5% 7.9% 8.1% 8.2% 8.3% 8.5% 8.7%
20% 7.1% 7.6% 7.8% 8.0% 8.2% 8.4% 8.7%
25% 6.6% 7.4% 7.6% 7.8% 8.1% 8.3% 8.7%
30% 6.2% 7.1% 7.4% 7.7% 7.9% 8.2% 8.8%
35% 5.7% 6.8% 7.1% 7.5% 7.8% 8.1% 8.8%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible OpA.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR OpA.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity T AMI Level Ca

7.7% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.2%
10% 7.5% 7.8% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.2%
15% 7.2% 7.5% 7.6% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.2%
20% 6.8% 7.3% 7.5% 7.6% 7.7% 7.9% 8.2%
25% 6.5% 7.1% 7.3% 7.4% 7.6% 7.8% 8.2%
30% 6.1% 6.8% 7.1% 7.3% 7.5% 7.7% 8.2%
35% 5.7% 6.6% 6.9% 7.1% 7.4% 7.7% 8.2%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible OpB.1: 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR OpB.1: 75% Resi - Sensitivity T AMI Level Ca

8.4% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.9% 9.0%
10% 8.2% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 9.0%
15% 7.7% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 8.6% 8.7% 9.0%
20% 7.3% 7.9% 8.1% 8.2% 8.4% 8.6% 9.0%
25% 6.8% 7.6% 7.8% 8.0% 8.3% 8.5% 8.9%
30% 6.4% 7.3% 7.6% 7.9% 8.1% 8.4% 8.9%
35% 5.9% 7.0% 7.3% 7.7% 8.0% 8.3% 8.9%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible OpB.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR OpB.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity T AMI Level Ca

9.0% 30% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
5% 9.1% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.3% 9.3% 9.4%
10% 8.8% 9.0% 9.0% 9.1% 9.2% 9.2% 9.4%
15% 8.5% 8.8% 8.9% 9.0% 9.1% 9.2% 9.4%
20% 8.1% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 9.0% 9.1% 9.4%
25% 7.8% 8.4% 8.5% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.4%
30% 7.5% 8.2% 8.4% 8.6% 8.8% 9.0% 9.4%
35% 7.2% 7.9% 8.2% 8.4% 8.7% 8.9% 9.4%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units Share of Affordable Housing Units Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 26
OpA.1: 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR
Cap Rate

8.2% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 5.50% 5.75%

5.0 6.9% 5.0% 3.1% 1.3% -0.6% -2.5%

7.0 7.9% 6.7% 5.4% 4.2% 3.0% 1.8%

10.0 8.6% 7.8% 7.1% 6.4% 5.6% 4.9%

12.0 8.8% 8.2% 7.7% 7.1% 6.6% 6.1%

15.0 9.0% 8.6% 8.2% 7.8% 7.5% 7.1%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible OpA.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR
Cap Rate

7.7% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 5.50% 5.75%

5.0 8.4% 6.6% 4.7% 2.9% 1.1% -0.8%

7.0 8.5% 7.3% 6.0% 4.8% 3.6% 2.4%

10.0 8.6% 7.8% 7.0% 6.3% 5.5% 4.8%

12.0 8.6% 8.0% 7.4% 6.8% 6.2% 5.7%

15.0 8.6% 8.2% 7.7% 7.3% 6.9% 6.6%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible OpB.1: 75% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR
Cap Rate

8.4% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 5.50% 5.75%

5.0 7.4% 5.6% 3.8% 1.9% 0.1% -1.8%

7.0 8.3% 7.1% 5.9% 4.7% 3.5% 2.3%

10.0 8.9% 8.1% 7.4% 6.7% 6.0% 5.3%

12.0 9.1% 8.5% 7.9% 7.4% 6.9% 6.4%

15.0 9.2% 8.8% 8.4% 8.1% 7.7% 7.4%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible OpB.2: 60% Resi - Sensitivity Test: Levered IRR
Cap Rate

9.0% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 5.50% 5.75%

5.0 9.0% 7.2% 5.4% 3.6% 1.9% 0.1%

7.0 9.5% 8.2% 7.1% 5.9% 4.8% 3.6%

10.0 9.7% 9.0% 8.2% 7.5% 6.8% 6.2%

12.0 9.7% 9.2% 8.6% 8.1% 7.6% 7.1%

15.0 9.7% 9.4% 9.0% 8.6% 8.3% 7.9%
Not Feasible Potentially Feasible Feasible Highly Feasible Hold Period (Years) Hold Period (Years) Hold Period (Years) Hold Period (Years) Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 27
Appendix D – Funding & Financing Strategy
Table 14. Funding & Financing Tools
Funding Source Summary Eligible Uses
Development-Based Funding
Impact Fees One-time charges on new
development to fund infrastructure
directly necessitated by growth
Roads, water/sewer, parks, public
safety
Provisions of Development
Agreements
Customized agreements with
developer contributions for
infrastructure, amenities, or land
dedications
Site-specific: utilities, streetscapes,
open space
Exactions Conditions of approval requiring
land dedications, off-site
improvements, or in-lieu fees
Streets, sidewalks, parkland
dedications
Developer Equity / Conventional
Debt
Direct developer investment and
financing to fund project
infrastructure and verticals
All development costs
Land-Secured Sources
Special Assessment Districts Assess property owners for benefiting improvements
Lighting, sidewalks, drainage
Community Facility Districts
(CFDs)
Bonds backed by parcel tax to fund
infrastructure and public facilities
Broad public facilities (schools,
parks, roads, fire/police)
Climate Resilience Districts
(CRDs)
Assess property owners to fund
climate resilience and sustainability
infrastructure
Stormwater systems, flood
protection, urban cooling, green
infrastructure
Municipal & Regional Sources
General Obligation (GO) Bonds Citywide voter-approved bonds for infrastructure
Public infrastructure (parks,
libraries, roads, utilities)
Revenue Bonds Issued against project revenues
(parking, utilities)
Revenue-generating infrastructure
(parking, utilities, toll roads)
Parcel Taxes Annual parcel tax for infrastructure,
public services
Public services, schools, transit,
public safety, green infrastructure
City of Pasadena Capital Budget /
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
City allocation of budgeted capital
projects.

Streetscape, utilities, parks
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District (EIFD)
Captures tax increment for
infrastructure
Roads, utilities, open space, TOD
improvements
Proposition C LA County voter-approved halfcent sales tax for transit and transportation improvements
Transit capital projects, rail
expansion, bus system
improvements, transit stations, and
related transportation infrastructure
Measure H Homeless services and supportive
housing funding; some capital
gap/operations for PSH
PSH operations, services, and
select capital costs tied to
supportive housing units
Measure W (Safe, Clean Water
Program)
Regional and municipal funding for
multi-benefit stormwater
capture/quality projects
Green streets, infiltration,
detention, treatment facilities,
nature-based stormwater solutions
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 28
Measure M Funds multimodal capital (via
subregional programs)
Complete streets, first/last-mile,
transit access, active
transportation, roadway upgrades
Measure R Legacy transportation capital
categories and subregional
allocations
Transit capital, roadway
capacity/safety, active
transportation where eligible
Measure A Funds park
acquisition/development, urban
greening, habitat, and trails
New/expanded parks, recreation
facilities, greenways, habitat
restoration, urban canopy
Affordable Housing Trust Fund Capital for affordable/supportive housing in LA County jurisdictions
Affordable housing hard/soft costs;
select off-site improvements tied to
housing
State & Federal Programs
LIHTC (9% and 4%) Federal equity tool for affordable
housing
Affordable housing development
California HCD Infill Infrastructure
Grant (IIG)
Grants for housing-supporting site
prep and infrastructure
On-site infrastructure for housing
(streets, utilities, green space)
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities (AHSC)
Affordable housing with
transit/sustainable transport
Affordable housing + sustainable
transportation improvements
(bike/pedestrian and TOD)
New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) Equity tool for
community/commercial facilities
Community facilities, commercial,
job-creating retail or mixed-use
Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
Federal low-interest credit for
transportation/TOD
Transportation infrastructure,
transit-oriented development
Tax-Exempt Bonds (Private Activity
Bonds (PAB))
Tax-exempt bonds issued for
qualified private activities (e.g.,
multifamily housing, infrastructure)
with below-market interest rates
Backbone utilities, structured
parking tied to housing, qualified
public infrastructure supporting 4%
LIHTC projects
TOD Housing Program Supports affordable housing near
transit; cycles occur when
appropriated
Affordable housing costs;
associated active
transportation/TOD-supportive
improvements
Prop 1 Stormwater Grant Program
(SWGP)
Multi-benefit stormwater projects
for quality/supply; implementation
and planning
Green streets, infiltration basins,
detention, treatment, LID retrofits
Urban Greening Funds urban greening, reducing
GHGs and delivering community
benefits
Greenways, shade trees,
permeable surfaces, bioswales,
multi-use trails
CalFire Urban Forestry Tree planting and urban forestry planning for heat mitigation and air
quality
Street trees, urban forests, nursery
stock, stewardship plans
Statewide Park Program (SPP) Creates/expands parks in
underserved areas with recreation
facilities and acquisition
New parks, recreation buildings,
amenities, acquisition
Active Transportation Program
(ATP)
Funds bike/ped and Safe Routes
projects with safety/equity benefits
Trails, protected lanes, crossings,
traffic calming, streetscapes
Public Works Program Provides funding for infrastructure projects that support long-term
regional economic competitiveness
and job creation
Roads, utilities, site preparation,
business/industrial parks, and
technology infrastructure
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 29
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
Flexible community development
funding supporting public
facilities/infrastructure
Complete streets, utilities, public
facilities, planning; LMI benefit
required
Section 108 Leverages future CDBG for lowcost, long-term infrastructure financing
Major infrastructure, site prep,
economic development tied to
CDBG eligibility
HOME Investment Partnerships
Program
Affordable housing
production/preservation funding
Gap financing for affordable units;
eligible site work tied to housing
Reconnecting Communities and
Neighborhoods (RCN)
Planning and capital to remove or
mitigate divisive infrastructure
barriers
Caps, boulevards, multimodal
retrofits reconnecting
neighborhoods
Promoting Resilient Operations for
Transformative, Efficient, and CostSaving Transportation (PROTECT) Program
Promotes transportation system
resilience to climate impacts
Resilient complete streets, bridges,
drainage, heat/flood hardening
Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Planning
Planning grants for stationarea/TOD planning around
existing/planned transit
Station-area plans, zoning, design
guidelines, market/feasibility
studies
State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) State revolving loan fund providing low-interest financing for
infrastructure projects
Roads, bridges, transit facilities,
utilities, freight infrastructure, and
other transportation or economic
development–supporting
infrastructure
Source: AECOM, January 2026
Appendix: Preliminary Economic Analysis
Scenario Feasibility Analysis Pasadena 710 - DRAFT
AECOM – City of Pasadena 30
Appendix E – General Limiting Conditions
Deliverables and portions thereof shall be subject to the following General Limiting Conditions:

AECOM devoted the level of effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) consistent with the time and budget available for the Services to develop the Deliverables. The Deliverables are based on estimates, assumptions, information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with Client and Client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in data provided by the Client, the Client's representatives, or any third-party data source used in preparing or presenting the Deliverables. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained in the Deliverables unless such additional services are separately retained pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and Client.

AECOM’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporations, nor their respective affiliates or subsidiaries (“AECOM Entities”) make any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods contained in or used to produce the Deliverables.

The Deliverables shall not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client. The Deliverables shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM.

Possession of the Deliverables does not carry with it any right of publication or the right to use the name of "AECOM" in any manner without the prior express written consent of AECOM. No party may reference AECOM with regard to any abstract, excerpt or summarization of the Deliverables without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the Deliverables, or any use of the Deliverables not specifically identified in the Agreement between the Client and AECOM or otherwise expressly approved in writing by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or use.

The Deliverables were prepared solely for the use by the Client. No third party may rely on the Deliverables unless expressly authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a formal reliance letter. Any third party expressly authorized by AECOM in writing to rely on the Deliverables may do so only on the Deliverable in its entirety and not on any abstract, excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon the Deliverables is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility for such use, strict compliance with this Agreement and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, changes in market conditions, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behavior of consumers or competitors and changes in the Client’s policies affecting the operation of their projects.

The Deliverables may include “forward-looking statements”. These statements relate to AECOM’s expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect AECOM’s views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of the Deliverables and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in the Deliverables. These factors are beyond AECOM’s ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in the Deliverables will actually occur or be achieved. The Deliverables are qualified in their entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations.