Beaumont City Council
March 19, 2024

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 8 of 57 Section 4.1 — Figure 2
Figure 2 shall be replaced with the following updated Figure 2. While the land use and acreage of the Beaumont Pointe Development project did not change, this Addendum updates Figure 2 of the previously approved WSA to no longer show the additional proposed conservation area south of the project.

Im
PA. 10

OPEN SPACE -

CONSERVATION
E
Limits of Disturbance
overlaps w'th
Property Boundary
Limps of Disturbance
overlaps with
Property Boundary
Legend
• WQMP Basin
▪ Lift Station
I-1 Water Tank (optional)

STATISTICAL SUMMARY
0 LAND USE DESIGNATION LEM
o
MI=
0 fflIESIE MEEM .. . - •TAL '®
0 INDUSTRIAL MEM
0 e10USPtA MEM
0 NOUSIRL4L MEM
0 INDUSTRAL
0 INDUSTRIAL
0 INDUSTRIAL MIMI
0 INOUSrWt4L SUeTOML 0
0 MEE
0' OPEN SPACE -CONSERVATION
PROJECT TOTAL 539.9
no
Co nectIon to LPRI
Existing Jack Rouoll Dal EXISTING RESIDENCE
[PM
Figure 2 — Beaumont Pointe Land Use Plan
Section 4.1 — Project Description
The last paragraph in Section 4.1 shall be revised as shown in red below. These revisions will clarify the use of utilizing non -potable water for all outdoor irrigation demands.

The project is required to adhere to the landscaping standards in the "Guide to California Friendly Landscaping", the City of Beaumont's, and Riverside County Landscaping Ordinances which requires water efficient landscaping. Pursuant to BCVWD requirements, and as part of ongoing water conservation efforts, all outdoor irrigation demands shall utilize non -potable water, and recycled water produced by the City of Beaumont and distributed by BCVWD as it becomes available.

Section 4.2 — Estimated Water Demand - Tables 4-2 Note 5 and 6 Notes 5 and 6 under Table 4-2 in the WSA shall be revised as shown in red below. These revisions clarify the potable water demand for the Project's latest land use plan, and the use of non -potable water for all outdoor irrigation demands.
[5] Not Used
[6] Represents demands that will be served by non -domestic water sources.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 9 of 57 Section 4.2 — Estimated Water Demand - Tables 4-3 Note 4 and 5 Notes 4 and 5 under Table 4-3 in the WSA shall be revised as shown in red below. These revisions clarify the potable water demand for the Project's latest land use plan, and the use of non -potable water for all outdoor irrigation demands.
[4] Not Used
[5] Represents demands that will be served by non -domestic water sources.

Section 4.2 — Estimated Water Demand
The last paragraph shall be revised as shown in red below. These revisions clarify the reduced potable water demand shown in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP and the use of non -potable water for all outdoor irrigation demands.

Table 4-2 and 4-3 calculate the total estimated water demand at Beaumont Pointe Development buildout of 175,584 gpd, or 196.70 AFY. Based on BCVWD equivalent dwelling unit usage of

0.546 AFY per equivalent dwelling unit, this equates to 360.26 EDUs (196.70 AFY). Of the total water demand, the potable water demand is estimated to be 204.21 EDUs (111.50 AFY) and the non -potable water demand for outdoor irrigation is estimated to be 85.20 AFY, equivalent to 156.04 EDUs.

Section 5.1 — Overview of BCVWD's Water System and Operation — Table 5-1 Table 5-1 shall be revised as shown in red below. These revisions update the potable and non -potable water connections, average and maximum day demands to reflect the values listed in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP. Please note that the BCVWD 2020 UWMP does not include the total water pumped for 2020 and therefore this row was removed from Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 BCVWD Potable and Non -Potable Water Connection and Deliveries 2020 Potable Water
Non -Potable Water
Total
Number of Connections
19,359
300
19,6591
Average Annual, MGD

10.82 5.62

16.4 Maximum Day, MGD

21.62 6.72
NA
Total Demand, AF3
10,845
1,647
12,492
Notes:

1. Taken from Section 3.1 the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

2. Taken from Section 3.6 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

3. The Total Demand shown does not include system losses.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 10 of 57 Section 5.2 — Potable Water System
Section 5.2 shall be removed and replaced with the potable water system overview provided in the District's 2020 UWMP.

BCVWD's potable water system is supplied by wells in Little San Gorgonio Creek (Edgar Canyon) and the Beaumont Basin (sometimes called the Beaumont Storage Unit or the Beaumont Management Zone). The District has a total of 24 wells (1 well is a standby). One of the wells, Well 26, can pump into either the potable water or the non -potable water system. Currently, it is pumping into the non -potable water system.

The Beaumont Basin is adjudicated and managed by the Beaumont Basin Watermaster. BCVWD augments its groundwater supply with imported State Project Water from the SGPWA which is recharged at BCVWD's recharge facility at the intersection of Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue. The Beaumont Basin Adjudication requires that the extracted amount of water from the Basin must be replaced.

Wells in Edgar Canyon have limited yield, particularly in dry years, and take water from shallow alluvial and fractured bedrock aquifers. Wells in the Beaumont Basin are large capacity and pump from deep aquifers — some as deep as 1,500 ft below the ground surface. The Edgar Canyon wells are very inexpensive to operate and are the preferred source due to there being no replenishment requirement like the Beaumont Basin; however, those wells are not able to meet the current average day demand. The Edgar Canyon wells pump to a gravity transmission main that extends the full length of the District -owned properties in Edgar Canyon. The transmission main connects to the distribution system in Cherry Valley. Water from the Edgar Canyon Wells, which is not used in the developed areas adjacent to Edgar Canyon or Cherry Valley, is transferred to lower pressure zones serving the City of Beaumont. The Edgar Canyon Wells provide about 15 to 20 percent of the total annual supply; the rest is pumped from wells in the Beaumont Basin supplemented by recharged imported water.

BCVWD has two active stream diversion locations within Little San Gorgonio Creek (Edgar Canyon) that are in the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights database (S014351, S014352). The diversions have pre -1914 recorded water rights amounting to 3,000 miner's inch hours (MIH) or approximately 45,000 AFY of right for diversion of water for domestic and irrigation uses. These date back to the early history of the District. However, the District has never had a demand that requires such large quantities of water supply; and the watersheds may not be capable of supplying such quantities during an average year. At the present time, the District currently diverts streamflow in Edgar Canyon to a series of percolation ponds which recharge the shallow wells in Edgar Canyon. This water is then extracted for domestic purposes.

BCVWD's total well capacity (Edgar Canyon and Beaumont Basin) is about 27.5 mgd with the largest well out of service, which is greater than the current 21.6 mgd maximum day demand (2020). The District has 11 pressure zones and 14 reservoirs (tanks) ranging in size from 0.5 MG to 5 MG. Total storage is approximately 22 MG —just over two average days or just over one maximum day. The reservoirs provide gravity supply to their respective pressure zones. The BCVWD's potable system is constructed such that any higher zone reservoir can supply water on an emergency basis to any lower zone reservoir. There are booster pumps in the system to pump water up from a lower pressure zone to a higher pressure zone also.

The transmission system in the main pressure zones is comprised of 24 -in diameter pipelines (there are some 30 -in diameter pipelines at some reservoirs). The bulk of the transmission system is ductile iron pipe with cement mortar lining and was installed in the last 10 to 15 years.

There are a number of small distribution lines (4 -in and smaller) that are gradually being replaced over time with minimum 8 -in diameter ductile iron pipe. All developments, since the early 1980s, have installed mortar lined, ductile iron pipe. The distribution system is capable of providing over 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow in the industrial/commercial areas of the service area.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 11 of 57 Section 5.3 — Imported Water and Recharge Facilities
Section 5.3 shall be removed and replaced with the Imported Water and Recharge Facilities overview provided in the District's 2020 UWMP.

Around 2001, BCVWD began investigating an 80 -acre site on the east side of Beaumont Avenue between Brookside Avenue and Cherry Valley Boulevard as a location for a facility to recharge captured storm flow and imported water. After extensive hydrogeologic investigations, including pilot testing, the District eventually purchased the site (known as the Oda Property) and developed Phase 1 of the recharge facility on the westerly half of the site. The Phase 1 facilities were completed and went online in late summer 2006. Phase 2 of the recharge facility was completed in 2014. The 80 -acre site has excellent recharge capabilities with long-term percolation rates around 7 to 10 acre-ft/acre/day, with proper maintenance.

The District completed construction of a 24 -in pipeline from the SGPWA turnout on East Branch Extension (EBX) of the State Water Project to the District's recharge facilities in 2006. A metering station was installed at the turnout at Noble Creek and Vineland Avenue and BCVWD began taking imported water deliveries from SGPWA for recharge in September of 2006. In 2019, the EBX facility was expanded to allow for additional imported water capacity. Since its operation in 2006 through the end of 2020, nearly 108,900 acre -ft (about 35.5 billion gallons) of imported water have been recharged. As of the end of 2020, BCVWD has 39,750 acre -ft "banked" in the Beaumont Basin; this is more than a three-year supply.

The District is also currently working with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to complete the MDP Line 16 Project, which will allow the District to capture and recharge stormwater at the Phase 2 recharge facilities. The expected volume of stormwater able to be recharged is approximately 250 AFY. Construction is expected to begin in 2021 and be completed by fall 2022.

Section 5.4— Non -potable (Recycled) Water System
Section 5.4 shall be removed and replaced with the Non -potable (Recycled) Water System overview provided in the District's 2020 UWMP. The purpose of including this section will be to identify the current and future operating NPW systems and their source of NPW.

Currently, BCVWD has over 40 miles of non -potable water transmission and distribution pipelines (6 -in and larger) in -place. This construction has occurred since about 2002. A 24 -in diameter ductile iron pipeline forms a loop around the City of Beaumont. The system includes a 2 million gallon recycled (non -potable) water reservoir which provides gravity storage and pressurization for the system. The 2 MG non -potable water reservoir is configured to receive potable water or untreated State Project Water (SPW) through air gap connections. The non -potable water system can have a blend of recycled water, imported water, non -potable groundwater, and potable water.

The 2 MG reservoir is located at the District's groundwater recharge facility at Beaumont Avenue between Brookside Avenue and Cherry Valley Boulevard. There are about 300 existing landscape connections to the recycled water system receiving about 1,600 acre -ft of water based on 2020 water meter records (in 2019, the non -potable water demand was 1,540 acre -ft). The effects of increased development in the District's service area impacted the non -potable system too.

A large part of the non -potable water system is currently supplied from Well 26 and supplemented with potable water which is introduced into the 2 MG non -potable water tank through an air gap connection. The non -potable water system in the Tournament Hills and Fairway Canyon area is currently supplied with potable water through temporary interconnections between the potable and non -potable water system.

BCVWD is currently working with the City of Beaumont to secure recycled water for use in the non -potable water system. As of the end of 2020, the City is nearing the completion of the

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 12 of 57 expansion and upgrade of its existing wastewater treatment facility to bring it to 6 MGD capacity and will be installing a new membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment unit followed by reverse osmosis membrane treatment. A brine line from the treatment plant to the Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL) in San Bernardino was constructed in 2020. Upon the availability of recycled water from the City, the non -potable system will be completely severed from the potable system.

A memorandum of understanding between BCVWD and the City for recycled water purchase and use was signed in July 2019 and the City and BCVWD are in the process of finalizing an agreement for purchase of recycled water through an ad -hoc committee consisting of City Council members and BCVWD Board Members.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has ordered the City to be in compliance with the maximum benefit provisions, which include providing recycled water for beneficial use, by November 30, 2020. Construction completion has been delayed due to wet weather and the Covid-19 virus shutdown.

When the demand for recycled water for landscape irrigation is less than the supply available (winter months), BCVWD may ultimately recharge surplus recycled water at BCVWD's groundwater recharge facility or some alternative facility with appropriate treatment and permits.

Recycled water use and recharge is permitted by the Beaumont Basin Adjudication.

Section 6.1 Regional Water Supply Demand Spreadsheet Models As required by SB610, a Project's WSA must identify other public water systems that receive water from the same source as the public water system. Since BCVWD relies heavily on imported water from the SGPWA, updated numbers from the other regional retail agencies and their estimated current and future water demands were listed in the original Project's WSA. Therefore, Table 3-16 from the 2020 SGPWA UWMP is shown below and is intended to update the water supply demands for the different SGPWA service areas described in Section 6.1.1 through Section 6.1.3 in the original WSA.

Table 6-1: Projected Total Water Supply for SGPWA Region through 2045 (AFY) Service Area Water Supply to Meet Demands
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
City of Banning
9,473
10,198
10,853
11,565
12,278
Beaumont Cherry Valley
14,963
16,160
17,515
18,710
19,693
Yucaipa Valley WD (Riverside Portion)
1,509
1,841
2,174
2,507
2,839
South Mesa WC (Riverside Portion)
1,032
1,084
1,138
1,196
1,196
High Valley WD
3,400
3,600
3,900
4,100
4,300
Cabazon County WD
Mission Springs (SGPWA area)
Other SGPWA service area not served by named retailers
Total SGPWA Boundary Supply to meet Demands
30,400
32,900
35,600
38,100
40,300
Note:

1. Taken from Table 3-16 in the SGPWA 2020 UWMP

2. The supply totals necessary to meet demands shown in the table above are rounded to the nearest 100.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 13 of 57 Section 6.1.3.1 - City of Beaumont Development and Section 6.1.3.2 Cherry Valley Growth and Development.

Section 6.1.3.1 and 6.1.3.2 in the Beaumont Pointe Development WSA listed the major development projects in the BCVWD service area and their estimated existing and future EDUs. This allowed for the Supply -Demand Model for BCVWD to be projected for the next 20 years. The following is intended to replace Sections 6.1.3.1 and 6.1.3.2 in the Project's WSA and is taken from the District's updated 2020 UWMP.

Historic and current populations for the District's service area were extracted from the District's 2015 UWMP are presented in Table 6-2 (Table 3-4 from the BCVWD 2020 UWMP) as the District is still awaiting the results of the 2020 census. There were some adjustments to account for the latest census data. The data in Table 6-2 came from several sources:
• 1980 and 1990 populations and household information - U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing Unit Counts, PHC-3-6, California, Washington D.C., 2003. This data was used for the City of Beaumont. Data for Cherry Valley for this period was estimated.
• 2000, and 2010, 2015, and 2019 population and household information - U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder for Beaumont, CA and Cherry Valley CDP12, CA. • 2020 Population- Estimated for Cherry Valley based on historic growth from 2018.

Estimate for the City of Beaumont based on housing completions from City Planning Department, Major Project Status for period 2010 through 2019, and District staff discussions with various developers regarding construction progress for major projects in the District's service area (ongoing projects discussed herein).

Table 6-2: Historical Population and Housing
1980
I 1990
I 2000
I 2005 I
2010 I
2015 I
2020
City of Beaumont
Population
6,818
9,685

11.384

19.105
36,877
43,370
51,647
Households
2,852
3,718
3,881
6,307
11,801
12,759
People/Household

2.39 2.60

2.93 3.03

3.12 3.18
Housing Units
4,258
6,949
12,908
13,563
Occupied Housing Units

3.881
6,307
11,801
12,759
Cherry Valley
I I
Population
5,012
5,945
5,891
6,126
6,362
6,595
7,610
Households
2,023
2,530

2.310

2.416
2,612
2,692
People/Household
2,48

2.35 2.55

2.54 2.44

2.45 Housing Units

2.627
2,750
2,874
2,903
Occupied Housing Units
2,434

2.523
2,612
2,692
Total
Population
11,830
15,630

17.275

25.231
43,239
1 49,965
59,258
Households
4,875
6,248

6.191
8,723

14.413
15,451
People/Household

2.43 2.5

2.79 2.89

3.00 3.23
Housing Units
6,885

9.699
15,782
16,466
Occupied Housing Units

6.315
8,830
14,413
15,451
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-4 in the 2020 BCVWD UWMP.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 14 of 57 Figure 6-1 shows the population growth in the City of Beaumont and Cherry Valley from 1980 to 2020. The population after 2015 was estimated as described for Table 6-2.

The data in Table 6-2 and Figure 6-1 shows a very rapid growth for the City of Beaumont between the years 2000 to 2020. Nearly 2/3 of this growth occurred between 2000 and 2010 based on building permits issued by the City of Beaumont. The high rate of growth decreased after 2010 following the economic turndown in the U.S. and California in 2008 which continued for several years. The rate of growth in the District's service area has increased again after 2015 after the start of the economic recovery. The population in Cherry Valley remained relatively constant since 1990. The community of Cherry Valley did not experience the same growth spurt that occurred in the City of Beaumont and other areas in Western Riverside County. 70,000
60,000
50,000
i
•
c 40,000
0 0.
0 a 30,000
20,000
10,000
r
—r
0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Figure 6-1: Historical Population Growth in District
—6— City of Beaumont
•Cherry Valley
--Total BCVWD
Figure 6-1 shows the number of single-family home building permits issued in the City of Beaumont for the year 2010 through 2019 (February 2020). BCVWD projects that approximately 500 single family home building permits were issues in 2020. Although not shown in Figure 6-1, the permits started picking up in 1999-2000 and reached their peak in 2005 with nearly 2,300 new home permits issued for that year. The number of permits for new homes declined to a low of 169 in 2011. Over the last 10 years (2011-2020), permit averaged 450 per years; over the last 5 years (2016-2020), permits averaged 541 per year. The 20 -year average has been 693 per year.

Future growth will likely be in the range of 350 to 650 permits per year, although some developers have project slightly higher amount in their build -out forecasts.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 15 of 57 3000
7[,1
Total Building Permits Issued
2500
2002
1 C`f1 1
55 1030
809
517
010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1907
2286
7770
201 2017 2018 2020
Year
Figure 6-2: Growth in Beaumont as Shown by Single Family Home Building Permits BCVWD uses Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) to project water demands, water supply needs, and estimated population growth in the service area. Review of the City of Beaumont's Major Project Status Report listed six projects that were currently under development (on -going construction). These are listed in Table 6-3 below. It appears there are about 3,155 EDUs in the current on -going projects yet to the constructed as of February 2021.

Table 6-4 presents a list of other projects in various stages of approval the City of Beaumont.

The total number EDUs is estimated to about 9,200.

Table 6-3: Projects within BCVWD Service Area Under Construction Development Name
Total Anticipated
EDU's
Estimated Housing
Units Yet to be
Constructed
(Feb. 2021)16
Estimated Build -out Year
Sundance
4,450
808
2027
Fairway Canyon SCPGA
3,300
1,650
2035
Olivewood (Heartland)
981
697
2030
Hidden Canyon Industrial Park
(Beaumont Distribution Center)
Industrial
2021
Sundance Corporate Center
Commercial
-
2021
Totals
8,731
3,155
Note:

1. Taken from Table 3-6 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP
The housing units yet to be constructed in Table 6-3 plus the EDUs in the other projects in Table 6-4 total about 12,400 EDUs in the City of Beaumont. This would result in an increase in population of about 35,000 people based on 3.28 people per EDU (average density for the City of Beaumont). This would bring the total Beaumont population to about 95,000. Based on the estimated build -out year for each project in Table 6-4, this population would not occur until after 2045.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 241h, 2022

Table 6-4: Other Projects within BCVWD Service Area or Sphere of Influence Development Name
Total
Probable
EDU's
Estimated
Build -out
Year
Status
(April 2021)
Beaumont Industrial Park (Industrial) . -
70 2040
Beaumont Downtown District
900
Unknown
Beaumont Village (Mixed Use) 1'1
2350
Unknown
Beaumont Pointe (Jack Rabbit Trail -
Commercial/Industnal) '
221
2 fl 7
CJ Foods (Industrial)
_ J
2023
Incremental EDU increase per year.
beginning 2018 and ending in 2023
Dowling Orchard (Industrial)'-
b0
Unknown
Potrero Logistics (Hidden Canyon 11) ' `
59 2031
1-10 & Oak Valley Parkway
(Commercial)'
200
2035
Kirkwood Ranch
391
2040
Specific Plan (1991), Tent. Tract Map
27357 Approved
Loma LindalBUSD
(Commercial/Industrial)' 2
100
2040
MCM Chicken Ranch (Industrial) i,2
50 2045
Noble Creek Vistas (Tract 29522)
298
Unknown
Noble Creek Meadows (Tract 29267)
274
2025
Oak Creek Village"(Commercial) 1.2
100
Unknown
Oak Valley Parkway/Oak View Dnve
(Commercial) 1'2
75 Unknown
Olivewood (Commercial) ' 2
40 2035
Potrero Creek Estates 1,2
700
Unknown
Specific Plan (1989)
Riedman Properties (Merlin Properties)
140
2035
Note:

1. Taken from Table 3-7 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 6-4 Cont.: Other Projects within BCVWD Service Area or Sphere of Influence Development Name
Total
Probable
EDU's
Estimated
Build-out Status
Year
(April 2021)
SDC Fairway Canyon
Commercial' 2
75 Unknown
Sunny Cal Egg Ranch
529
2040
Taurek
244
Unknown
Legacy Highlands
(Residential, Commercial,
Industrial?
2,542
Unknown
Tournament Hills Phase 3,
(TM 36307)
284
2028
Tract 36307, Amendment to Oak Valley Specific Plan
Approved
Oak Valley Towncenter
(NW Corner Beaumont
Avenue & Oak Valley
Parkway)
60 2030
Manzanita (Tract 32850)
95 2035
Xenia Apartments'
100
2029
Totals
9,272
(1) Commercial/Industrial "EDUs" determined based on 0.546 AFY/EDU, or approximately 487 galiEDUIday. (2) District staff estimated EDUs due to project not fully entitled.

Note:

1. Taken from Table 3-7 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP
Prior "proposed" projects equivalent dwelling units within the BCVWD service area were estimated at 12,544 (Legacy Highlands WSA, June 2020). The Beaumont Pointe Development project site was previously planned with a land use density of 2,000 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). The new Beaumont Pointe Development land use plan estimates a significantly reduced density of 360.26 EDUs, representing a reduced site density by 82 percent. The originally approved Beaumont Pointe Development WSA indicated that approximately 43.31% of the potable water demand from the 360.26 EDUs could be served by BCVWD's Non -Potable Water (NPW) system reducing the Project's potable water demand to 204.21 EDUs. As part of the Project's Plan of Service documents and ongoing water conservation efforts, the Project will be designed to utilize NPW for all outdoor irrigation demands or approximately 156.04 EDUs.

To clarify, when the District was preparing the basis for future water demands within the District's service area in the BCVWD's 2020 UWMP, the District utilized the potable water demands from the November 2020 BP DRAFT WSA. This draft version of the Project's WSA identified the potable water demand as 221 EDUs as shown in Table 6-4. Because the Project's updated land use plan has a potable water demand of 204.21 EDUs, the District's 2020 UWMP conservatively included the Project's anticipated potable water demands.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 6-5: Summary of New EDUs in BCVWD Service Area
Cumulative New EDUs
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Beaumont
1947
4026
6293
8732
10693
12502
Cherry Valley
14 40
97 158
228
262
Total
1961
4066
6390
8889
10922
12764
Average New EDUs/year
654
421
465
500
406
368
Note:

1. Taken from Table 3-8 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP
Based on the past history of building permits in the City of Beaumont, presented previously in Figure 6-2, an average of 470 EDUs per year for the period 2020 through 2045 shown in Table 6- 5 is believed to be a reasonable market assimilation rate for the area. Table 6-6 shows the growth in population for Beaumont, Cherry Valley and BCVWD, as a whole, based on the anticipated EDU growth shown in Table 6-5.

Table 6-6: Current and Projected Population in BCVWD Service Area Based on Expected EDU Growth in Table 3-8
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Beaumont
51,647
58,467
65,901
73,901
80,335
86,266
Cherry Valley
7,610
7,682
7,838
8,005
8,197
8,290
Total

59.258
66,149
73,739
81,906
88,532
94,556
Note:

1. Taken from Table 3-9 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP
The growth in EDUs in Table 6-6 was the basis for projecting the water demand in the 2020 UWMP and is presented in future sections of this WSA addendum.

The BCVWD service area build -out or "saturation" population was determined using the City of Beaumont's Zoning Map and Table 3.2a from the City's General Plan (2020) to determine the total areas of the various zoning categories in the District's SOI. Actual GIS data was obtained from the City and integrated into the District's GIS system to determine the land uses within the District's SOI. The zoning designation includes a range of dwelling units/acre. Table 3.2 from the City's General Plan Update includes the estimated number of residential units per land use category.

A similar approach was used for Cherry Valley, only the data from Riverside County General Plan, Pass Area Land Use Plan was used. Again, the GIS data set was obtained from the County and integrated into the District's GIS system to determine the land use category areas within the District's SOI.

BCVWD believes the build -out population for the SOI will increase from that presented in the 2015 UWMP, but the increase is yet to be determined. Build -out will not occur until sometime after 2045. Build -out population is valuable to determine ultimate water demands and ultimate facility requirements.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 19 of 57 Section 6.1.3.3 — Supply Demand Model for BCVWD
Section 6.1.3.3 shall be removed and replaced with the following updates from the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

As required by the SB610, the Project's WSA shall discuss the public water systems water supplies available during normal conditions for existing and future conditions in 5 year periods for 20 years. To update Section 6 and to provide a 20 -year outlook based on the BCVWD 2020 UWMP, the following is intended to replace Section 6.1.3.3 based on providing a 20 -year projection.

BCVWD's current and future water sources can be summarized in the Table below and as described below. As shown in the table above, the total BCVWD demand is less than the total available supply showing BCVWD will have sufficient water supplies for the Project under normal operating conditions.

Table 6-7: Current and Future Water Sources Available to BCVWD Water Source
C,,r•ent
Ft,ture
Groundwater, Edgar Canyon
•
•
Groundwater stored in the Beaumont Basin
•
•
Imported Water purchased through SGPWA
•
•
Recycled water for landscape irrigation
■
Recycled water for groundwater recharge from the City
of Beaumont
-,0tp 'if.li
Storm Water Capture and Recharge from Edgar
Canyon, Noble Creek and other local watershed
•
Urban Storm Runoff captured in detention and water
quality basins
■
Captured. nitrate -contaminated shallow groundwater
from Edgar Canyon to supplement non -potable water
system
Potential
Singleton Basin groundwater
Potential
San Timoteo Basin groundwater to supplement non-
potable water system
■
Joint Projects with Other Agencies with Exchanges
: �ot, n H1i
Sites Reservoir
:',,tt,un:,i
• Firm, existing source ■ Firm, future source
Note:

1. Taken from Table 6-1 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP
BCWD's source of supply consists of:
• Edgar Canyon (Little San Gorgonio Creek) Groundwater — BCVWD has long-term records on pumping. From 1957 to 2020, a period of 64 years, the average production from the Edgar Canyon Wells is 1,881 AFY. However, prior to 1983, the ability to utilize the water pumped from Edgar Canyon was limited due to a lack of sufficient conveyance capacity to deliver water from Edgar Canyon to Cherry Valley and Beaumont. In 1983,

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 20 of 57 the District installed the 14 -in Edgar Canyon Transmission Main which enabled larger quantities of water to be conveyed from Edgar Canyon to Cherry Valley and Beaumont.

From 1983 to 2020, a period of 38 years, the average amount pumped was 2,073 AFY.

This is far more indicative of Edgar Canyon's ability to produce water. As shown in Table 6-7 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP the Edgar Canyon Wells produced about 10% of the District's annual demand (potable and non -potable) in 2020. • Beaumont Basin
o Overlier Potable and Non -Potable Water Forbearance — is credited to a water supplier by Watermaster for any potable and/or recycled water provided to an overlying party or an overlying party's land. The overlier forbears pumping the equivalent amount of water supplied and the appropriator then has the right to pump the volume of water forgone by the overlier. This is done through the Basin Watermaster who transfers forgone water to the appropriator's groundwater storage account on an annual basis.
o Reallocated Unused Overlier Pumping Rights — All of the "safe yield" from the Beaumont Basin is allocated to the overlying parties (overliers). Each overlier was given a share of the safe yield and was allowed to pump no more than five times that share in any five-year period. Most, if not all, of the overliers do not pump their entire share of the safe yield. The amount of groundwater not produced by an overlying party shall be available for allocation to appropriators in accordance with their percentage shares of unused safe yield stated in the Adjudication Exhibit C3. BCVWD's share is 42.51% of the unused overlier pumping rights. The Beaumont Basin Watermaster administers this reallocation and transfers the appropriate amounts into the appropriators' storage accounts on an annual basis.
o Return Flow Credits — Return flow is defined as the portion of water which is applied to the land which is not evaporated or evapo-transpired and which ultimately percolates (returns) to the groundwater table and which can be re - extracted for use. Return flows originate from irrigation of agricultural land and lawns and landscaped areas in rural and urban settings and from deep percolation of septic tank effluent in unsewered areas, e.g., Cherry Valley. In most adjudicated groundwater basins, credit is given to the supplier of water which is used on land overlying the groundwater basin and which percolates back or "returns" to the groundwater. Watermaster provided annual return flow estimates from various land uses in Table 3 of the Safe Yield Report and were used in estimating current and future return flow credits. • Storm Water — Stormwater capture plays a significant role in BCVWD's local water resources supply development. Diverted stormwater is/will be routed to percolation ponds capable of recharging the groundwater basins. The District currently has stormwater diversion located in the Upper and Middle of Edgar Canyon
o Potential Stormwater Capture Projects — The District has a number of potential stormwater capture projects as summarized in Table 6-8 with their potential estimated stormwater capture flows shown in Table 6-9.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 6-8: Potential Stormwater Capture Projects
Project
Brief Description
Soft plug in Noble
Creek at BCVWD
Groundwater
Recharge Facility
Large flows which would bypass the spreading basins at the mouth of Edgar Canyon (Figure 6-10 above) could still be captured. Provide "soft plug" in lined portion of Noble Creek channel and divert flows into BCVWD`s recharge facility. (Note that only extreme flows actually make it out of the canyon). Estimated Yield — 500 AFY.

Stormwater
Capture Noble
Creek
Noble Creek flows could be desilted on property owned by BCVWD (15.7 acres) along Noble Creek upstream of Noble St and west of Cherry Ave. Unfortunately. this area is not over the Beaumont Basin. but the property could be used for desilting basins with the desilted water released back into Noble Cr. and recaptured at a soft plug in the lined channel and diverted into the District's recharge site. Estimated Yield = 400 AFY.

Marshall Creek slo
Elm to I-10
There is a significant amount of urban runoff from the developed area east of Beaumont Ave, between Oak Valley Parkway and Brookside Ave. which could be captured in the soft bottom of Marshall Creek using training dikes to prevent the water from going under the 1-10 bridge.

There is about 300 ac of urban drainage. Estimated Yield = 150 AFY.

Beaumont MDP
Line 16
Approximately 517 acres of area could be intercepted by a storm drain along Grand Ave. and conveyed to the District's Recharge facility. This water is relatively free of sediments and runoff is generated with even the slightest amount of rainfall. Refer to Table 6-1 1 for estimates of stormwater capture.

Sundance Urban
Runoff
Eighth St., Cherry Ave., and Starlight Ave. Basins capture runoff from the Sundance development. These basins capture runoff effectively, but percolation needs to be improved.

Refer to Table 6-11 for estimates of stormwater capture.

Note:

1. Taken from Table 6-8 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Table 6-9: Summary of the Urban Runoff Drainage Areas and Retention Basin Volumes Facility
Drainage Area, acres
Basin Volume, acre -ft
Beaumont MDP Line 16
517
90 Cherry Ave Basin
426
240
Eighth St. Basin
475
128
Starlight Basin
250
32 Note:

1. Taken from Table 6-11 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.
• Non -Potable Groundwater
o Mouth of Edgar Canyon (Potential)— High nitrate groundwater located at the mouth of Edgar Canyon can supplement the recycled water/non-potable water system flow in the summer, high demand months, making well water available for potable water use. BCVWD believes as much as 300 AFY can be captured and reused.
o San Timoteo Creek (Potential) — San Timoteo Canyon Extraction Wells to capture groundwater from the Beaumont Basin flowing into San Timoteo Canyon and also to capture City of Beaumont wastewater flow discharged to Cooper's Creek once the water has percolated and is no longer available for habitat

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 22 of 57 maintenance. It is estimated that 400 to 800 AFY can be captured and put into the recycled water/non-potable water system to meet summertime demands. • Recycled Water — The District is currently in the process of finalizing its Non -Potable Water Master Plan, which includes more current non -potable system facility requirements and recycled water supply projections. The non-potable/recycled water supply data provided in this WSA addendum are consistent with the District's 2020 UWMP. The non- potable/recycled water supply projections are considered draft as of the date of approval of this Addendum 1. Data from the BCVWD 2020 UWMP is used for consistency.

BCVWD is currently working with the City of Beaumont to distribute Title 22 recycled water produced at the City of Beaumont's Treatment Plant No. 1. Phase 1 of the City's wastewater treatment plant construction has been completed, increasing the rated capacity from 4 MGD to 6 MGD. Process upgrades include redundant coarse screens, a grit removal system, a flow equalization basin, a fine screen system, an activated sludge process coupled with a new MBR system followed by a partial RO, and a new UV disinfection system. The City submitted a Title 22 Recycled Water Engineering Report to the Santa Ana Regional Water Board in September 2019 and is awaiting formal comment. Another component to the treatment facility upgrades is the construction of a 12 -inch diameter gravity pipeline from the Beaumont WWTP to the nearest connection point in the Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL) to dispose of the brine waste generated by the upgraded treatment facility. Construction of the brine line was completed around early 2020 and is approximately 23 miles long.

BCVWD continues to work with the City relative to recycled water. Historically, the City of Beaumont's effluent has experienced TDS concentrations of about 400 mg/L, which is an excess of the Regional Board's Maximum Benefit Water Quality Objectives for the Beaumont Basin. With the implementation of the reverse osmosis system, the recycle water from the City will be treated to a high-level and should have no issue in achieving the Maximum Benefit Water Quality Objectives.

Table 6-10 below lists the estimated recycled water produced, the recycled water that must be reserved for habitat mitigation (1.8 mgd), and the net amount of recycled water available for recycling. Please note that not all the wastewater can be recycled due to onsite recycled water demands and reject water from the reverse osmosis process.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 6-10: Recycled Water Available from City of Beaumont's WWTP Year
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
City of Beaumont
Population 51,663
59,261
67,104
74 891
79,522
81,513
Wastew ater
Generation Flow Rate.
gpcd
70 _

67.5 65
_
65 62
60 Wastew ater Flow ,
�d

3.62 4

4.36 4 87

4.93 4.89
Environmental
P tigation Flow , rngd

1.8 1.8

1.8 1 8

1.8 1.8
Wastew ater Available
for Recycling, mgd

1.82 2.2
2 56
3 07

3.13 3.09
Estimated amount
which can be
recycled, mgd
.

1.45 1.8
r

2.13 .

2.58 _
1 2.64

2.6 Estimated amount
which can be
recycled. AFY -
1,630

2,017

2.381
_

2.892
_
2,955
2,915
Estimated amount
which can be
recycled, AF/month
136
168
198
241
246
243
Estimated amount
which can be
recycled, gallnin
1,020
1,260

1.480

1.800
1,840
1,810
Notes

1. The City of Beaumont population growth is less aggressive than shown in tables presented in Section 3 of the BCVWD 2020 UWMP to be conservative in the amount of recycled water available.

2. Table taken from Table 6-15 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.
• Imported Water from SGPWA — The amount of imported water which BCVWD is able to purchase and recharge is only the amount left over after YVWD, the City of Banning, and others have purchased the amount each needs to meet their demands and banking. The amount available from the SGPWA collectively is discussed later in this WSA. BCVWD has entered into an agreement, and participated financially, with the SGPWA for a share of the yield from the Sites Reservoir Project. This is discussed later in this WSA.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 24 of 57 For the normal year, there is more than enough supply to meet the demand and BCVWD can bank water in the Beaumont Basin, which will be needed during dry periods. As noted in Table 6-11 below, demand totals include BCVWD's need include banking imported water to ground water storage for drought proofing. Any additional supply available after all demands have been satisfied would be recharged and added to BCVWD's storage account.

A summary of the Water Supply Assessment for an average year is indicated below in Table 6-11.

Table 6-11: Water Supply Assessment for Normal Year Conditions YEAR
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
DEMAND
Potable Water Demand, AFY
13,196
14,252
15,391
16,285
17,082
Drought Proofing, AFY
1,500
1,200
1,000
1,000
1,000
Supplemental Water to Non -Potable System, AFY
276
-
-
-
Non•Potable Water Demand, AFY
1,957
2,175
2,478
2,561
2,578
Total Water Demand, AFY
16,929
17,873
18,869
19,846
20,660

LOCAL SUPPLY
Potable Groundwater
Edgar Canyon, AFY
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073

2.0/3
RPaumont Basin Groundwater Available
Overlier Potable Forebearance, AFY
-
67 264
384
384
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
471
480
1,123
1,158
1,158
Reallocation of Unused Overlier Rights, AFY
1,322
1,286
1,165
1,099
1,099
Return Flow Credits, AFY
280
514
868
927
1,155
Storm Water, AFY
_F.5
535
535
535
535
Non -Potable Groundwater
Mouth of Edgar Canyon, AFY
300
300
300
San Timoteo Creek, AFY
-
-
600
600
600
Recycled Water Available, AFY
2,017
2,381
2,897
2,955
2,915
Subtotal Local Supply, AFY
6,348
7,335
9,820
10,027
10,220
BCVWD's Share of Imported Supply
Table A Allocation (58%), AFY
..
7,184
6,653
5,860
5,248
Yuba Accord, AFY
182
166
154
135
121
AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,217
1,127
993
889
SGPWA Carryover Water, AFY
2,368
2,159
2,000
1,761
1,577
Sites Reservoir, AFY
3,037
2,623
7,911
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchanges, AFY
455
415
385
339
303
Subtotal Imported Supply (Normal Conditions), AFY
12,216
11,142
13,355
14,711
16,050
Total Supply, AFY
18,565
18,478
23,175
24,738
26,270
From (To) Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
1 (605;
. 1-'( : ',
,2?:7,
(3,610)
Note:

1. Taken from Table 7-8 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 25 of 57 Section 7 SGPWA Available Imported Water
BCVWD relies on imported water from the SGPWA. In order to meet the requirements of SB610 of showing the current and future availability of the BCVWD water supplies, Section 7 of the original WSA is intended to be replaced with following which is essentially a summary of Section 3.1 from the 2020 SGPWA UWMP in order to describe the updated SGPWA Imported Water Supply Sources. 7 SGPWA Available Imported Water
In November of 1962, SGPWA entered a State Water Project water service contract (SWP Contract) with the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The SWP Contract authorized DWR to deliver SWP water to SGPWA under certain terms and conditions.

SGPWA also acquires water supplies through contracts with other agencies and annual water transfers and exchanges. SGPWA annually acquires Yuba Accord water as well as water under the Nickel Agreement. SGPWA may also acquire water through an agreement with San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) as well as annual transfers and exchanges with other SWP contractors. And, in the future, SGPWA will acquire water through the Sites Reservoir Agreement. All of these additional supplies, beyond SGPWA's SWP supply, are discussed in the following sections
SGPWA's delivery of supplemental water includes both delivery to water filtration facilities and groundwater recharge basins to assist with the management of groundwater in the SGPWA service area. Whether by direct delivery, in -lieu recharge, or direct recharge, the SGPWA plays a critical role in the local management of groundwater and surface water resources.

7.1 State Water Project Overview
The State Water Project (SWP) is the largest state -built, multi -purpose water project in the country. It was authorized by the California State Legislature in 1959, with the construction of most facilities completed by 1973. Today, the SWP includes 28 dams and reservoirs, 26 pumping and generating plants, and approximately 660 miles of aqueducts.

The primary water source for the SWP is the Feather River, a tributary of the Sacramento River.

The water flowing in the Feather River is captured by the SWP in Oroville dam and reservoir.

Storage released from Oroville Dam flows down natural river channels to the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). While some SWP supplies are pumped from the northern Delta into the North Bay Aqueduct or diverted by SWP contractors upstream, the vast majority of SWP supplies are pumped from the southern Delta into the 444 -mile -long California Aqueduct. The California Aqueduct conveys water along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to the Edmonston Pumping Plant, where water is pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains. From there the California Aqueduct divides into the East and West Branches. SGPWA takes its SWP deliveries from the East Branch, which was completed in 2003. Phase 2 of the East Branch Extension was completed in 2018 which increased the capacity of the supplemental water supplies and allowed the SGPWA to take the Agency's official maximum allotment of State Project Water.

SGPWA delivers its SWP supplies, along with other water supplies, to recharge local groundwater basins through transmission pipelines and recharge systems as well as some delivery to Yucaipa Valley Water District.

SGPWA is one of 29 water agencies that have a SWP Contract with DWR. Each SWP contractor's SWP Contract contains a "Table A Annual Amounts" (Table A) which lists the contracted maximum amount of water an agency may receive under its contract. Table A is also used in determining each contractor's share of the total SWP water supply DWR determines to be available each year. The total planned annual delivery capability of the SWP and the sum of all

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 26 of 57 contractors' maximum Table A amounts was originally 4.23 million acre-feet. The initial SWP storage and conveyance facilities were designed to meet contractors' water demands with the construction of additional storage facilities planned as demands increased. However, few additional SWP storage facilities have been constructed since the early 1970s and a portion of the original conveyance design was never completed. SWP conveyance facilities were generally designed and have been constructed to deliver Table A to all contractors. The maximum Table A of all SWP contractors now totals about 4.133 million AF. SGPWA manages its SWP supplies to maximize the availability of these supplies to its retail customers. In this way, SGPWA seeks to optimally manage its Table A wet year supplies, acquire additional SWP supplies through Article 21 conditions (SWP surplus conditions), access Advanced Table A supplies, and potentially exchange Table A supplies with other SWP contractors. All of these actions improve the long- term reliability of Table A supplies.

7.1.1 Table A Allocations
SGPWA's Table A Annual Amount is 17,300 acre-feet per year up through the 2045 UWMP planning horizon. SGPWA's Table A represents a maximum contract amount that could be available each year assuming that the SWP could deliver 100% contract supplies to all SWP contractors. The last 100% allocation year occurred in 2006. SGPWA's SWP Contract has numerous components that allow SGPWA to manage and control the annually available SWP water supplies.

More often than not, actual SWP allocations are less than 100% SGPWA's Table A Annual Amount. Annual SWP percentage Table A allocations fluctuate based upon hydrology, water storage, and regulatory criteria in the Delta. Table 7-1 below shows the SGPWA Table A Annual Amount from 2010 through 2020, the SWP allocation percentage, and the final available Table A allocation from 2010-2020. During this period, the SGPWA received on average 8,335 acre-feet, or about 48% of the Table A contract amount. It is important to recognize that this period included a significant and recent drought event.

Table 7-1: SWP Table A Allocations and Deliveries
Year
SWP Contract Table A
Percent Allocation
Allocation Amount
2010
17,300
50%
8,650
2011
17,300
80%
13,840
2012
17,300
65%
11,245
2013
17,300
35%
6,055
2014
17,300
5%
865
2015
17,300
20%
3,460
2016
17,300
60%
10,380
2017
17,300
85%
14,705
2018
17,300
35%
6,055
2019
17,300
75%
12,975
2020
17,300
20%
3,460
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-1 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP.

DWR has projected that it is less likely that 100% allocation years will occur on a regular basis in the future. In August 2020, DWR finalized the "2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report" (DCR) that outlined the probable future water supply allocations for the SWP system. The DCR showed variations in future Table A deliveries based upon hydrological and regulatory conditions. These

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

conditions are summarized in Table 7-2 below along with SGPWA's corresponding Table A amount.

Table 7-2: SWP Estimated Table A Deliveries from DCR (values in acre-feet) Long Term
Average
Single Dry
Year
(1977)
2 Year
Drought
(1976-1977)
Dry Periods
4 -Year 6 -Year
Drought Drought
(1931-1934) (1987-1992)
1,397 134% I 1,203 129% I
1,228 30% 1,058 26% 1,158 28%
6 Year
Drought
(1929-1934)
1,408 I
2017 Report 12,571 162% 1336 18% I 1,206 129% I
2019 Report 2,414 58% 288 7% 1,311 32%
34%
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-2 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP
As shown in Table 7-2, DWR's long-term average reliability shows a downward trend from 62% in the 2017 SWP DCR to 58% in the 2019 DCR. DWR attributes this downward trend to climatological and hydrological factors that impact precipitation patterns and snowfall accumulation above its main SWP facility, Lake Oroville. In this way, SGPWA characterizes its average normal year SWP water supply through 2045 as 58% of its Table A Annual Amount in accordance with the DCR. Thus, from 2025 through 2045, SGPWA's projected Table A final available allocation will be 58% of 17,300 acre-feet or 10,034 acre-feet per year. Importantly, SGPWA anticipates years where its Table A Allocation exceeds the average normal year delivery of 58%. In these years, SGPWA will capture and store the surplus water assets.

The single dry year characterization and five consecutive dry year characterization for the SWP supplies are also an important consideration in SGPWA's UWMP. The 2017 and 2019 DCR represent the single driest year as 1977 with an 8% SWP allocation estimate in 2017 DCR and a 7% SWP allocation estimate in 2019 DCR. The single lowest historical SWP allocation occurred in 2014 at 5%, and this 5% allocation is also representative of the 2021 Table A Allocation. As such, to be conservative in its projections, SGPWA will use 5% of 17,300 acre-feet or 865 acre- feet per year as the single dry year allocation through 2045 as depicted in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3: SWP Future Table A Projected Water Year Deliveries During Single and Multi - Y
ear Drought Conditions
(AFY)
Table A Year Type
Amount
Normal
10,034
Single Dry Year
865
Multi -Year
Drought
Year 1
6,055
Year 2
865
Year 3
865
Year 4
3,460
Year 5
6,055
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-3 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP
The 2019 DCR also identifies various drought periods for purposes of characterizing SWP allocation percentages that would accompany those drought periods. The averaging of the allocations over the course of the drought period is not representative of SGPWA drought planning purposes. SGPWA will use the following drought characterization for its short-term and long-term planning: year 1 at 35%; year 2 at 5%; year 3 at 5%; year 4 at 20%; and year 5 at 35%. SGPWA examined the historical record and determined that there was no representative five consecutive year historical SWP delivery dry period that adequately reflects a potential future

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 28 of 57 five-year critical drought condition that could drastically reduce SWP supply deliveries for SGPWA's service area. As such, taking a more conservative planning approach, SGPWA created a more restrictive dry year characterization that adequately represents a critical drought over five consecutive years. In this dry year modeled sequence, two consecutive critically dry years are bounded by Table A allocations that are reflected in the recent historical record. Table 3-4 shows the normal year, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years planned SWP Table A Allocation for San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency through 2045.

Table 7-4: Future SWP Allocations by Year Type Through 2045 (AFY) Total Supply
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Normal
10,034
10,034
10,034
10,034
10,034
Single Dry Year
865
865
865
865
865
Multi -Year
Drought
Year 1
6,055
6,055
6,055
6,055
6,055
Year2
865
865
865
865
865
Year3
865
865
865
865
865
Year 4
3,460
3,460
3,460
3,460
3,460
Year 5
6,055
6,055
6,055
6,055
6,055
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-4 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP

7.1.2. Table A Carryover Water
SGPWA's SWP Contract allows it to forego use of its allocated SWP Table A supply and retain a portion of that allocated supply in storage for future use. This retained supply is termed "Carryover" and is governed under Article 56 of SGPWA's SWP contract. Carryover water is water that is released from Oroville dam and reservoir, re -diverted at the Delta, and then stored in San Luis Reservoir — an off -stream reservoir located just outside the City of Santa Nella at the junction of Interstate 5 and California State Highway 152. San Luis Reservoir is jointly owned and operated by the state and federal governments and all SWP contractors may use the storage facility to manage Carryover water supplies. In short, the San Luis Reservoir receives, regulates, and stores exported water derived from the State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project.

The amount of water that SGPWA may carryover in any given year is subject to a set of rules that implicate all SWP contractors throughout California. In brief, SGPWA delivers its Table A supplies to Carryover in San Luis Reservoir with an expectation that it will be able to divert all or a portion of these supplies in a subsequent year. In the event that water supplies are abundant, San Luis Reservoir may "spill." When San Luis Reservoir reaches a "spill" stage, DWR releases SGPWA's Carryover in accordance with the aforementioned rules as they apply in the context of all entities with stored water in San Luis Reservoir. Nevertheless, over the last 10 years SGPWA has retained a portion of its Table A Allocation as Carryover even in the driest years and continues to maintain a Carryover balance. Table 7-5 shows SGPWA's Carryover balance from 2010 through 2020.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 29 of 57 'able 7-5: SGPWA
Historic SWP Carryover Storage and Use (Al
Year
Source
Available
Carryover
2010
97-12 Historic Delivery Database
2,719
2011
97-12 Historic Delivery Database
4,535
2012
97-12 Historic Delivery Database
4,956
2013
Finalization Report
5,277
2014
Finalization Report
5,264
2015
Finalization Report
954
2016
Finalization Report
936
2017
Finalization Report
1,700
2018
Finalization Report
5,159
2019
Finalization Report
2,668
2020
Finalization Report
4,211
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-5 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP
Y)
The Carryover supplies noted in Table 7-5 combine a number of water management factors that impact SGPWA's overall water supply availability. For example, where SGPWA is able to acquire additional water assets in normal and wet year types, SGPWA may carryover SWP supplies to water shortage years for use. Moreover, where SGPWA may acquire alternative supplies through transfers and exchanges, even in the driest years, the Agency may then manage its supply portfolio to preserve Carryover supplies for later use. For instance, in 2015, SGPWA stored 954 acre-feet of water supplies as Carryover when SWP allocations were at the lowest historical allocation on record — five percent (5%) — in the 2014 water year (see Table 7-1).

Similarly, in 2015 — a 20% allocation year — SGPWA was able to carryover 936 acre-feet of water into the 2016 water year by acquiring alternative supplies and flexibly managing regional supplies in coordination with the retail agencies. SGPWA's management actions coordinated the Agency's available water supply portfolio in these years with the regional retail agencies water supply portfolios and water conservation efforts in order to preserve SWP supplies for future uses.

SGPWA will have access to its Table A Carryover supplies in future years based upon the hydrological and regulatory conditions. The Table A Carryover supplies result from a number of variables that are tied to the SWP Table A annual percent allocation, operations in San Luis Reservoir, and water supply management by SGPWA throughout its service area. In wet years, SGPWA carries over substantial supplies that are considered in the annual carryover numbers.

Accordingly, water years 2013 through 2017 above are representative of a five-year Carryover supply availability for SGPWA — and include 2014 and 2015 two of the driest years on record.

Furthermore, SGPWA conservatively estimates future Carryover supplies in a normal year to be approximately 5,200 acre-feet similar to 2013, 2014, and 2018 and carryover in a single dry year to be just over 900 acre-feet like 2015 and 2016. These supplies are estimated based upon typical SWP management in a normal year in context of SGPWA's total water supply portfolio.

The future normal year Carryover supply represents approximately half of SGPWA's normal year carryover number as noted in Table 7-5 but other years represent Carryover supplies that may result from additional SGPWA multi -year management actions that allow Carryover supplies to be available in these year types. Table 7-6 shows the Carryover supplies through 2025 and Table 7-7 shows the representative Table A Carryover supplies through 2045

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 30 of 57 Table 7-6: Carryover Supplies Through 2025 (AFY)
Carryover Year Type
Amount
Normal
3,000
Single Dry Year
936
} OD
0 3
2 Year 1
3,000
Year 2
Year 3
2,500
954
Year 4
936
Year 5
1,700
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-6 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP
Table 7-7: Future Available Table A Carryover Supplies (AFY) Year Type
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Normal
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Single Dry Year
936
936
_
936
936
936
Multi -Year
Drought
-
Year 1
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
_
Year 2
2,500
2,500
_
2,500
2,500
2,500
Year 3
954
954
954
954
954
_
Year4
936
936
_
936
936
936
Year 5
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Notes

1. Taken from Table 3-7 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP

7.1.3 Delta Conveyance Project Future SWP Increment
The Delta Conveyance Project, if implemented, would increase the future reliability of SGPWA water supplies derived from the SWP. Consistent with Executive Order N-10-19, in early 2019, the state announced a new single tunnel project, which proposed a set of new diversion intakes along Sacramento River in the north Delta for SWP. In 2019, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) initiated planning and environmental review for a single tunnel Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) to protect the reliability of State Water Project (SWP) supplies from the effects of climate change and seismic events, among other risks. DWR's current schedule for the DCP environmental planning and permitting extends through the end of 2024. DCP will potentially be operational no later than 2040 following extensive planning, permitting, and construction.

SGPWA anticipates that the DCP will increase access to water assets by providing conveyance opportunities that are currently unavailable. SGPWA recently increased its investment in the DCP from 1.22% to 2% of project capacity in order to improve future conveyance actions related to its water asset portfolio. As such, the DCP investment should provide better access to SWP supplies in normal and wet years as well as opportunities to deliver alternative planned supplies as they become available to SGPWA.

7.2 SGPWA Additional Imported Water Supplies
SGPWA has numerous other current and future water assets besides its Table A Annual Amount and Table A carryover supplies. These supplies are derived from the following items: Yuba

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 31 of 57 Accord, Nickel Agreement, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Agreement, and Sites Reservoir Agreement. These additional water sources are more fully described below.

7.2.1. Yuba Accord Water
In 2008, SGPWA entered into the Yuba Accord Agreement and has amended the agreement several times through 2014. The Yuba Accord Agreement allows SGPWA to purchase water from Yuba County Water Agency through its contractual arrangement with DWR that permits 21 SWP contractors (including SGPWA) and the San Luis and Delta -Mendota Water Authority regular access to the supply. Yuba Accord water comes from the Yuba River, located north of the Delta, and the water purchased under this agreement is subject to losses associated with transporting it to SGPWA's service area. While the amount of this water varies each year depending on hydrologic conditions, the Agency anticipates receiving an average future amount of approximately 300 AFY. The Agency recently signed an extension to this agreement allowing it to purchase this water well into the future. Table 7-8 shows the last five years of Yuba Accord water supplies coming to SGPWA. Table 7-9 shows the normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry year water supplies available under the Yuba Accord.

Table 7-8: Last Five Years of Yuba Accord Water Deliveries (AFY) Year
Yuba Accord
Deliveries
2015
0 2016
0 2017
0 2018
124
2019
0 2020
406
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 3-8 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP
Table 7-9: Yuba Accord Future Water Deliveries in all Year Types (AFY) Yuba Accord Supply
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Normal
400
400
400
400
400
Single Dry Year
100
100
100
100
100
Multi -Year
Drought
Year 1
300
300
300
300
300
Year2
100
100
100
100
100
Year3
100
100
100
100
100
Year4
200
200
200
200
200
Year5
300
300
300
300
300
Notes:

2. Taken from Table 3-9 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP

7.2.2. Nickel Agreement
SGPWA signed an agreement with Antelope Valley — East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) on July 7, 2017 (hereafter called "Nickel Agreement"). The Nickel Agreement entitles SGPWA to purchase 1,700 acre-feet of AVEK water each year under a take or pay provision. The AVEK water is non - project water that is provided by the Kern County Water Agency. The Nickel Agreement expires in 2036 and SGPWA has a right of first refusal for an additional 20 -year term. AVEK is required

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 32 of 57 to deliver 100% of the supply in all years. Table 7-10 shows SGPWA Nickel Agreement water deliveries since 2017.

Table 7-10: Nickel Agreement Water Deliveries since 2017 (AFY) Nickel
Agreemen
Deliveries
2017
1,700
2018
1,700
2019
1,700
2020
1,700
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 3-10 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP
SGPWA may consider the Nickel Agreement water supply always available in normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry years. The Nickel Agreement is a take or pay contract with no shortage provision that obligates AVEK to deliver the water in all year types. Table 7-11 shows the SGPWA Nickel Agreement future water supply availability.

Table 7-11: Nickel Agreement Future Water Deliveries in all Year Types (AFY) 41rk
Al 1
1 140
A
NI e Agreerrme
Deliveries
Normal
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Single Dry Year
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Multi -Year
Drought
Year 1
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Year 2
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Year 3
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Year 4
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Year 5
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 3-11 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP.

7.2.3. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Agreement SGPWA entered the Surplus Water Sale Agreement with San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Surplus Water Sale Agreement (SBVMWD Agreement) in June of 2018. SBVMWD is a SWP contractor that holds an entitlement to 102,600 acre-feet under its Table A Annual Amount in its 1960 SWP contract. The SBVMWD Agreement entitles SGPWA to purchase up to 5,000 acre-feet of SWP entitlement each year with SBMVWD's express concurrence. The SBVMWD Agreement expires on December 31, 2032, and there is no right of renewal. Nevertheless, SGPWA anticipates renewing this contract. The amount of water available under the contract varies each year and is subject to the "sole discretion" of SBVMWD whether the water will be made available for SGPWA to purchase. The water supply under this agreement may be available depending upon SBVMWD's supply availability determination. The SGPWA is not incorporating this potential supply into its water supply reliability determinations for all year types but considers the supply a component of its available transfer and exchange supplies and, when acquired, may be incorporated into its groundwater storage facilities.

7.2.4. Site Reservoir Agreement

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 33 of 57 SGPWA signed the Sites Reservoir Agreement in 2019. Sites Reservoir is a proposed new 1,500,000 acre-feet off -stream storage reservoir in northern California near Maxwell. Sacramento River flows will be diverted during excess flow periods and stored in the off -stream reservoir and released for use in the drier periods. Sites Reservoir is expected to provide water supply, environmental, flood, and recreational benefits. The proponents of Sites Reservoir include 30 entities including several individual SWP Public Water Agencies (PWAs). Sites Reservoir is expected to provide approximately 240 TAF of additional deliveries on average to participating agencies under existing conditions. Sites Reservoir is currently undergoing environmental planning and permitting. Full operations of the Sites Reservoir are estimated to start by 2029 following environmental planning, permitting, and construction. Sites was conditionally awarded $816 million from the California Water Commission for ecosystem, recreation, and flood control benefits under Proposition 1. Reclamation has also invested in Sites Reservoir and has allocated $13.7 million in 2021 for the project. Both SGPWA and Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District have purchased shares in Sites Reservoir, 10,000 shares and 4,000 shares respectively, that would augment supplies in the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency service area. Table 7-12 shows the future availability of Sites Reservoir water in the SGPWA's service area and incorporates both the SGPWA and Beaumont Cherry Valley potential supplies. Other stakeholders with investments in Sites Reservoir have accounted for available supplies in 2035 as well.

Table 7-12 Future Availability of Site Reservoir Water (AFY) Sites Reservoir
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Normal
0 0
10,000
12,000
15,000
Single Dry Year
0 0 .
10,000
' 12,000
15,000
Multi -Year
Drought
Year 1
0 0
10,000
12,000
15,000
Year 2
0 0
_
10,000
12,000
15,000
Year3
0 0
10,000
12,000
15,000
Year4
0 0
10,000
12,000
15,000
Year 5
0 0
10,000
12,000
15,000
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 3-12 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP.

7.2.5. Water Transfers and Exchanges
SGPWA also engages in water transfers and exchanges involving its SWP assets and other contractors' SWP water assets. Historically, SGPWA has both received and delivered water through these transfers and exchanges with various agencies throughout California. These transfers are essentially spot market transfers where short-term opportunities are identified and then actions taken for acquisition. These transfers help support management of SGPWA's and the retail agencies' water supply portfolios. Future SGPWA transfers and exchanges depend upon the allocations available to SGPWA and other water purveyors. As noted in Section 7.2.1., SGPWA has regularly acquired Yuba Accord water through its transfer and exchange activities.

In addition, the State Water Contractors collectively develop annual water transfer and exchange programs to develop transferable supplies and negotiate transfer terms. SGPWA regularly participates in SWC's transfer programs. SGPWA seeks to augment potential opportunities for exchanges and transfers with SWP contractors and alternative transfer opportunities like the SWC annual transfer program. Table 7-13 shows the planned future SWP and other water transfer opportunities that could be available for SGPWA.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 7-13 SGPWA Future Transfers and Exchanges (AFY)
met upp y
juY.t
Li.
viii
2045
State Water Project
S00
_,000
1,000
1,OQC
1,000
Additional Supplies
600
1,100
1,600
2,10'-:
2,600
Total Transfers
1,100
2,100
2,600
3,10i:
3,600
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 3-13 in the 2020 SGPWA UWMP.

7.3. Summary of Available Imported Water Supplies
As shown in Figure 7-1, SGPWA has reliable water supplies through the 2045 planning horizon.

SGPWA has assessed the available SWP supplies, imported supplies, and locally available managed water supplies to assess regional water supply reliability through this planning horizon.

In addition, SGPWA engages in annual water transfers and exchanges and stores water both within SGPWA's service area boundaries and outside its boundaries to address variable water conditions. Together, these supplies make up SGPWA's regional water asset portfolio that is actively managed by coordinated actions between SGPWA and the regional retail agencies to ensure long-term reliability.

Figure 7-1: SGPWA's Water Service Reliability through 2045 (AFY) 50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Normal Year Supply vs Demand
2025
2030
2035
2045
SWP Table A Allocation Table A Carryover
Transfers (inc Yuba Accord) Nickel Water
Regional Supplies Demand
Notes

1. Taken from Figure ES -2 from the 2020 SGPWA UWMP.
2040
Groundwater Storage
Sites Reservoir
SGPWA also coordinates management of its water supplies with the retail agencies to address projected dry conditions. Specifically, SGPWA and the retail agencies capture and store surplus imported water in normal and wet years in order to use the stored water assets to meet regional demands in dry years. Moreover, the retail agencies rely upon locally managed water supplies, including native groundwater, recycled supplies, surface water assets, and return flows, to meet their annual demands. These actions stabilize annual fluctuations in recurring imported supplies that may not meet regional demands under certain dry conditions. Figure 7-2 shows a water reliability assessment for a drought lasting five consecutive years where the retail agencies in SGPWA service area use stored water and regionally managed supplies to offset fluctuations in its SWP supplies. In summary, SGPWA's diverse surface water supply portfolio, combined with its coordinated management of regionally managed surface and groundwater resources with retail purveyors, provide stable and reliable water supplies to meet SGPWA's current and 2045 future water demands in its service area.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 35 of 57 Figure 7-2: SGPWA's Drought Risk Assessment from 2021 through 2025 (AFY) Five Year DRA Supply vs Demand
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
SWP Table A Allocation MIMI Table A Carryover Groundwater Storage Transfers (inc Yuba Accord) Nickel Water Regionally Managed Supplies Demand
Notes

1. Taken from Figure ES -3 from the 2020 SGPWA UWMP.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 36 of 57 Section 8 Water Supply and Demand for BCVWD
As shown in the updated Sections 6 and 7 above, BCVWD has sufficient supply and imported water to meet demands beyond 2045 under average demand and supply conditions (see specifically updates to Section 6.1.3.3.). Therefore, no amendments are required for this section.

Section 9 Water Supply Single and Multiple Dry Period Analysis As shown in the updated Sections 6 and 7 above, BCVWD has sufficient supply and imported water from SGPWA to meet the District's water supply requirements beyond 2045 under normal supply conditions.

As required by SB610, the Project's WSA must describe the reliability of BCVWD's water supplies during dry years. The following is intended to summarize the water supply reliability and drought risk assessment presented in Section 7 of the BCVWD 2020 UWMP for the purposes of replacing Section 9 in the Project's WSA.

Section 9 — Water Supply Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 9.1 Constraints on Water Sources
A detailed description of BCVWD's current and future water sources are described previously in Section 6 of this WSA. Table 9-1, below shows a summary of BCVWD's current and future water sources and identifies the factors that affect the specific source's consistency of supply. Climate affects the amount of water available from most of the sources; there are some legal constraints on the Beaumont Groundwater Basin Source due to the Adjudication and contractual and environmental constraints on the imported State Project Water.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 9-1: Factors Resulting in Inconsistency of Supply Water Supply Source
Cause of Inconsistent Supply
,-

c
-
_-
r
=_
71 c
J
T.
y
0 >
W
>,
a
J
a5
_
Climate
Edgar Canyon Groundwater
X
Beaumont Basin Groundwater Appropriator
Rights
X
l
Beaumont Basin Groundwater Unused Overlier
Rights
X
X
:` i
Imported State Project Water
X
X
X
Recycled Water
X
Stormwater Capture and Percolation
X
Urban Runoff Capture and Percolation
X
Nitrate -contaminated Groundwater from mouth
of Edgar Canyon
X
(1) After 2014. the Appropriator production rights are zero per Adjudication (2) Reallocation of Overtier pumping rights are variable. Estimated to drop to 200 AFY by 2045. '3) SWP reliability discussed in text. 10% of Table A is available 100% of the time; adjusted per draft allocation agreement.
(4) Recycled water is not subject to any significant variations; but some drought period reductions in flow are experienced - maybe 10%. Domestic water restrictions typically have the greatest impact on outdoor water use.

The District relies on groundwater banking within the Beaumont Basin during wet periods to supply demands during specified dry periods. Complementing the large storage capacity is the fact that percolation and recharge occur at relatively high rates making it very easy to "bank" water in the Beaumont Basin. Figure 9-1 below shows the amount of water BCVWD has accumulated in its storage account since 2003. Please note that imported water began to be spread in 2006.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

44,000
39,000
34,000
a
0 29,000
.E 24,000
LL
19,000
14,000
9,000
4,000
-1,000
BCVWD Beaumont Storage Account
m
O O
O O
N N
In
O
Lo
O
a
N
N CO m 0
0 0 0 T-4
0 0 0 0
N N NN
. -1 N
e1 e1 N
O O 0
N N N
In
e1
0 N
N o
e1 e1
O 0
N N
O
Year
Figure 9-1 — BCVWD's Beaumont Basin Storage Amount
Notes

1. Taken from Figure 7-1 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP
e1
O
N
e -1
0 N
m 0
e1 N
O O
N N
With the ability to bank water and the large "underground" reservoir, BCVWD and its neighboring agencies can withstand extended periods of drought without severe restrictions. At the end of 2020, for example, BCVWD had 39,750 AF in storage. This amount in BCVWD's storage account has seen an increase of about 14,182 AF since 2015. BCVWD can store up to 80,000 AF in the Beaumont Basin managed by the Watermaster.

In Table 9-2 below (Table 6-24 in the 2020 BCVWD UWMP) a quantity of BCVWD-purchased imported water was identified as "From SGPWA for Banking." This varied from 1,000 AFY to 1,500 AFY and is over and above the amount of imported water needed to meet demands. The purpose of this "banking water" is to build up BCVWD's Beaumont Basin Groundwater Storage Account to be used as reserve for drought periods when adequate SPW is not available.

SGPWA is to supply the imported water requested in Table 9-2 below to meet BCVWD's needs plus the anticipated SPW for banking. If, in any year(s), either of these quantities cannot be supplied for any reason, the accumulated shortfall is expected to be delivered to BCVWD by SGPWA as soon as possible once imported water is available. In this way, BCVWD will be able to keep adequate water in storage for current (2020) needs and accommodate growth in BCVWD's service area. BCVWD anticipates banking around 28,500 AF of water over the next 25 years, which would bring BCVWD's storage account to about 68,250 AF. This is over 3 years of SPW requirements to meet 2045 demands with no SPW for over 3.5 years. The following subsections quantify the variability in BCVWD's water sources.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24, 2022

Table 9-2: BCVWD Water Supplies - Projected
DWR Table 6-9 Retail: Water Supplies - Projected
Wale, Supply
Additional Detail on Water
Supply
Projected Water Su
Report To the ['dent Practitablt
Drop dorr.liat
May use each category multiple
times. Thy aro the only water
supply categones that wall be
recognized by the WVEdata online
wbn,itlal tea
2025 2030 2035
2040 2045 lopt)
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Total Right or
Safe Yield
(optional)
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Total Right or
Safe Yield
(optional)
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Total Right or
Safe Yield
(optional)
Reasonably
Available
Volume
-otal Right or
Safe Yield
!optional)
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Total Right or
Safe Yield
(optional)

0.dd additional row as needed
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
Little San Gorgonio Canyon
2,070
7,700
21:7n
7,700
2, .70
2,200
7,070
7,700
7,070
7,700
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
Beaumont Basin (Rea IucatrC
unused overlier riphtsl
1,122
1 79..
1,165
1,099
1,099
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
Beaumont Basin total
forbearance water
471
r:17
1,187
- 1,542
1,542
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
Return flow%
280
',14
-
Ff.9
922
-
1,155
Stormwater Use
Beaumont MOP Line 16
185
_?S
185

1.85 185
Stormwater Use
Mist Stormwater
0 ?Sc.
? 5C
-
350
350
Purchased or Imported Water
From SGPWA for Replenishment
of Beaumont Basin (Potable
water)
8,868
9,300
9,966
10,717
11,281
Recycled Water
From City of Beaumont for
Landscaping 2,017
2,381
2,892
2,955
2,915
Purchased or Imported Water
To supplement Non -Potable
Water Supply (Purchased for
Replenishment)
276
246
0 0
0 Groundwater (not
desalinated)
Non -Potable Groundwater at
Mouth of Edgar Canyon
0 0
300
300
300
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
Noe -Potable Groundwater along
San Timoteo Creek
0 0
600
600
Ecil
Purchased or Imported Water
From SGPWA for Banking
1,500
1,200
1,000
1,000
1,000
Purchased or Imported Water
Additional Imported Water
Available from SGPWA
1,572
396
2,389
2,994
3,769
Total
18,561
2,200
18,475
2,200
23,172
2,200
24,734
2,200
26,266
2,200
Total Imported Water Required
10,644

10.746
10,966
11,717
12,281
Total Imported Water Available to BCVWD from SGPWA (See Table 7.8
12,216

11.142
13,355
14,711
16,050
MIER
■

NOTES -

August 24, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 40 of 57 Section 9.2 Regional Supply Reliability
BCVWD has a very diverse water portfolio that allows it to maintain a reliable water supply to its current and future customers. The existing sources include:
• Unadjudicated groundwater from the Little San Gorgonio Creek (Edgar Canyon) • Adjudicated groundwater from the Beaumont Basin
• Stormwater capture in Edgar Canyon (Little San Gorgonio Creek) and recharge in percolation ponds in Upper and Middle Canyon and at the Canyon mount in recently added desilting and recharge basins.
• Non -potable groundwater supplying the existing non -potable water system • Imported State Project Water from SGPWA
• AVEK-Nickel Water leased through SGPWA
• Yuba Accord water purchased through SGPWA
Potential Future Sources include the following and were described in Section 6.1.3.3 in this WSA Addendum.
• Recycled water from the City of Beaumont for landscape irrigation and with advanced treatment for indirect potable reuse (groundwater recharge). • Improved recharge of captured urban runoff from Sundance development • Non -potable groundwater from the mouth of Edgar Canyon • Non -potable groundwater from San Timoteo Creek
• Stormwater capture and recharge via the MDP Line 16 Storm Drain (cost shared with RCFC&WCD, SAWPA grant and preparing for construction)
• Stormwater capture from Noble and Marshall Creek
• Additional urban runoff capture and recharge from developing areas BCVWD's water management strategy since its formation has always been to maximize local water resources including local groundwater and capture and percolate surface flows in Little San Gorgonio Creek for subsequent extraction in the District's Edgar Canyon wells. With the development that occurred starting about year 2000, BCVWD began installation of a non -potable water system with the intent of using recycled water from the City of Beaumont. Currently (2020), the water demand in the non -potable system is about 12% of the total water demand. This demand is being partially met by non -potable groundwater. When recycled water becomes available, the District's non -potable demand will be primarily met with recycled water. Any additional non -potable demands will be met with non -potable groundwater.

As discussed above, BCVWD has an 80,000 AF storage account in the Beaumont Basin to purchase and store imported water when available in ample supply during wet years. In addition to SGPWA's Table A amount, there are two other sources of imported water over and that are available and are discussed within Section 7 above:

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 41 of 57 • Article 21 Water
• Turn -Back Pool Water
Section 9.3 Water Service Reliability Assessment
The amount of water available during the dry periods from BCVWD's water sources are presented below.

Section 9.3.1 Groundwater
Section 9.3.1.1. Beaumont Basin
The Beaumont Basin is managed by the Beaumont Basin Watermaster. In any given year, BCVWD can pump out its stored (banked) water. The storage is replenished, at least partially, every year by forbearance water, reallocated unused Overlying Party pumping rights, return flows, and imported water, when available. The amount of imported water that can be recharged in any year depends on DWR's SWP allocation and varies from year to year. The amount of unused Overlying Party rights is based on a 5 -year moving average and could decrease slightly during drought periods as the Overlying Parties use more well water to compensate for the lack of rainfall. The forbearance water and return flows will also decrease during dry periods as users reduce water consumption.

Table 9-3 below (Table 7-2 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP) shows the estimated amount of water credited to BCVWD by Watermaster for a single or multiple dry year analysis. For the dry year analysis, it was estimated that there would be a 15% conservation effect; in other words, for dry year analysis, only 85% of average annual forbearance, reallocated Overlying Party rights, etc. would be available. In Table 9-3, the 15% reduction factor is also applied to the recycled forbearance water to account for a potential reduction in treated wastewater due to water conservation effects. This is believed to be conservative.

Return flow credits, included in Table 9-3 below, were not applied with a 15% reduction factor as return flows are dependent upon the conservation factors in effect during the year for which credits are given.

Table 9-3 Summary of BCVWD's Beaumont Basin Storage Credits1,2 Item
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Total Return Flow Credits, Reallocated Unused
OverlierRights, and Forbearance Water from
2,073
2,346
2,820
2,963
3,196
Table 6-10, AFY
Expected Ground Water Available for Dry Year
Analysis, AFY
1,804
2,065
2,483
2,583
2,816
Note

1. Taken from Table 7-2 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

2. Reference Table 6-10 included in the table above should reference to Table 7-8 in the 2020 BCVWD UWMP.

Edgar Canyon
Groundwater from Edgar Canyon is affected to some degree by climate change. The average annual extraction from Edgar Canyon is 2,073 AFY based on records from 1983-2020. During that period of time, the minimum extracted was 1,117 AFY, which occurred in 1991. This can be considered the "Single Dry Year Water Available." The 2 -year, 3 -year, 4 -year, 5 -year and 6 -year moving averages for the extractions from 1983 -20 were determined and are presented in Table 9-2 (Table 7-3 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP) along with the Base Period for moving averages.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 42 of 57 Table 9-4 Groundwater Available from Edgar Canyon for Single and Multiple Dry Year Analysis
Drought Condition
(Base Years)
Average Available over the
Drought Period,
AFY
Single Dry Year (1991)

1.117
2 Consecutive Dry Years
(1990-91)
1,173
3 Consecutive Dry Years
(1989-91)
1,230
4 Consecutive Dry Years
(1989 - 92)
1,267
5 Consecutive Dry Years
(1988 - 92)
1,305
6 Consecutive Dry Years
(1987 — 92)
1,367
Note

1. Taken from Table 7-3 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Section 9.3.2 Imported Water
The amount of imported water available from the SGPWA via the State Water Project is very climate dependent. A spreadsheet was developed using the 2019 DWR Delivery Capability Report simulation data (1922 to 2003) for SGPWA to develop an estimate of the delivery capability for the single dry year and multiple dry year reliability analysis. The 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6 - year moving averages of annual estimated delivery allocations were determined for the period 1922-2003. A summary of the Table A delivery percentages is shown in Table 9-5 (Table 7-4 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP).

Table 9-5 SGPWA SWP Delivery Capability as Percent of Table A Year
Long-term
Average
Single
Dr Year
(1977)
Dry Periods
2 -Year
Drought
(1976-1977)
4 -Year
Drought
(1931-1934)
6 -Year
Drought
(1987-1992)
6 -Year
Drought
(1929-1934)
2017 Report
2,571
62'/0
336
8%
1,206
29%
1,397
34%
1,203
29%

1.408
34%
2019 Report
2,414
58%
288
7%
1,311
32%

1.228
30%
1,058
26%

1.158
28%
Note

1. Taken from Table 7-4 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

The percentages in Table 9-3 were compared to actual SWP delivery allocations for the period 1922 to 2020. The allocations found in BCVWD's analysis of available data are indicated below:

Minimum year
Minimum 2 consecutive years
Minimum 3 consecutive years
Minimum 4 consecutive years
Minimum 5 consecutive years
Minimum 6 consecutive years
5% (2015, 2020)

12.5% (2014 - 2015)
18% (1990 - 1992)
26% (1988 - 1991)
24% (1988 - 1992)
25% (1987 - 1992)

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 43 of 57 As can be seen, the actual minimum single dry year and minimum 2 consecutive dry years are less than those from the 2019 DWR SWP Delivery Capability Report. For the reliability analysis in this 2020 UWMP and this WSA, the allocation percentages in Table 9-6 (Table 7-5 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP) will be used.

Table 9-6 SGPWA SWP Delivery Capability as Percent of Table A (Used for Reliability Analysis)
Dry Year(s)
Single
2 -Year
3 -Year
4 -Year
5 -Year
6 -Year
Table A Annual
Delivery
Average Over
the Drought
Period, %
5 12.5
18 26
24 25
Note

1. Taken from Table 7-5 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

For the reliability analysis, the percentages in Table 9-6 will be applied to BCVWD's estimated available imported water supplies for any particular dry year period. The results of the reliability analysis are presented in Tables 9-11 through 9-16.

By Resolution 2015-05, the SGPWA Board of Directors established an obligation to meet the future water supply needs of the region, including BCVWD. BCVWD can rely on the SGPWA to secure and deliver the imported water needed to meet BCVWD's current and future demands as set forth in this 2020 UWMP and subsequent UWMP updates in concert with DWR's Delivery Capability Reports.

Section 9.3.3. Recycled Water
Recycled water is consistently available; although during droughts, consumers are more aware of water conservation and reduce their indoor water consumption somewhat. They are more aware of the need to do only full loads of laundry, full loads for the dishwasher etc. Agencies, including the City of Beaumont, have observed a reduction in wastewater flows during the current drought.

BCVWD is counting on one source of recycled water, the City of Beaumont. For a single dry year, an estimate of 90% of the normal, average recycled water will be available. As the drought becomes more pervasive, the amount of recycled water is estimated to reduce further to 85% of normal. Table 9-7 provides an estimate of the available recycled water during extended dry periods. The amount of recycled water under normal conditions is shown in the updated Section 6 above.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 44 of 57 Table 9-7 Estimated Recycled Water Available During Extended Dry Periods Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
City of Beaumont
Recycled Water
Available (AFY)
u
.171
ra
a'
"
2017
2381
2892
2955
2915
-
Single Dry Year
90%
1820
2150
2610
2660
2630
2 -Years
85%
1720
2030
2460
2520
2480
3 -Years -
85%
1720
2030
2460
2520
2480
4 -Years
85%
1720
2030
2460
2520
2480
s
5 -Years
85%
1720
2030
2460
2520
2480
6 -Years
85%
1720
2030
2460
2520
2480
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-6 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

2. The District is currently in the process of finalizing its Non -Potable Water Master Plan, which includes more current non -potable system facility requirements and recycled water supply projections. The non- potable/recycled water supply data provided in this WSA addendum are consistent with the District's 2020 UWMP. The non-potable/recycled water supply projections are considered draft as of the date of approval of this Addendum 1. Data from the BCVWD 2020 UWMP is used for consistency.

Section 9.3.4. Storm Water and Urban Runoff Reliability (Potential Projects).

Storm water and Urban Runoff quantities are very dependent on rainfall. Review of the rainfall record at Beaumont for the period 1888 — 2006 resulted in the data shown in Table 9-8 (Table 7-7 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP). To determine the multiple dry year rainfall as a percent of the average rainfall, the 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- and 6 -year moving averages of the annual rainfall was determined.

Table 9-8 Estimated Recycled Water Available During Extended Dry Periods Dry Year (s)
Normal
Single
2 - Year
3 - Year
4 - Year
5 - Year
6 - Year
% of Annual Average
36%
45%
52%
52%
61%
63%
Facility
Estimated Average Annual Stormwater Capture, AFY
MDP Line 16
185
66 83
96 96
113
117
Misc. Urban Runoff Basins
350
126
158
182
182
213
222
Total Stormwater Capture
535
192
241
279
278
325
339
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-7 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Section 9.4 Drought Risk Assessment
A conservative approach was taken when considering the amount of imported supply BCVWD could expect in future conditions. BCVWD has included in its anticipated imported water supplies from the anticipated Table A Allocation available (using percentages described previously in Table 9-6), as well as additional potential sources of imported water identified in SGPWA's 2020 UWMP (June 2021). In any given year, when the demand for imported water exceeds the available supply, it is reasonable to assume that the imported water will be allocated by SGPWA

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 45 of 57 in proportion to each member agency's fraction of the total imported water demand without banking. A summary of the expected allocation percentages for each agency is indicated in Table 9-9, below. Percentages as indicated were determined based on a series of White Papers (White Papers No. 1 through 7) that evaluated water supply and demand for the major retailers in the SGPWA service area.

Table 9-9 Member Agency's Percent of Available Imported Water When Demand Exceed Supply
Agency
Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
City of Banning

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.6%

5.6%
YVWD/Calimesa

7.0%

7.3%

7.9%

8.1%

8.5%
BCVWD

78.5%

71.6%

66.3%

58.4%

52.3%
Other Member Agencies

14.5%_ 21.1%

25.8%. 27.9%. 33.6%
Total
100% 100%
100% 100% 100%
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-9 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

In the future, other SGPWA water retailers will require greater supplies of imported water to meet growing demands. As a result, the allocation percentages described above will continue to change. BCVWD expects to update these percentages after the adoption of the 2020 UWMP updates for the other member agencies in the SGPWA service area.

For the Single Dry Year, potable and non -potable water demands in Table 9-11 (Table 7-11 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP) did not reflect any conservation. For 2 consecutive dry years through 6 consecutive dry years, demand reductions for potable and non -potable water were included. The estimated demand reductions (as percent) that could be seen during various multiple dry years are indicated below in Tables 9-12 through 9-16 (Tables 7-12 through 7-16 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP).

Table 9-10 Estimated Demand Reductions During Various Dry Year Periods Dry Year Analysis Period
Demand Reductions
Single Dry Year
0%
2 Consecutive Dry Years
10%
3 Consecutive Dry Years
20%
4 Consecutive Dry Years
25%
5 Consecutive Dry Years
30%
6 Consecutive Dry Years
40%
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-10 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

This is a reasonable assumption since there would be adequate time to implement the potential water use restrictions identified in Section 10 for a dry period lasting longer than a single year.

Tables 9-11 through 9-16 present the water service reliability assessment for single through 6 consecutive dry years.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 9-11 Water Service Reliability Assessment for Single Dry Year YEAR
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
DEMAND
Potable Water Demand, AFY
13,196
14,252
15,391
16,285
17,082
Supplemental Water to Non -Potable System, AFY
276
246
228
278
328
Non -Potable Water Demand, AFY
1,957
2,175
2,478
2,561
2,578
Total Water Demand, AFY
15,429
16,673
_
18,097
19,124
19,988

LOCAL SUPPLY
-
Groundwater
Edgar Canyon, AFY
1,117
1,117
1,117
1,117
1,117
Beaumont Basin Groundwater Available
Overlier Potable Forebearance, AFY
-
67 264
384
-
384
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
471
480
523
558
558
Reallocation of Unused Overlier Rights, AFY
1,322
1,286
1,165
1,099
-
1,099
Return Flow Credits, AFY
280
514
868
922
1,155
Storm Water, AFY
66 192
192
192
192
Recycled Water Available, AFY
1,820
2,150
2,610
2,660
2,630
Subtotal Local Supply, AFY
5,076
5,805
6,739 _
6,932
7,135
BCVWD's Share of Imported Supply
Table A Allocation (5%), AFY
679
619
573
505
452
Yuba Accord, AFY
16 14
_
13 12
10 AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,217
1,127
993
889
SGPWA Carryover Water, AFY
204
186
_
172 _
152
136
Sites Reservoir, AFY
-
-
286
571
.
1,143
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchanges, AFY
39 36
33 29
26 Subtotal Imported Supply, AFY
2,273
2,073
2,205 !
2,262
.
2,657
.

Total Supply, AFY
7,349
7,878
8,944
9,195
9,792
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
8,080
8,795
9,153
9,929
10,196
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-11 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 9-12 Water Service Reliability Assessment for 2 Consecutive Dry Years YEAR
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
DEMAND
Potable Water Demand, AFY
13,196
14,252
15,391
16,285
17,082
Su • • lemental Water to Non -Potable 5 stem AFY
276
246
228.
278
328
Non -Potable Water Demand, AFY
1,957
2,175
2,478
2,561
2,578
Total Water Demand, AFY
15,429
16,673
18,097
19,124
19,988
Total Water Demand (1096 Demand Reduction), AFY
13,886
15,006
16,287.
17,212
17,989

LOCAL SUPPLY
Groundwater
EdgarCanyon,AFY
1,173
1,173
1,173,
1,173
1,173
Beaumont Basin Available AFY
Overlier Potable Forebearance AFY
-
60 237
346
346
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
424
432
471
502
502
Reallocation of Unused Overlier Rights, AFY
1,190
1,157
1,049
989
989
Return Flow Credits, AFY
280
514
868
922
1,155
Storm Water, AFY
241
241
241
241
241
Recycled Water, AFY
1,720
2,030
2,460
2,520
2,480
Subtotal Local Supply, AFY
5,028
5,607
6,499
6,693
6,886
BCVWD's Share of Imported Supply
Table A Allocation (12.5%), AFY
1,698
1,548
1,434
1,263
1,131
Yuba Accord, AFY
39 36
_
33 29
26 AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,217
1,127
993
889
SGPWA Carryover Water, AFY
510

4.65 431
380
340
Sites Reservoir, AFY
-
-
286
571
1,143
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchanges, AFY
98 90
83 73
65 Subtotal Imported Supply, AFY
3,680
3,356
3,394
3,309
3,594
.

Total Supply, AFY
8,708
8,963
9,893
10,002
10,481
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
5,178
6,042
6,395 _
7,209
7,508
Total Withdrawn from Storage during Dry Period,
AF
10,357
12,084
12,790
14,419
15,017
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-12 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 9-13 Water Service Reliability Assessment for 3 Consecutive Dry Years YEAR
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
DEMAND
Potable Water Demand, AFY
13,196
14,252
15,391
16,285
17,082
Supplemental Water to Non -Potable System, AFY
276
246
228
278
328
Non -Potable Water Demand, AFY
1,957
2,175
2,478
2,561
2,578
Total Water Demand, AFY
15,429
16,673
18,097
19,124
19,988
Total Water Demand (20% Demand Reduction), AFY
12,343
13,338
14,478
15,299
15,990

LOCAL SUPPLY
Groundwater
Edgar Canyon, AFY
1,230
1,230
1,230
1,230
1,230
Beaumont Basin Available, AFY
Overlier Potable Forebearance, AFY
-
54 211
308
308
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
377
384
418
446
446
Reallocation of Unused Overlier Rights, AFY
1,058
1,028
932
880
880
Return Flow Credits, AFY
280
514
868
922
1,155
Storm Water, AFY
241
241
241
241
241
Recycled Water, AFY
1,720
2,030
2,460
2,520
2,480
Subtotal Local Supply, AFY
4,906
5,481
6,361
6,546
6,739
BCVWD's Share of Imported Supply
Table A Allocation (18%), AFY
2,444
2,230
2,065
1,819
1,629
Yuba Accord, AFY
57 52
48 42
38 AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,217
1,127
993
889
SGPWA Carryover Water, AFY
735
670
621
547
490
Sites Reservoir, AFY
-
-
286
571
1,143
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchanges, AFY
141
129
119
105
94 Subtotal Imported Supply, AFY
4,712
4,297
4,265
4,077
4,282
Total Supply, AFY
9,617
9,778
10,626
10,623
11,021
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
2,726
3,560
3,852
4,676
4,969
Total Withdrawn from Storage during Dry Period,
AF
8,178
10,680
11,555
14,029
14,908
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-13 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 9-14 Water Service Reliability Assessment for 4 Consecutive Dry Years YEAR
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
DEMAND
Potable Water Demand, AFY
13,196
14,252
15,391
16,285
17,082
Supplemental Water to Non -Potable System, AFY
276
246
228
278
328
Non -Potable Water Demand, AFY
1,957
2,175
2,478
2,561
2,578
Total Water Demand, AFY
15,429
16,673
1 18,097
19,124
19,988
Total Water Demand (25% Demand Reduction), AFY
11,572
12,505
13,573
14,343
14,991

LOCAL SUPPLY
_
Groundwater
Edgar Canyon, AFY
1,267
1,267
1,267.
1,267
1,267
Beaumont Basin Available, AFY
Overlier Potable Forebearance, AFY
-
50 -
198
288
288
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
353
360
392
418
418
Reallocation of Unused Overlier Rights, AFY
992
964
874
825
825
Return Flow Credits, AFY
280
514
868
922
1,155
Storm Water, AFY
241
241
241
241
241
Recycled Water, AFY
1,720
2,030
2,460 ,
2,520
2,480
Subtotal Local Supply , AFY
4,853
5,426
6,300 _
6,481
6,674
BCVWD's Share of Imported Supply
Table A Allocation (26%), AFY
3,531
3,221
2,982
2,627
2,352
Yuba Accord, AFY
82 74
_
69 61
54 AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,217
_
1,127
993
889
SGPWA Carryover Water, AFY
1,061
968
896
790
707
Sites Reservoir, AFY
-
286
571
1,143
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchanges, AFY
204
186
172
152
136
Subtotal Imported Supply, AFY
6,212
5,666
5,533 1
5,193
5,282
Total Supply, AFY
11,066
11,093
11,833
11,674
11,956
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
506
1,412
1,740
2,669
3,035
Total Withdrawn from Storage during Dry Period,
AF
2,025
5,648
6,960
10,675
12,140
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-14 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 9-15 Water Service Reliability Assessment for 5 Consecutive Dry Years YEAR
2025
2030
2035
2040 -
2045
DEMAND
Potable Water Demand, AFY
13,196
14,252
15,391
16,285
17,082
Supplemental Water to Non -Potable System, AFY
276
246
228
278
328
Non -Potable Water Demand AFY
1,957
2 175
2 478
2 561
2 578
Total Water Demand, AFY
15,429
16,673
18,097
19,124 _
19,988
Total Water Demand (30% Demand Reduction), AFY
10,800
11,671
12,668
13,387
13,992

LOCAL SUPPLY
Groundwater
_
_
_
_
Edgar Canyon, AFY
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
Beaumont Basin Available, AFY
_
_
Overlier Potable Forebearance, AFY
-
47 185
269
269
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
330
336
366
390
390
Reallocation of Unused Overlier R,:hts, AFY
926
900
816
770
770
Return Flow Credits, AFY
280
514
868
922
1,155
Storm Water, AFY
241
241
241
241
241
Rec cled Water, AFY
1 720
2 030
2 460
2 520
2 480
Subtotal Local Su • • 1 AFY
4 801
5 373
6 241
6 417
6 610
BCVWD's Share of Im . orted Su • .1
Table A Allocation (24%), AFY
3,259
2,973
2,753
2,425
2,171
Yuba Accord, AFY
75 _
69 64
56 50
AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,217
1,127
.
993
889
SGPWA Carryover Water, AFY
980
827
729
653
Sites Reservoir, AFY
.
-
_894
-
286
.
571
1,143
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchanges, AFY
188
172
159
140
126
Subtotal Imported Supply, AFY
5,837
5,324
5,216
4,914
5,032
Total Supply, AFY
10,639
10,697
11,456
11,331
11,642
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
162
974
1,212
2,056
2,350
Total Withdrawn from Storage during Dry Period,
AF
808
4,871
6,058
10,279_
11,748
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-15 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

Table 9-16 Water Service Reliability Assessment for 6 Consecutive Dry Years YEAR
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
DEMAND
Potable Water Demand, AFY
13,196
14,252
15,391
16,285
17,082
Supplemental Water to Non -Potable System, AFY
276
246
228
278
328
Non -Potable Water Demand, AFY
1,957
2,175
2,478
2,561
2,578
Total Water Demand, AFY
15,429
16,673
18,097
19,124
19,988
Total Water Demand (40% Demand Reduction), AFY
9,257
10,004
10,858
11,474
11,993

LOCAL SUPPLY
Groundwater
Ed:ar Can on, AFY
1,367
1,367
1,367
1,367
1,367
Beaumont Basin Available, AFY
Overlier Potable Forebearance, AFY
-
40 158
231
231
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
283
288
314
335
335
Reallocation of Unused Overlier Rights, AFY
793
771
699
660
660
Return Flow Credits, AFY
280
514
868
922
1,155
Storm Water, AFY
241
241
241
241
241
Rec cled Water, AFY
1,720
2,030
2,460
2,520
2,480
Subtotal Local Supply, AFY
4,684
5,251
6,107
6,275
6,468
BCVWD's Share of Imported Supply
Table A Allocation (25%), AFY
3,395
3,097
2,867
2,526
2,262
Yuba Accord, AFY
79 72
66 58
52 AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,217
1,127
993
889
SGPWA Car over Water, AFY
1,021
931
862
759
680
Sites Reservoir, AFY
-
-
286
571
1,143
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchan:es AFY
196
179
166
146
131
Subtotal Im • orted Su • • 1 AFY
6 025
5 495
5 374
5 054
5 157
Total Supply, AFY
10,709
10,747
11,482
11,329
11,625
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
(1,452)
(743)
(623)
146
368
Total Withdrawn from Storage during Dry Period,
AF
(8,709)
(4,458)
(3,740)
875
2,208
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-16 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

In all of the assessments, water must be extracted from BCVWD's Beaumont Basin Storage Account. Tables 9-11 through 9-16 clearly indicate the importance of maintaining substantial amounts of water in the storage account. Based on the assessment, BCVWD should keep about 12,000 AF in the storage account in order to maintain a 5 -year supply as mandated by BCVWD Resolution 2015-05, if conservation measures are in effect. The total amount required to be withdrawn from banked storage will increase if conservation measures and restrictions described in Section 10 cannot be achieved. If no conservation occurs (worst case, conservative), BCVWD will need to maintain about 52,000 AF in its storage account to meet the demands during a 5 consecutive year dry period.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 52 of 57 A summary of the available supplies expected during a 5 -year drought, beginning in 2020 are summarized in Table 9-17 (Table 7-17 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP) below. The results of the Drought Risk Assessment above assume that the demand reductions and conservation measures described in Section 12 (Section 8 in the BCVWP 2020 UWMP) are achieved.

Table 9-17 5 -Year Drought Risk Assessment
YEAR
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
DEMAND
_
_
Potable Water Demand, AFY
12,412
12,604
12,787
12,952
13,472
Non -Potable Water Demand, AFY
1,642
1,664
1,686
1,696 _
1,957
Total Water Demand, AFY
14,054 ,
14,268
14,473
14,648
15,429
Demand Reduction (%)
0%
10%
20%
25%
30%
Total Water Demand (Including Reductions), AFY
14,054
12,841
11,578
10,986
10,800

LOCAL SUPPLY
,
_
Groundwater
Edgar Canyon, AFY
1,117 ,
1,173
1,232
1,267 _
1,305
Beaumont Basin Available, AFY
Overlier Potable Forebearance, AFY
-
-
-
-
-
Overlier Non -Potable Forebearance, AFY
- ,
-
-
-
330
Reallocation of Unused Overlier Rights, AFY
2,025.
1,826
1,827
2,017.
269
926
280
Return Flow Credits, AFY
235
246
258
Storm Water, AFY
-
185
185
185
1,650.
241
1,720
Recycled Water, AFY
1,520
1,580
Subtotal Local Supply , AFY
3,377
4,950
5,082
5,388
4,802
BCVWD's Share of Imported Supply
.
,
Table A Allocation (%), AFY
5%

12.5%
18%
26%
24%
Table A Allocation , AFY
679
1,698
2,444
3,531 _
3,259
Yuba Accord, AFY
16 39
57 82
75 AVEK Nickel, AFY
1,335
1,335
1,335
1,335
1,335
SGPWA Carryover Water, AFY
204
510
735
1,061
980
Sites Reservoir, AFY
- ,
-
-
-
-
Additional SWP Transfers/Exchanges, AFY
39 98
141
204
188
Subtotal Imported Supply, AFY
2,273
3,680
4,712
6,212
5,837
Total Supply, AFY
5,650
8,630
9,794
11,600 _
10,639
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage, AF
8,404 1
4,212
1,785
(614)
161
Total Withdrawn from Storage during Dry Period,
AF
8,404
12,616
14,401
13,786
13,947
Notes:

1. Taken from Table 7-17 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 53 of 57 Section 11 Conclusions (Previously Section 10 in Project's WSA) The following revisions noted in red shall be incorporated into Section 11 (previously Section 10 in the Project's WSA)

1. The projected water demand from the Beaumont Pointe Development project is 196.70 AFY of which 85.20 AFY is outdoor, non -potable water use. This equates to approximately 1`)/0 of the District existing water demand for 2020.

2. The Beaumont Pointe development project site was included in the list of planned development projects in BCVWD's 2020 UWMP (previously identified as Jack Rabbit Trail) which demonstrated adequate water supplies up to the year 2045. To clarify, when the District was preparing the basis for future water demands within the District's service area in the BCVWD's 2020 UWMP, the District utilized the potable water demands from the DRAFT November 2020 Beaumont Pointe WSA. This draft version of the Project's WSA identified the potable water demand as 221 EDUs as shown in Table 3-7 in the BCVWD's 2020 UWMP. Because the Project's updated land use plan has a potable water demand of 204.21 EDUs, the District's 2020 UWMP conservatively included the Project's anticipated potable water demands at 221 EDU

3. BCVWD prepared a series of White Papers which analyzed the regional (SGPWA) imported water supply requirements and funding requirements. These White Papers are referenced for the Beaumont Pointe Development WSA. The basis for the White Papers was a regional spreadsheet demand model, developed by BCVWD, which was reviewed by the City of Banning and YVWD.

4. The White Papers indicate that SGPWA can obtain sufficient imported water supply to supplement local supplies to meet regional needs including BCVWD's needs. The White Papers also indicated that adequate funding is available to implement the imported water projects currently planned for the short and long terms.

5. BCVWD prepared and adopted a Potable Water Master Plan which identified water needs and facility needs to build -out. The BCVWD 2020 UWMP identified recycled water from the City of Beaumont for non -potable water irrigation with a plan for the recharge of surplus recycled water with appropriate treatment and permits. The City and BCVWD signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2019 which began the process of an agreement for purchase of recycled water by BCVWD. In addition, storm water capture and other local water resource projects were identified. One of these projects, MDP-Line 16, (Grand Avenue Storm Drain) is currently in design by the Riverside County Flood and Water Conservation District and BCVWD. The storm drain will be partially funded through a grant from the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority.

6. SGPWA and BCVWD have made financial commitments to the Sites Reservoir project Phase 1 studies and will commit funds to Phase 2.

7. Adequate water supply exists, or is planned, for the Beaumont Pointe development project to 2045 and beyond as outlined in Section 9. BCVWD can meet the Project needs as well as BCVWD's existing demands and the demands of the other planned developments within BCVWD's service area which are listed in the Beaumont Pointe Development WSA.

8. Multiple dry -year reliability analysis demonstrates that BCVWD will be able to meet its existing demands and the demands of the other planned developments within its service area which were listed in the Beaumont Pointe WSA. BCVWD will supplement its existing supply sources during these dry periods with banked water in BCVWD's Beaumont Basin Groundwater Storage Account.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 54 of 57

9. Pursuant to §10910 of the California Water Code (SB 610) and information provided in the BP WSA, BCVWD has determined that currently available and planned supplies are sufficient to meet the water demands of the proposed BP project in addition to the existing and other planned project demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over the next 20 years, as outlined in Section 6 through 9 in this WSA.

10. Pursuant to the California Government Code Section 66473.7, (SB 221) BCVWD has determined that it has sufficient and adequate water supply available to serve the long- term needs of the Beaumont Pointe in addition to the existing and other planned project demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over the next 20 years, as outlined in Sections 6 through 9.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 55 of 57 3 2021 Beaumont Pointe WSA Additions
Addition of Section 10 — BCVWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan The BCVWD 2020 UWMP Section 10 addresses the DWR new requirements of a District -wide Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The following is intended to be added as Section 10 — BCVWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan to the Project's WSA to summarize the BCVWD WSCP.

SECTION 10 — BCVWD WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN (WSCP) As a companion to the BCVWD 2020 UWMP and required by the State, the District prepared and approved the BCVWD 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as a strategic planning process to prepare for and respond to water shortages. As part of this new requirement, BCVWD will assess each year's water supplies to determine if there was a water volume shortage for that year. Based on the water shortage, the District will implement one of the six water conservation levels (shown in Table 10-1 below), as defined in the District's WSCP, to encourage or require water conservation among its service area. The Beaumont Pointe Development will be subject to these water conservation levels as dictated by BCVWD.

Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment August 24th, 2022

fable 10-1 Water Shortage Contingency Levels
DWR Table
Water Shortage
8-1
Contingency
Plan Levels
Shortage
Level
Percent
Shortage Range
Shortage Response Actions
(Narrative description)
1 Up to W%
Up to 10% reduction in normal, "long term" water supply (including conjuntive use water in storage); response actions includes voluntary public demand reduction of 10%, and community outreach encouraging conservation.
2 Up to 2096
Up to 2096 reduction in normal, "long term" water supply (including conjuntive use water in storage); includes any actions from Shortage Level 1.

Response actions include mandatory 10% reduction - Increased public outreach, restaurants serve water upon request, lodging must offer opt out of linen services
3 Up to 3096
Up to 30% reduction in normal, "long term" water supply (including conjuntive use water in storage); response actions includes any actions from Shortage Levels 1 and 2. Response actions indude mandatory 2096 reduction - limit landscape irrigation to certain number of days per week 4 Up to 4096
Up to 4096 reduction in normal, "long term" water supply (including conjuntive use water in storage); response actions includes any actions from Shortage Levels 1, 2 and 3. Response actions include mandatory 2S% reduction - limit irrigation of lawns to once a week except for lawns and turf irrigate with recycled water, restrict water use for decorative water features, limit filling of pools only to cases where appropriate cover is in place 5 Up to 5096
Up to 5096 reduction in normal, "long term" water supply (including conjuntive use water in storage); response actions includes any actions from Shortage Levels 1- 4. Response actions indude mandatory 30% reduction - prohibit filling of swimming pools, washing of automobiles only limited to facilities using recycled water, prohibit potable water use for construction activities,industrial water users required to reduce water use (food processing, concrete mixing plant)
6 >50%
Greater than 50% reduction in normal, "long term" water supply (including conjuntive use water in storage); response actions includes any actions from Shortage Levels 1- 5. Response actions include mandatory 3096 reduction - prohibit landscape irrigation except for irrigation with use of recyded water, industrial water users required to further reduce water use (food processing, concrete mixing plant)
NOTES:

Notes:

1. Taken from Table 8-1 in the BCVWD 2020 UWMP.

August 24th, 2022
Addendum #1 - Beaumont Pointe Development Water Supply Assessment Page 57 of 57 4 2021 Beaumont Pointe WSA Attachments
Beaumont Basin Adjudication and 2020 Annual Watermaster Report Water Code Section 10910(f) must be met which will require the Project's WSA to include a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public system. While the updated sections above summarize the amount of groundwater available for BCVWD listed in the 2020 UWMP, the following will be included as attachments to meet the requirements of Water Code Section 10910(f).

Attachment A — Beaumont Basin Formation Documents
Attachment B — Amended Judgement Pursuant to Stipulation Adjudicating Groundwater Rights in the Beaumont Basin
Attachment C — Beaumont Basin Watermaster 2020 Consolidated Annual Report and Engineering Report
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
The information presented in the Project's WSA references the 2020 BCVWD 2020 UWMP. The following attachments include the updated BCVWD 2020 UWMP and their new 2020 BCVWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Attachment D — BCVWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Attachment E — BCVWD 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Water Supply Assessment for Beaumont Pointe — April 13th, 2021 This addendum is intended to update the Project's previously approved WSA. Attached will be the previously approved WSA for the Project
Attachment F — Water Supply Assessment for Beaumont Pointe — April 2021

Beaumont Pointe Development
Plan of Service —Rev 2
May 2023
#B740
Appendix D — Hidden Canyon Beaumont Distribution Center — Water Demands and Domestic Water Service Calculations
31

January 23, 2020,
Mr. Erik Engelstad
Lassen Development Partners, LLP
3900 S Wadsworth Blvd
Denver, CO 80235
Subject: Hidden Canyon Beaumont Distribution Center — Water Demands and Domestic Water Service Calculations
Charles Marr Consulting (CMC), partnered with Thienes Engineering Inc, has completed the analysis of the Hidden Canyon Beaumont Distribution Center (HC or Project) for the purpose of:

1. Estimating the potable and non -potable water demands

2. Defining a potable water distribution system that could be approved by the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District

3. Providing hydraulic calculations supporting the domestic water pipeline sizes for serving the Project from the proposed Fourth Street extension
Conclusion
The fire flow analysis performed here is conservatively based on a higher standard than required by the fire department. The District will provide the required 4,000 gpm at 20 psi for Hidden Canyon at a minimum service pressure of 20 psi. (For the purposes of a conservative analysis 5,000 gpm at 30 psi is used here.) This analysis shows that the 2650 Zone can supply up to 4,500 gpm to the Project site during emergency fireflow. Any supplemental flow to the HC project site can be provided from the proposed 4th Street PRV station and 2750 Zone.

Hidden Canyon Project Description
The Hidden Canyon development project is planned for approximately 2.9 million square feet of warehouse structures (2 separate buildings, Attachment 1) and is located in the City of Beaumont and within the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District service area. Access to the project site will include extension of 4th Street to the west from Potrero Boulevard.

The District recently oversaw the construction of the 24 -inch transmission pipeline in Potrero Boulevard extending their backbone 2650 Zone from north of the 60 freeway to 4th Street. The construction also extended the 2650 Zone to the east in 4th Street with a 24 -inch pipeline to the proposed location of the 2750 -to -2650 pressure -reducing valve (PRV) station.

The District's September 24, 2019 memorandum (Attachment 2) identified design PRV station flows and a preliminary layout of the station. It indicates that the 2750 Zone can provide in excess of 5,000 gpm through year 2030. Peak hour demand from future projects including Charles Marr Consulting 562.781.7936

Charles Marr Consulting
Hidden Canyon, Olivewood and Jack Rabbit Trail are envisioned to require supplemental service through the PRV station with primary service from the Hannan Tank, which floats the 2650 Zone from north of the freeways. A fire hydrant flow test performed last year on the 2750 Zone upstream of the proposed PRV station at the 18 -inch pipeline loop for the recently constructed Amazon Distribution Center approximately 0.67 miles east of Potrero Boulevard confirms this.

The fire hydrant flow test (Attachment 3) hydraulic results are as follows:
• Minimum Static Pressure = 91 psi
• Maximum Static Pressure = 105 psi (Avg is calculated as 98 psi) • Observed flow = 4,000 gpm
• Residual Pressure during flow = 76 psi
The calculations performed for this technical memorandum (Attachment 4) show these hydraulic figures equate to 6,000 gpm at 72 psi at the proposed PRV station location. The 2750 Zone will be essential for redundancy and reliability of the 2650 Zone south of the 60 Freeway and west of Potrero Boulevard.

In order to confirm the Attachment 4 calculations, Thienes Engineering requested and received two additional fire hydrant flow tests for two separate fire hydrants — FH No. 1 located at Oak Valley Parkway and Linksman Drive and FH No. 2 located in 4th Street approximately one half mile east of Potrero Boulevard. The fire hydrants represent existing or proposed hydrants within the District's computer hydraulic model. District staff performed the tests using their model simulating current and future demands of the 2650 Zone with the proposed 2650 Zone PRV station in operation. The fire hydrant flow tests are included in Attachment 6, and the hydraulic results are as follows:

Fire Hydrant No. 1 (Oak Valley Pkwy and Linksman Dr)
• Minimum Static Pressure = 123 psi
• Maximum Static Pressure = 128 psi (Avg is calculated as 125.5 psi) • Observed flow = 4,000 gpm
• Residual Pressure during flow = 90.2 psi
Fire Hydrant No. 2 (4th Street east of Potrero Blvd)
• Minimum Static Pressure = 90 psi
• Maximum Static Pressure = 95 psi (Avg is calculated as 92.5 psi) • Observed flow = 4,000 gpm
• Residual Pressure during flow = 57.8 psi
It should be noted that Fire Hydrant No. 2 is located approximately at the proposed site of the PRV station. The results show a drop in pressure between static conditions and observed flow conditions of 35 psi. If the static and residual pressures were read on the 2650 Zone at the simulated fire flow location on the downstream side of the proposed PRV with pressure setting at or slightly below 2650 feet hydraulic gradient, minimal pressure loss would be expected because the PRV would act to maintain the downstream pressure setting regardless of flow. 2 Charles Marr Consulting
562.781.7936

Charles Marr Consulting
Therefore, it is apparent the model simulation included a pressure setting on the PRV below

57.8 psi, resulting in no flow assistance from the 2750 Zone. Therefore, in order to confirm the calculations of Attachment 4 using the two recent flow tests (Attachment 6), we provide these revised calculations with the understanding that no assistance from the PRV station occurred during the tests. Thus, during the FH No. 2 test simulation 100 percent of the Project potable water demands were supplied from the main 2650 Zone (Hanna) Tank and the Potrero Boulevard transmission main.

Hidden Canyon Water Demands
The project water demands are estimated based on one employee per 1500 square feet of office/warehouse building structure, and confirms BCVWD staff estimate in the Approved Water Supply Assessment dated February 2019, and Will -serve letter dated March 5, 2019 (Attachment 5). Irrigation demands have been updated to reflect measured acreage for the major perimeter slopes and various landscaping for strip irrigation surrounding each building, as well as planter boxes located throughout the parking area. Table 1 outlines the potable and non -potable water demands of Hidden Canyon Beaumont Distribution Center:

Table 1 - Hidden Canyon Water Demand Estimate
Buildings
Land
Use
[11
Bldg Area
(sf)
Employee
count [�1
Project Site Acreage [�1
Indoor Water
Demand Factor
[�1
Outdoor Water
Demand Factor [31
[4]
Indoor
Water
Demand
Outdoor
Irrigation
Demand [51
total
Bldg
Irrig.

Ware -
1 house
1,842,040
1,308

85.3 68.2

17.1 15 gpd/emp
670,000 gal/Ac/Yr
19,616 gpd
31,389 gpd
office
25,000
Ware -
2 house
975,170
692

57.3 46.8 10.5
15 gpd/emp
670,000 AF/Ac/Yr
10,384 gpd
19,274 gpd
office
25,000
Ware -
Total
house
2,817,210
2,000
142.6
115.0

27.6 15 gpd/emp
670,000 AF/Ac/Yr
30,000 gpd
50,663 gpd
office
50,000
Total
2,867,210
24 AFY
57 AFY
[1] Based on approved site plan and tabulation of proposed land uses. [2] Based on typical industry planning factor or Water Supply Assessment (Feb 2019) water demand estimate, approved in March 2019 Board meeting. [3] Based on outdoor water demand factor used for Amazon Distribution Center. [4] Represents demand on BCVWD potable (domestic) water sources until non -domestic water becomes available. [5] Represents demand that could be served by non -domestic water sources.

This is consistent with industry standard usage factors and typical landscape ordinance restrictions of recent. Peaking factors can vary based on size of development project and land use type. Based on our recent discussions with District staff, the Project will be conditioned to serve recycled water for all outdoor irrigation. Peaking for the maximum -day demand (highest volume of water used in a 24 -hour period) on the domestic water system could range from 1.5 to 4.0 times average demand. Peak -hour peaking could range from 2.0 to 4.0 times the maximum -day demand. Table 2 presents peaking of the water demands that could be Charles Marr Consulting
562.781.7936

3 Page

Charles Marr Consulting
expected from HC:

Table 2 - Hidden Canyon Water Demand Peakin
Demand
Average
Max Day
Peak hour
gpd
gpm
indoor
30,000
gpd
21 gpm

62.5 gpm i1]
187.5
gpm [11
outdoor
50,663
gpd
35 gpm
-
[2]
-
[2]
[1] Based on 3 x avg = Max Day; 3 x Max Day = Peak Hour [2] It is understood that all outdoor irrigation demands will be served by a separate water system.

Peaking would depend on City of Beaumont landscape ordinance, landscape and irrigation design.

BCVWD Water System proposed for serving Hidden Canyon
The Hidden Canyon Beaumont Distribution Center project team met with Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District staff on October 9, 2019 to discuss water service for the Project and construction status of the District's 2650 Zone domestic water system in the Project region.

With the exception of the pressure -reducing valve (PRV) station, all domestic transmission piping is completed in Potrero Boulevard south to 4th Street and in 4th Street east to the Amazon Distribution Center where it will connect to the 2750 Zone via the PRV station.

One of the primary concerns for the District is water quality and water turnover in the piping system for Hidden Canyon. The Project will require approximately one mile of transmission pipeline in 4th Street from the existing facilities in Potrero Boulevard, which represents a large volume of water that will only serve the Project in the interim. Thus, circulation is necessary in order to maintain water quality without regular flushing of the pipeline due to a relatively low average daily demand. This can be achieved by a dual piping system within 4th Street connecting to the Potrero Boulevard transmission main to serve the HC project and operate in the interim specifically to circulate 2750 and 2650 Zone water, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2:
4IPage
Charles Marr Consulting
562.781.7936

6umnsuoj JimW sapoyj
9E6L'T8L'Z95'
Clq
CD
10 .. Frwy .. ....................

Oak.Valley.Pkwy
Lyon's Project

60.F. rw)c..............................................

Hidden Cyn
Proposed 18" Pipeline
(length = 800 If)
Proposed Parallel
2-16" pipelines
See Detail
Upper Right
0 v
Existing 2650 Zone
DW pipelines
Disconnect
(or add closed
valve)
Proposed
PRV
Amazon
El
4th Street
Proposed 16"
Proposed 16"
Existing 24"
Existing 2750Zone
DW pipelines
DETAIL
FIGURE 1
10 Frwy
JJ2W S21J21iJ

6umnsuoj JimW sapoyj
9E6L'T8L'Z95'
rurnow ir /pm is NOT IT IS e ROW= PRINT
Fla
PARCEL 'A'� .
=TINS
OPB6 SPACE

FREEWAY
60 DETENTION

DETENTION
r r { eABN
D1DQ018 ° I I I
1 ! ! •
.! •!201.O2_4 1 2 ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! I !'
----1-- 1---1---i'-- ----;---7--g 185•
I towel:611 I I
R
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
e4`

PARCEL 'C

DETENTION
BA8R1

PARCEL 'FP
Tabulation
Building I
Parcel1
Balding
Parcel.

Parcel
P
TelelferSa91,
Bida t A Parcel.

PanelA
Parcel.,4IfStreet

11.91,,
Lott
.ta.
e
Site Area (tame)
senea

4.3712,
100.4.26
3,57.

70. •99
238.333

5.472
'.008286
1761376
65209
.356
674.262

30.093
2rA.0610793
5 652 02.18
!.066.034 of
2:422'5 0036
Site Ares Ow)
A,,,a Area
3,715508
2 6520 ag.
136275.53

8.10 As

19.964

8.652
0246
Coverage 1. II
w265

40.1%

4.4.015
Parerng Provided
mandwd
404
800
Parion3 Provided
',rococo
•e68
CUL
LR
rl
318'

FOOTSIE

OPBI SPADE
800 If
Max
HIJj. I1r}Ih1R 11}1I111ad4,1Ih17F- Id - '11+IIUIlU.,IU'II1 111UIIIIi1I III 1I.HH L
I I I II I I I 1.Pan,4. 1 I I II I I I II I 41
-'t---t---T---T T---t---t---T— T--'T---t---T---T---TT---t---t---T--TT---T---T---1--- t ---
I- 1_ t- t t.- t -t- t- 1. •t t t fi 1 t-.t._.t fi _t t._ -.-t-+ - • I . I . I . i ! ' 1 . 1 . I • I • : ' 1 . 1 . 1 ' ! 1 . 1 ' I • I • i i • l 1 I -i--1-f I1. a
- 1--. 1. 11-i.!_I_1 . 1 -1 i - . 1 + .
-- -- - - ---
— 1---�---1--------1---�---� T T I T-- T---�---1 1- ---1------1-.- . 1 . 1 . 1 . ! . . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . . . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . . . . 1 . - 1 . ----� -�-� ��- - - -1�-�-�-� -------+----
. I . I • I j
i I+ II I ! i i i I • i +� l. ; www.hparchs.mm
Beaumont, California
FIGURE 2
JJ2W S2�J21.�J

Charles Marr Consulting
The figures illustrate this recent solution to the water quality concern with one minor modification — a closed valve between the connection points at Potrero Boulevard. Employing the dual piping configuration with a closed valve at Potrero Boulevard and 4th Street between the two connection points for the new HC supply system will create true circulation when supplied by the proposed PRV station. The District memorandum (Attachment 2) indicates domestic water from the proposed PRV station could be used to backfeed the 2650 Zone and replenish its storage (Hannan Tank). By diverting flow through the Project site as part of a normal conveyance path to the central service areas of the 2650 Zone to the north, the District can maintain water circulation and quality during sole service to HC in the interim to this remote area. we should recommend that this continue
/ to be normal operating procedures until
demand picks up in this area
This would be ar4interim operating condition until more development occurs to the west of the HC project. Ultimately, the future demand to the west and north will provide the daily turnover of system water without requiring the forced circulation in 4th Street, and the closed valve can be permanently opened. The 4th Street system would be sized to equal the ultimate transmission capacity planned for future development to the west. Attachment 4 includes calculations that confirm the dual piping configuration (2 -16 -inch pipelines) for interim and ultimate operation in 4th Street west of Potrero Boulevard.

Additional calculations are performed to analyze the FH No. 1 and FH No. 2 test results that would represent the primary hydraulic source for the Project, while the PRV station to the east, supplied from the 2750 Zone would act as a secondary source for supplementing unusual peak demands and emergency fire flow. Figure 3 illustrates the location of the additional fire flow tests for FH No. 1 and FH No. 2, as well as the 2650 Zone piping required to convey flows to the proposed Hidden Canyon Distribution Center.
7IPage
Charles Marr Consulting
562.781.7936

6umnsuoj JimW sapoyj
9E6L'T8L'Z95'
Hidden Canyon
Distribution Center
P-2520-0014
P-2520-0014
ry i �/ 2,356'81
(��i N ai�Qua 1877.7■_
' v. �: . a. S�l�ii
�}i■faom
f
24' (2520) • M�'� • ■ f..Y[
1 P-2620-0008 y !!??YYII O�y �■ ■'Qi �y x1.172 -
1 a 25548
46■ I r'�7513
Lr�rrt 'r
HY
11 drill
24"0190370
2550) 1077.6 ' 1
•
1524 •1 1'2°54'1'22
^n2z ■
■
4, 3501.17 °..2s, ,� ..1 ,.�
N.
2657.95 l/ Z.... 4. ,�0'F 7.29 >
�PR62•'� O`
Bldg 2(1.00m sf)
(800'-18"
141781
11 ject $ 12
T
4,450'-16"
9 2,425'el.
.............
2,990'
Bldg 1 (1.87m sf) (
sti
RD

SINVICE
1478.32 7-26504033 1150.59
tk
,
a
,.81.35
4,400'-16"
To Hannan
Tank
(2650 Zone)
P-2 0-0018
375.03
NNS0
HELL r40. 26
(00000PN) !
10'(2550) 1737.35
•

7. P-2850-0134

12. 1093.25
P.2
P-2950-0034 , °16(2850) 5579.18 9�
FH No. 2
4th Street
.snrAN nn1•
1405.27
24", 2750 Zone'
PIN 3TA181N
2750/2650

24.(2760)
Proposed PRV
Station
1435.33
I
4th Street
FIGURE3
Closed valve
for 2650 Zone
circulation
aaeN sapeg3

Charles Marr Consulting
Attachment 7 includes the additional calculations that confirm the dual piping configuration analyzed here with the 16 -inch pipelines under interim and ultimate operation is adequate to supply 5,000 gpm fireflow during maximum -day demand. Table 3 summarizes the service pressures resulting from the 2018 flow test and the two additional flow tests recently provided by the District, as included in Attachments 3 and 6, respectively. It should be noted that the District flow tests were based on a fire flow of 4,000 gpm, and that 5,000 gpm was used for this technical memorandum to provide a conservative analysis.

Table 3 - Calculated HGLs and Project Service Pressures Fire Flow
Test
at Potrero Blvd
and
4th Street
Flow from
2650 Zone
Flow from
PRV
(2750 Zone)
Total HC
Project
Flow ill
West end of Hidden Cyn
Meets
minimum
pressure?
HGL
Service
Pressure [2]
May 2018
2646feet
0 gpm
5,063 gpm
5,063 gpm
2,580 ft
71 psi
Yes
Nov. 2019
(FH No. 1)
2493 feet
5,063 gpm
0 gpm
5,063 gpm
2,448 ft
13 psi
No
Nov. 2019
(FH No. 2)
2493 feet
5,063 gpm
0 gpm
5,063 gpm
2,448 ft
13 psi
No
Nov. 2019
(FH No. 1)
2493 feet
4,493 gpm
570 gpm
5,063 gpm
2,493 ft
33 psi
Yes
Nov. 2019
(FH No. 2)
2493 feet
4,493 gpm
570 gpm
5,063 gpm
2,493 ft
33 psi
Yes
[1] For May 2018 test, all Project service flow supplied through proposed 4th St eet PRV and 2750 Zone. For November 2019 test, all Project service flow supplied from Hannan Tank and Potrero Blvd 2650 Zone. [2] Based on Project service elevation equal 2417'el. above mean sea level.

The District will provide the required 4,000 gpm at 20 psi for Hidden Canyon at a minimum service pressure of 20 psi. However, the analysis performed here is conservatively based on a higher standard than required by the fire department (5,000 gpm fireflow for Hidden Canyon at a minimum service pressure of 30 psi). Table 3 summarizes the calculations and indicates that the most recent model simulation tests performed by BCVWD staff show that the 2650 Zone can supply up to 4,500 gpm to the Project site during emergency fireflow. Any supplemental flow to the site can be provided from the proposed 4th Street PRV station.

For interim operation of the on -site transmission system serving only Hidden Canyon, the required length of the dual piping system from Potrero Boulevard to the HC project depends on the turnover rate by daily HC water demands that can 'consume' the volume of water in the west -most 4th Street 18 -inch deadend pipeline. For the purposes of this analysis, water turnover is proposed every eight (8) hours at average demand. Table 4 summarizes the volume calculations of various lengths of 18 -inch pipe versus HC demand for eight hours. 9IPage
Charles Marr Consulting
562.781.7936

Charles Marr Consulting
Table 4 - Proposed length of Deadend 18 -inch TM in 4th Street Average HC
Domestic Water
Demand
Volume (on
average)
Consumed in
8 hours
Volume of 18 -inch Pipe at...
1000 If
900 If
800 If
700 If
30,000 gpd
10,000 gal
13,220
gal
11,898
gal
10,576
gal
9,254
gal
This shows that the volume stored in approximately 800 linear feet of 18 -inch pipeline is purged by HC demand approximately every eight hours. Therefore, 800 linear feet could be the length of service pipe at the west end of 4th Street within the HC project site. At maximum day demand, approximately three (3) times the length of 18 -inch pipe, or 2,400 linear feet, could be purged by HC demand in 8 hours.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Charlie Marr, P.E.

Charles Marr Consulting
(562) 781-7936
(714) 264-6719 mobile
[email protected]
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2 -
Attachment 3 -
Attachment 4 -
Attachment 5 -
Attachment 6 -
Attachment 7 -
Hidden Canyon Site plan
BCVWD Memorandum — Design of PRV
Fire Flow Analysis
Engineering calculations
Updated Will -serve letter
Additional Fire flow Analyses (for revised report)
Additional Engineering Calculations (for revised report) ec: Bruce McDonald, McDonald Property Group
Brian Thienes, Thienes Engineering, Inc.

Reinhard Stenzel, Thienes Engineering, Inc.
file
Charles Marr Consulting
562.781.7936

101Page

ATTACHMENT 1

Beaumont Pointe Development
Plan of Service —Rev 2
May 2023
#B740
Appendix E — BCVWD Potable Water Utility Exhibit — 2016 Potable Water Master Plan
32

APPROXI MA

BEAUMONT
E LO
POIN

CATION OF THE
TE DEVELOPMENT.

LEGEND
2370 PRESSURE ZONE
® 2520 PRESSURE ZONE
2650 PRESSURE ZONE
2750 PRESSURE ZONE
f 2850 PRESSURE ZONE
I 3040 PRESSURE ZONE
3140 PRESSURE ZONE
3150 PRESSURE ZONE
I 3330 PRESSURE ZONE
3620 PRESSURE ZONE
3900 PRESSURE ZONE
b150 ZON
3620 (UPPER MESA) ZONE I
L_
IM 3159 (LOWER� MESA) ZONE
y I I IIIN LANDS INGS
ONE mI I®I_ �immonirOPNEUM TIC
1=_LE M--71
i,
2750 ZONE
0 =I -O
-I IT.
01Q1 0
2850 ZONE
7 ;.2730] ZONE
2850
2850 ZONE
ZONE
I

WATER MASTER PLAN

BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
1'=1200'
FIGURE 2-1 PRESSURE ZONE MAP
1 OF 1

not to scale

PACE COMMENT

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

THE HIDDEN CANYON

DEVELOPMENT

PACE COMMENT

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
THE BEAUMONT DEVELOPMENT.

NOT TO SCALE

PACE COMMENT

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

THE HIDDEN CANYON

DEVELOPMENT

PACE COMMENT

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
THE BEAUMONT DEVELOPMENT.

Beaumont Pointe Development
Plan of Service —Rev 2
May 2023
#B740
Appendix F — Design of PRV on Fourth Street, 2750 Zone to 2650 Zone 33

DATE:

TO:

September 24, 2019
Dan Jaggers, PE, General Manager
Mark Swanson, PE, Senior Engineer
FROM: Joe Reichenberger PE, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Design of PRV on Fourth St., 2750 Zone to 2650 Zone An EPANET2 computer model was used to analyze the 2650, 2520 and 2370 Pressure Zones which are currently supplied by the Hannon Tank and a large transmission main from the Hannon Tank which runs south and crosses under 1-10 in jacked casing near Desert Lawn Drive and Champions Drive. Also, the 2750 Pressure Zone was modeled to determine the effects of the demands on the 2750 Pressure Zone through the proposed pressure reducing station. The proposed pressure reducing station on Fourth Street will act as a necessary backup and secondary supply during high demand times, e.g., peak hour demands and maximum day demand plus fire flow. The station flows were also analyzed under minimum flows. Two conditions were analyzed: Current (2020) and (projected future) 2030 demands. It is believed that a second 2650 Zone water storage tank will be constructed south of Highway 60 around 2030 or when needed depending on development conditions. In addition, a 2520 Zone tank is anticipated south of 4th Street as shown in the District's Potable Water Master Plan.

Under normal conditions, i.e., other than maximum day demand plus fire flow and peak hour demands, Hannon Tank will be able to meet the demand and provide adequate pressure. It is under the fire flow and peak hour conditions that the pressure regulator is needed to support Hannon Tank. In the analysis, a 4,000 gpm fire flow was assumed for the Hidden Canyon Development area and/or the Olivewood Development area.

Table 1
Range of Flows for Pressure Regulating Station on 4th St. 2020 No
2020 I Hannon
2030
2030 No
Hannon
Average Day, gpm 0 1,962 0 3,512
Maximum Day, gpm 0 3,924 690 7,024
Peak Hour Reduced Peak Factor, gpm 1,998 8,830 6,280 15,803 Mininum Month, gpm 0 1,079 0 1,932
Minimum Flow, gpm 0 432 0 773
Maximum Day plus Fire 1,703 7,524 3,856 11,023
Table 1 was developed from hydraulic model analysis.

Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 2750 to 2650 PRV on 4t" St.

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
1 September 24, 2019

The 2750 Zone is able to provide 6,000 gpm currently, and about 5,500 gpm at the proposed pressure regulating station, based on development conditions in 2030. This is over and above the existing demands in the 2750 Pressure Zone. Table 1, above, shows that the potable water system will be able to meet the demands to approximately 2030. BCVWD believes the demands, particularly those for peak hour are conservative. With regulations requiring reduced outdoor water use, the normal daily peaking factors will most likely be reduced. In the analysis, a peaking factor of 2.25 times the demand on the maximum day was used for the peak hour.

Various analyses were performed with the Hannon Tank being out of service, which would result in all flows to the 2650 and lower pressure zones coming through the proposed pressure regulating station. This would put a large burden on the 2750 Zone which it would not be able to supply at the proposed regulating station. It is very unlikely that Hannon Tank will be out of service for maintenance for an extended duration. The Hannon Tank is a prestressed concrete tank constructed approximately 14 years ago; therefore it is relatively new. The Hannon Tank can be filled with water pumped from Well 29 or from the 2750 Pressure Zone. There is an interconnection between the Well 29 discharge pipeline and the 2650 Pressure Zone. In an emergency, Well 29 could be operated and pumped directly into the system without having Hannon Tank in service.

Based on the range of flows from the model, the pressure regulating station should consist of one 4", and two 8" ClaValves, Model 92-01, Pressure Reducing Valve with Pressure Sustaining Feature, class 150. This combination of sizes meets the minimum requirements and provides adequate capacity to meet the maximum day demand plus fire with the Hannon Tank out of service. A cavitation check indicates that special hardened metallurgy is not required. Table 2 shows the recommended initial valve sizing for the proposed pressure regulating stations.

Table 2
Valve Sizes and Capacities for Pressure Regulating Station on 4th St.

Diameter, Intermittent
in Max gpm Min gpm Max gpm
Valve 1 4 800 4 990
Valve 2 8 3,100 15 3,900
Valve 3 8 3,100 15 6,150
Total 7,000 11,040
The pressure regulating station is designed to be expandable as development occurs in the 2650 and lower pressure zones. The station is designed with a small valve and two larger valves, to accommodate the higher demand and fire flow. The station should be set allowing the small valve to open first, followed in -turn by the larger valves as flows increase.

The pressure sustaining feature is needed to ensure there is adequate pressure in the 2750 Zone at all times. The valves shall be set to maintain a minimum pressure of approximately 70 psi in the 2750 Zone at the pressure reducing valve inlet. This will provide sufficient operating pressure in the 2750 Zone, even with 6,000 gpm going through the regulators. The valves shall be set open when the downstream pressure drops below 2650 hydraulic grade line. The 4 -in valve shall be set to open first, followed by the first 8 -in and then the second 8 -in. The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 2750 to 2650 PRV on 4th St.

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
2 September 24, 2019

maximum pressure on the upstream side of the valve (2750 Zone) is 125 psi. The inlet and outlet pipes should be at least 18 -in diameter. A concept level sketch of the proposed regulating station is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 is NOT TO SCALE. 24"x18" Tee
1 24" or 18" valve
12" riser and
90Ell, Iyp,3
12" Gate
24"
12" Gate
Val, Tvp 3
Main Line
12"x 4"
-Red,-each-
side
8" PRV
12"x 8" Red Ea. Side
Min 5'-2"
24"x18" Tee
— — —
24" or
18" valve
24" ar 18"
12" riser and
90EIl,Tvp3
m
2 c
00 00
24" qr 18"
2 Figure 1
Conceptual Plan for Pressure Regulating Station on 4th Street m
2 The station shall be constructed above ground (not in a vault) adjacent to 4th Street with 24 -inch or 18 -in, below grade, laterals from the 24 -in main line. Each regulator will have a 12 -in diameter riser pipeline from the 24 -inch or 18 -in lateral. Spacing shown allows for future installation of larger regulating valves and provides space for the pilot control systems on the valves.

Other requirements are:

1. Pressure regulating station is to be completely fenced (wrought iron), with a minimum 15 -ft wide access gate and meet City of Beaumont requirements, as applicable

2. Provide paved parking for a BCVWD truck or truck/crane located out of traffic (traveled way) for access, operation, maintenance, and repair of the regulating station.

Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 2750 to 2650 PRV on 4th St.

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
3 September 24, 2019

3. Provide a flow meter (propeller type) on the inlet lateral. Ensure proper straight pipe distances upstream and downstream of the meter for meter accuracy

4. Provide at least 100A, 120v power to the station for: power tools, operational solenoids, flow meter SCADA, etc.

5. Install pressure gauges upstream and downstream of each valve for setting adjustment.

6. Provide space in design for future risers as necessary.

Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 2750 to 2650 PRV on 4th St.

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
4 September 24, 2019

Beaumont Pointe Development
Plan of Service —Rev 2
May 2023
#B740
Appendix G — Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis
34

Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis - February 2023
Beaumont Pointe Dev - Domestic Potable/Non-Potable Water and Fire Dist. System Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Initial Year 1 3 5
Acres 69.10 85.80 77.70
Building Square Feet 1,414,000 1,681,000 1,900,000
Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution Valves''= $ 1,005,144 $ 499,663 $ 303,370 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution Valves"= $ 1,005,144 $ 530,092 $ 341,445 Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution System s' _ $ 4,646,190 $ 2,408,285 $ 1,398,813 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution System s' _ $ 4,646,190 $ 2,554,949 $ 1,574,376 Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution Valves°= 20 years Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution System°= 50 years Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control 0.00% Or Replacement Costs CFD Admin Escalation 2.00%
CFD Interest Earnings 0.05%
Operations and Maintenance (% of Replacement Fund) 10%
2 3
4 Preliminary Draft
Assumed Average Inflation Rate per Year for ENR

3.00%
2023

3.00%
2024

3.00%
2025

3.00%
2026

3.00%
2027

3.00%
2028

3.00%
2029

3.00%
2030
Total Annual Deposits into Reserve
Replacement Funds'
PW/Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves
PW/Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop
Operation and Maintenance Funds
Operations and Maintenance
TM Annual Withdra (Costs) from Res
Replacement Costs
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 1" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 2''' PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 3" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 1'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 2'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 3'''
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
Operation and Maintenance Costs'
Operations and Maintenance
Total Balance In Resery
Anticipated CF119
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Annual Deposit into Reserve
$ 67,561
$ 180,576
$ 69,588
185,994
$ 107,306
$ 290,873
$ 110,526
299,599
$ 136,792
369,776
$ 140,896
380,869
$ 145,123
392,295
$ 149,476
404,064
$ 248,138
$ 24,814
$ 255,582
$ 25,558
$ 398,179
$ 39,818
$ 410,125
$ 41,012
$ 506,568
$ 50,657
$ 521,765
$ 52,176
$ 537,418
$ 53,742
$ 553,540
$ 55,354
$ 24,814
$ 25,558
$ 39,818
$ 41,012
$ 50,657
$ 52,176
$ 53,742
$ 55,354
$ 272,952
$ 281,140
$ 437,997
$ 451,137
$ 557,225
$ 573,941
$ 591,160
$ 608,894
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
$ - $ - $ -
$ 24,814 $ 25,558 $ 39,818
$ -
$ 41,012
$ -
$ 50,657
$ -
$ 52,176
$ - $ -
$ 53,742 $ 55,354
$ 24,814
$ 25,558
$ 39,818
$ 41,012
$ 50,657
$ 52,176
$ 53,742
$ 55,354
$ 24,814
$ 25,558
$ 39,818
$ 41,012
$ 50,657
$ 52,176
$ 53,742
5 55,354
Total Balance m Reserve'
$ 248,138
$ 503,720
$ 901,899
$ 1,312,024
$ 1,818,592
$ 2,340,357
$ 2,877,775
$ 3,431,315
Total Annual Deposit Required for Reserve
CFD Admin
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Industrial SqFt
Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds per SqFt
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds per Acre
Total Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
$ 272,952
10,000
$ 281,140
10,200
$ 437,997
10,404
$ 451,137
10,612
$ 557,225
10,824
$ 573,941
11,041
$ 591,160
11,262
$ 608,894
11,487
$ 282,952
1,414,000
$ 291,340
1,414,000
$ 448,401
3,095,000
$ 461,749
3,095,000
$ 568,049
4,995,000
$ 584,982
4,995,000
$ 602,421
4,995,000
$ 620,381
4,995,000

0.1010
857
$ 142,873
140,078

0.1041
882
$ 147,159
144,181

0.1072
1,501
$ 331,770
116,632

0.1104
1,545
$ 341,723
120,027

0.1137
-
$ 568,049

0.1171
-
$ 584,982

0.1206
-
$ 602,421

0.1242
-
$ 620,381
-
$ 282,952
$ 291,340
$ 448,401
$ 461,749
$ 568,049
$ 584,982
$ 602,421
$ 620,381
Total Anticipacted Annual CFD Withdraw.

Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin
Subtotal
$ 24,814
10,000
$ 25,558
10,200
$ 39,818
10,404
$ 41,012
10,612
$ 50,657
10,824
$ 52,176
11,041
$ 53,742
11,262
$ 55,354
11,18L_7
$ 34,814
$ 35,758
$ 50,222
$ 51,625
$ 61,481
$ 63,217
$ 65,003
$ 66,841
Anticipated CFD Cash Flow
CFD Revenues
Estimated Interest Earnings
Less: Replacement Costs
Total Cumulative Annual CFD Balance
$ 248,138
124
-
$ 503,844
252
-
$ 902,275
451
-
$ 1,312,851
656
-
$ 1,820,076
910
-
AIM
$ 2,342,751
1,171
-
$ 2,881,340
1,441
-
$ 3,436,321
1,718
-
$ 248,262
$ 504,096
$ 902,727
$ 1,313,508
$ 1,820,986
$ 2,343,922
$ 2,882,781
$ 3,438,039
Notes
1 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the just valves on the PW and Fire Distribution Loops. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule by Developer's Research. 2 Line item costs also include the associated asphalt repair costs need to construct the improvements. 3 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the PW and Fire Distribution Loops excluding the costs for valves. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule per Developer. 4 Average useful life of valves and the pipelines assumed to be 20 and 50 years respectively. 5 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation). 6 Annual O&M Costs are based on 10.00% of annual Replacement Funds. 7 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation) spread out through the average useful life of the equipment. Anticipated Replacement Funds escalated by 20 year average f the Engineering News -Record City Cost Index for Los Angeles. Page 1742 of 2269

Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis - February 2023
Beaumont Pointe Dev - Domestic Potable/Non-Potable Water and Fire Dist. S 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Initial Year 1 3 5
Acres 69.10 85.80 77.70
Building Square Feet 1,414,000 1,681,000 1,900,000
Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution Valves''= $ 1,005,144 $ 499,663 $ 303,370 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution Valves'= $ 1,005,144 $ 530,092 $ 341,445 Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution System ''2= $ 4,646,190 $ 2,408,285 $ 1,398,813 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution System $ 4,646,190 $ 2,554,949 $ 1,574,376 Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution Valves°= 20 years Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution System°= 50 years Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control 0.00% Or Replacement Costs CFD Admin Escalation 2.00%
CFD Interest Eamings 0.05%
Operations and Maintenance (% of Replacement Fund) 10%
9 10
12 13 14 15 16
Assumed Average Inflation Rate per Year for ENR

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
Total Annual Deposits into Reserve
Replacement Funds'
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop
$ 153,961 $ 158,579 $ 163,337 $ 168,237 $ 173,284 $ 178,482 $ 183,837 $ 189,352 416,186 428,672 441,532 454,778 468,421 482,474 496,948 511,856 Subtotal $ 570,147 $ 587,251 $ 604,869 $ 623,015 $ 641,705 $ 660,956 $ 680,785 $ 701,208 Operation and Maintenance Funds
Operations and Maintenance $ 57,015 $ 58,725 $ 60,487 $ 62,301 $ 64,171 $ 66,096 $ 68,078 $ 70,121 Subtotal $ 57,015 $ 58,725 $ 60,487 $ 62,301 $ 64,171 $ 66,096 $ 68,078 $ 70,121 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs]s[rom Reserv,,
Replacement Costs
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 1" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 2" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 3" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 1'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 2'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 3'''
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
Operation and Maintenance Costs'
Operations and Maintenance
Total Balance in Resejal
Anticipated
Total Annual Deposit Required for Reserve
CFD Admin
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Industrial SqFt
Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds per SqFt
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds per Acre
Total Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipacted Annual CFD Withdrawls
Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin
Total Annual Deposit into Reserve $ 627,161 $ 645,976 $ 665,355 $ 685,316 $ 705,876 $ 727,052 $ 748,863 $ 771,329 $
Subtotal $
$ 57,015 $ 58,725 $ 60,487 $ 62,301 $ 64,171 $ 66,096 $ 68,078 $ 70,121 Subtotal $ 57,015 $ 58,725 $ 60,487 $ 62,301 $ 64,171 $ 66,096 $ 68,078 $ 70,121 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve $ 57,015 $ 58,725 $ 60,487 $ 62,301 $ 64,171 $ 66,096 $ 68,078 $ 70,12 Total Balance in Reserve' $ 4,001,462 $ 4,588,713 $ 5,193,582 $ 5,816,596 $ 6,458,301 $ 7,119,258 $ 7,800,043 $ 8,501,251 $ 627,161 $ 645,976 $ 665,355 $ 685,316 $ 705,876 $ 727,052 $ 748,863 $ 771,329 11,717 11,951 12,190 12,434 12,682 12,936 13,195 13,459 $ 638,878 $ 657,927 $ 677,545 $ 697,750 $ 718,558 $ 739,988 $ 762,058 $ 784,788 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000

0.1279 0.1317 0.1356 0.1397 0.1439 0.1481 0.1526 0.1571 $ 638,878 $ 657,927 $ 677,545 $ 697,750 $ 718,558 $ 739,988 $ 762,058 $ 784,788 $ 638,878 $ 657,927 $ 677,545 $ 697,750 $ 718,558 $ 739,988 $ 762,058 $ 784,788 $ 57,015 $ 58,725 $ 60,487 $ 62,301 $ 64,171 $ 66,096 $ 68,078 $ 70,121 11,717 11,951 12,190 12,434 12,682 12,936 13,195 13,459 Subtotal $ 68,731 $ 70,676 $ 72,677 $ 74,735 0 76,853 $ 79,032 S 81,273 $ 83,580 Aajdiated CFD Cash Flow
CFD Revenues
Estimated Interest Earnings
Less: Replacement Costs
$ 4,008,186 $ 4,597,441 $ 5,204,608 $ 5,830,225 $ 6,474,846 $ 7,139,039 $ 7,823,394 $ 8,528,514 2,004 2,299 2,602 2,915 3,237 3,570 3,912 4,264
Total Cumulative Annual CFD Balance $ 4,010,190 $ 4,599,740 $ 5,207,211 $ 5,833,140 $ 6,478,083 $ 7,142,609 $ 7,827,305 $ 8,532,778 Notes
1 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the just valves on the PW and Fire Distribution Loops. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule by Developer's Research. 2 Line item costs also include the associated asphalt repair costs need to construct the improvements. 3 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the PW and Fire Distribution Loops excluding the costs for valves. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule per Developer. 4 Average useful life of valves and the pipelines assumed to be 20 and 50 years respectively. 5 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation). 6 Annual O&M Costs are based on 10.00% of annual Replacement Funds. 7 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation) spread out through the average useful life of the equipment. Anticipated Replacement Funds escalated by 20 year average of the Engineerinv News -Record CityCostlndexforLosAngeles. Page 1743 of 2269

Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis - February 2023
Beaumont Pointe Dev - Domestic Potable/Non-Potable Water and Fire Dist. S Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Initial Year 1 3 5
Acres 69.10 85.80 77.70
Building Square Feet 1,414,000 1,681,000 1,900,000
Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution Valves''= $ 1,005,144 $ 499,663 $ 303,370 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution Valves'= $ 1,005,144 $ 530,092 $ 341,445 Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution System ''2= $ 4,646,190 $ 2,408,285 $ 1,398,813 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution System 3' _ $ 4,646,190 $ 2,554,949 $ 1,574,376 Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution Valves°= 20 years Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution System°= 50 years Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control 0.00% Or Replacement Costs CFD Admin Escalation 2.00%
CFD Interest Eamings 0.05%
Operations and Maintenance (% of Replacement Fund) 10%
7 19 20 21 22 23 24
Assumed Average Inflation Rate per Year for ENR
Total Annual Deposits into Reserve
Replacement Funds'
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop
Operation and Maintenance Funds
Operations and Maintenance
Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Rese
Replacement Costs
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 1 PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 2�'3 PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 31'3 PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 1z3
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 22'3
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 32'3
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
Operation and Maintenance Costs'
Operations and Maintenance

3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046
$ 195,033 $ 200,884 $ 206,910 $ 213,117 $ 219,511 $ 226,096 $ 232,879 $ 239,865 527,212 543,029 559,319 576,099 593,382 611,183 629,519 648,404 Subtotal $ 722,245 $ 743,912 $ 766,229 $ 789,216 $ 812,893 $ 837,280 $ 862,398 $ 888,270 $ 72,224 $ 74,391 $ 76,623 $ 78,922 $ 81,289 $ 83,728 $ 86,240 $ 88,827 Subtotal $ 72,224 $ 74,391 $ 76,623 $ 78,922 $ 81,289 $ 83,728 $ 86,240 $ 88,827 Total Annual Deposit into Reserve $ 794,469 $ 818,303 $ 842,852 $ 868,138
$ 894,182
- $ 1,815,401 $
92 008
$ 948,638
$ - $
957,406
$ 977,097
616,688
Subtotal $
$ 1,815,401 $
957,406 $ $ 616,688
$ 72,224 $ 74,391 $ 76,623 $ 78,922 $ 81,289 $ 83,728 $ 86,240 $ 88,827 Subtotal $ 72,224 $ 74,391 $ 76,623 $ 78,922 $ 81,289 $ 83,728 $ 86,240 $ 88,827 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve $ 72,224 $ 74,391 $ 76,623 $ 1,894,323 $ 81,289 $ 1,041,134 $ 86,240 $ 705,515 Total Balance in Re
Anticipate
Total Annual Deposit Required for Reserve
CFD Admin
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Industrial SqFt
Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds per SqFt
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds per Acre
Total Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipaeted Annual CFD Withdrawls
Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin
Total Balance m Reserve'
9,223,496 $ 9,967,408 $ 10,733,637 $ 9,707,452
$ 10,520,345 $
10,400,219 $ 11,262,617 $ 11,534,199
$ 794,469 $ 818,303 $ 842,852 $ 868,138 $ 894,182 $ 921,008 $ 948,638 $ 977,097 13,728 14,002 14,282 14,568 14,859 15,157 15,460 15,769 $ 808,197 $ 832,306 $ 857,135 $ 882,706 $ 909,042 $ 936,164 $ 964,098 $ 992,866 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000

0.1618 0.1666 0.1716 0.1767 0.1820 0.1874 0.1930 0.1988 $ 808,197 $ 832,306 $ 857,135 $ 882,706 $ 909,042 $ 936,164 $ 964,098 $ 992,866 $ 808,197 $ 832,306 $ 857,135 $ 882,706 $ 909,042 $ 936,164 $ 964,098 $ 992,866 $ 72,224 $ 74,391 $ 76,623 $ 78,922 $ 81,289 $ 83,728 $ 86,240 $ 88,827 13,728 14,002 14,282 14,568 14,859 15,157 15,460 15,769 Subtotal $ 85,952 $ 88,394 $ 90,905 $ 93,490 $ 96,149 $ 98,885 $ 101,700 $ 104,596 Apjlfjpated CFD Cash Flow i
CFD Revenues
Estimated Interest Earnings
Less: Replacement Costs
$ 9,255,023 $ 10,003,562 $ 10,774,794 $ 11,569,397 $ 10,572,673 $ 11,415,239 $ 11,325,939 $ 12,219,872 4,628 5,002 5,387 5,785 5,286 5,708 5,663 6,110
(1,815,401) - (957,406) - (616,688
780,181 $ 9,759,781 $ 10,577,960 $ 10,463,541 $ 11,331,602 $ 11,609,294 Total Cumulative Annual CFD Balance $ 9,259,650 $ 10,008,564 $ 10 Notes
1 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the just valves on the PW and Fire Distribution Loops. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule by Developer's Research. 2 Line item costs also include the associated asphalt repair costs need to construct the improvements. 3 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the PW and Fire Distribution Loops excluding the costs for valves. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule per Developer. 4 Average useful life of valves and the pipelines assumed to be 20 and 50 years respectively. 5 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation). 6 Annual O&M Costs are based on 10.00% of annual Replacement Funds. 7 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation) spread out through the average useful life of the equipment. Anticipated Replacement Funds escalated by 20 year average of the Engineering_ News -Record CityCostlndexforLosAngeles. Page 1744 44 of 2269

Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis - February 2023
Beaumont Pointe Dev - Domestic Potable/Non-Potable Water and Fire Dist. S 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Initial Year 1 3 5
Acres 69.10 85.80 77.70
Building Square Feet 1,414,000 1,681,000 1,900,000
Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution Valves''= $ 1,005,144 $ 499,663 $ 303,370 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution Valves'= $ 1,005,144 $ 530,092 $ 341,445 Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution System ''2= $ 4,646,190 $ 2,408,285 $ 1,398,813 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution System $ 4,646,190 $ 2,554,949 $ 1,574,376 Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution Valves°= 20 years Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution System°= 50 years Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control 0.00% Or Replacement Costs CFD Admin Escalation 2.00%
CFD Interest Eamings 0.05%
Operations and Maintenance (% of Replacement Fund) 10%
25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32
Assumed Average Inflation Rate per Year for ENR

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%
2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054
Total Annual Deposits into Reserve
Replacement Funds'
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop
Operation and Maintenance Funds
Operations and Maintenance
Total Annual Withdraws (Costs]s[rom Reserv.,
Replacement Costs
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 1" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 2" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 3" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 1'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 2'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 3'''
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
Operation and Maintenance Costs'
Operations and Maintenance
Total Balance in Re
Anticipated
Total Annual Deposit Required for Reserve
CFD Admin
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Industrial SqFt
Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds per SqFt
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds per Acre
Total Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipacted Annual CFD Withdrawls
Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin
Subtotal
$ 247,061 $ 254,473 $ 262,107 $ 269,971 $ 278,070 $ 286,412 $ 295,004 $ 303,854 667,857 687,892 708,529 729,785 751,678 774,229 797,456 821,379 $ 914,918 $
942,366 $
970,637 $
999,756
$ 1,029,748 $
1,060,641
$ 1,092,460 $ 1,125,234
$ 91,492 $ 94,237 $ 97,064 $ 99,976 $ 102,975 $ 106,064 $ 109,246 $ 112,523 Subtotal $ 91,492 $ 94,237 $ 97,064 $ 99,976 $ 102,975 $ 106,064 $ 109,246 $ 112,523 Total Annual Deposit into Reserve $ 1,006,410 $ 1,036,602 $ 1,067,700 $ 1,099,731 $ 1,132,723 $ 1,166,705 $ 1,201,706 $ 1,237,757 Subtotal $
$ 91,492 $ 94,237 $ 97,064 $ 99,976 $ 102,975 $ 106,064 $ 109,246 $ 112,523 Subtotal $ 91,492 $ 94,237 $ 97,064 $ 99,976 $ 102,975 $ 106,064 $ 109,246 $ 112,523 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve $ 91,492 $ 94,237 $ 97,064 $ 99,976 $ 102,975 $ 106,064 $ 109,246 $ 112,523 Total Balance in Reserve' $ 12,449,117 $ 13,391,482 $ 14,362,119 $ 15,361,874 $ 16,391,623 $ 17,452,263 $ 18,544,723 $ 19,669,957 $ 1,006,410 $ 1,036,602 $ 1,067,700 $ 1,099,731 $ 1,132,723 $ 1,166,705 $ 1,201,706 $ 1,237,757 16,084 16,406 16,734 17,069 17,410 17,758 18,114 18,476 $ 1,022,494 $ 1,053,008 $ 1,084,434 $ 1,116,800 $ 1,150,133 $ 1,184,463 $ 1,219,820 $ 1,256,233 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000

0.2047 0.2108 0.2171 0.2236 0.2303 0.2371 0.2442 0.2515 $ 1,022,494 $ 1,053,008 $ 1,084,434 $ 1,116,800 $ 1,150,133 $ 1,184,463 $ 1,219,820 $ 1,256,233 $ 1,022,494 $ 1,053,008 $ 1,084,434 $ 1,116,800 $ 1,150,133 $ 1,184,463 $ 1,219,820 $ 1,256,233 $ 91,492 $ 94,237 $ 97,064 $ 99,976 $ 102,975 $ 106,064 $ 109,246 $ 112,523 16,084 16,406 16,734 17,069 17,410 17,758 18,114 18,476 Subtotal $ 107,576 $ 110,643 $ 113,798 5 117,044 5 120,385 5 123,823 5 127,360 $ 130,999 Aakjpated CFD Cash Flow i
CFD Revenues
Estimated Interest Earnings
Less: Replacement Costs
$ 12,524,212 $ 13,472,840 $ 14,450,212 $ 15,457,193 $ 16,494,670 $ 17,563,558 $ 18,664,800 $ 19,799,366 6,262 6,736 7,225 7,729 8,247 8,782 9,332 9,900
Total Cumulative Annual CFD Balance $ 12,530,474 $ 13,479,576 $ 14,457,438 $ 15,464,922 $ 16,502,917 $ 17,572,340 $ 18,674,132 $ 19,809,266 Notes
1 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the just valves on the PW and Fire Distribution Loops. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule by Developer's Research. 2 Line item costs also include the associated asphalt repair costs need to construct the improvements. 3 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the PW and Fire Distribution Loops excluding the costs for valves. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule per Developer. 4 Average useful life of valves and the pipelines assumed to be 20 and 50 years respectively. 5 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation). 6 Annual O&M Costs are based on 10.00% of annual Replacement Funds. 7 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation) spread out through the average useful life of the equipment. Anticipated Replacement Funds escalated by 20 year average of the Engineerinv News -Record CityCostlndexforLosAngeles. Page 1745 of 2269

Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis - February 2023
Beaumont Pointe Dev - Domestic Potable/Non-Potable Water and Fire Dist. S 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Initial Year 1 3 5
Acres 69.10 85.80 77.70
Building Square Feet 1,414,000 1,681,000 1,900,000
Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution Valves''= $ 1,005,144 $ 499,663 $ 303,370 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution Valves'= $ 1,005,144 $ 530,092 $ 341,445 Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution System "= $ 4,646,190 $ 2,408,285 $ 1,398,813 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution System $ 4,646,190 $ 2,554,949 $ 1,574,376 Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution Valves°= 20 years Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution System°= 50 years Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control 0.00% Or Replacement Costs CFD Admire Escalation 2.00%
CFD Interest Eamings 0.05%
Operations and Maintenance (% of Replacement Fund) 10%
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Assumed Average Inflation Rate per Year for ENR

3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062
Total Annual Deposits into Reserve
Replacement Funds'
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop
$ 312,970 $ 322,359 $ 332,030 $ 341,991 $ 352,251 $ 362,818 $ 373,703 $ 384,914 846,021 871,401 897,543 924,470 952,204 980,770 1,010,193 1,040,499 Subtotal $ 1,158,991 $ 1,193,760 $ 1,229,573 $ 1,266,461 $ 1,304,454 $ 1,343,588 $ 1,383,896 $ 1,425,412 Operation and Maintenance Funds
Operations and Maintenance $ 115,899 $ 119,376 $ 122,957 $ 126,646 $ 130,445 $ 134,359 $ 138,390 $ 142,541 Subtotal $ 115,899 $ 119,376 $ 122,957 $ 126,646 $ 130,445 $ 134,359 $ 138,390 $ 142,541 Total Annual Withdraws (Costslkom Reserv,,
Replacement Costs
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 1" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 2" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 3" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 1'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 2'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 3'''
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
Operation and Maintenance Costs'
Operations and Maintenance
Total Annual Deposit into Reserve $ 1,274,890 $ 1,313,137 $ 1,352,531 $ 1,393,107 $ 1,434,900 $ 1,477,947 $ 1,522,285 $ 1,567,954 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278,817
Subtotal $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 3,278,817
$ 115,899 $ 119,376 $ 122,957 $ 126,646 $ 130,445 $ 134,359 $ 138,390 $ 142,541 Subtotal $ 115,899 $ 119,376 $ 122,957 $ 126,646 $ 130,445 $ 134,359 $ 138,390 $ 142,541 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve $ 115,899 $ 119,376 $ 122,957 $ 126,646 $ 130,445 $ 134,359 $ 138,390 $ 3,421,358 Total Balance in Rescial
Total Balance in Reserve' $ 20,828,948 $ 22,022,708 $ 23,252,282 $ 24,518,742 $ 25,823,197 $ 27,166,785 $ 28,550,680 $ 26,697,276 Anticipated
Total Annual Deposit Required for Reserve
CFD Admin
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Industrial SqFt
Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds per SqFt
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds per Acre
Total Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipacted Annual CFD Withdrawls
Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin
$ 1,274,890 $ 1,313,137 $ 1,352,531 $ 1,393,107 $ 1,434,900 $ 1,477,947 $ 1,522,285 $ 1,567,954 18,845 19,222 19,607 19,999 20,399 20,807 21,223 21,647 $ 1,293,735 $ 1,332,359 $ 1,372,137 $ 1,413,105 $ 1,455,299 $ 1,498,754 $ 1,543,508 $ 1,589,601 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000

0.2590 0.2667 0.2747 0.2829 0.2914 0.3001 0.3090 0.3182 $ 1,293,735 $ 1,332,359 $ 1,372,137 $ 1,413,105 $ 1,455,299 $ 1,498,754 $ 1,543,508 $ 1,589,601 $ 1,293,735 $ 1,332,359 $ 1,372,137 $ 1,413,105 $ 1,455,299 $ 1,498,754 $ 1,543,508 $ 1,589,601 $ 115,899 $ 119,376 $ 122,957 $ 126,646 $ 130,445 $ 134,359 $ 138,390 $ 142,541 18,845 19,222 19,607 19,999 20,399 20,807 21,223 21,647 Subtotal $ 134,744 $ 138,598 $ 142,564 $ 146,645 $ 150,844 $ 155,166 $ 159,613 $ 164,189 Aajdiated CFD Cash Flow i
CFD Revenues $ 20,968,257 $ 22,172,501 $ 23,413,161 $ 24,691,328 $ 26,008,128 $ 27,364,720 $ 28,762,298 $ 30,202,091 Estimated Interest Earnings 10,484 11,086 11,707 12,346 13,004 13,682 14,381 15,101 Less: Replacement Costs - - - - - - - (3,278,817)
Total Cumulative Annual CFD Balance $ 20,978,741 $ 22,183,587 $ 23,424,867 $ 24,703,673 $ 26,021,132 $ 27,378,402 $ 28,776,679 $ 26,938,376 Notes
1 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the just valves on the PW and Fire Distribution Loops. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule by Developer's Research. 2 Line item costs also include the associated asphalt repair costs need to construct the improvements. 3 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the PW and Fire Distribution Loops excluding the costs for valves. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule per Developer. 4 Average useful life of valves and the pipelines assumed to be 20 and 50 years respectively. 5 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation). 6 Annual O&M Costs are based on 10.00% of annual Replacement Funds. 7 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation) spread out through the average useful life of the equipment. Anticipated Replacement Funds escalated by 20 year average of the Engineerinv News -Record CityCostlndexforLosAngeles. Page 1746 of 2269

Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis - February 2023
Beaumont Pointe Dev - Domestic Potable/Non-Potable Water and Fire Dist. S 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Initial Year 1 3 5
Acres 69.10 85.80 77.70
Building Square Feet 1,414,000 1,681,000 1,900,000
Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution Valves''= $ 1,005,144 $ 499,663 $ 303,370 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution Valves'= $ 1,005,144 $ 530,092 $ 341,445 Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution System ''2= $ 4,646,190 $ 2,408,285 $ 1,398,813 Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution System $ 4,646,190 $ 2,554,949 $ 1,574,376 Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution Valves°= 20 years Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution System°= 50 years Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control 0.00% Or Replacement Costs CFD Admire Escalation 2.00%
CFD Interest Eamings 0.05%
Operations and Maintenance (% of Replacement Fund) 10%
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Assumed Average Inflation Rate per Year for ENR

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%

3.00% 3.00%
2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070
Total Annual Deposits into Reserve
Replacement Funds'
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop
Subtotal
$ 396,461 $ 408,355 $ 420,606 $ 433,224 $ 446,220 $ 459,607 $ 473,395 $ 487,597 1,071,714 1,103,865 1,136,981 1,171,091 1,206,223 1,242,410 1,279,682 1,318,073 $ 1,468,175 $ 1,512,220 $ 1,557,587 $ 1,604,314 $ 1,652,444 $ 1,702,017 $ 1,753,078 $ 1,805,670 Operation and Maintenance Funds
Operations and Maintenance $ 146,817 $ 151,222 $ 155,759 $ 160,431 $ 165,244 $ 170,202 $ 175,308 $ 180,567 Subtotal $ 146,817 $ 151,222 $ 155,759 $ 160,431 $ 165,244 $ 170,202 $ 175,308 $ 180,567 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs]s[rom Reserv,,
Replacement Costs
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 1 " PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 2" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 3" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 1'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 2'''
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 3'''
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
Operation and Maintenance Costs'
Operations and Maintenance
Total Balance in Rescial
Total Annual Deposit into Reserve $ 1,614,992 $ 1,663,442 $ 1,713,345 $ 1,764,746 $ 1,817,688 $ 1,872,219 $ 1,928,385 $ 1,986,237 1,729,181
1,113,807
Subtotal $
$ 1,729,181 $ $ 1,113,807 $
$ 146,817 $ 151,222 $ 155,759 $ 160,431 $ 165,244 $ 170,202 $ 175,308 $ 180,567 Subtotal $ 146,817 $ 151,222 $ 155,759 $ 160,431 $ 165,244 $ 170,202 $ 175,308 $ 180,567 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve $ 146,817 $ 1,880,403 $ 155,759 $ 1,274,239 $ 165,244 $ 170,202 $ 175,308 $ 180,567 Total Balance in Reserve' $ 28,165,451 $ 27,948,489 $ 29,506,076 $ 29,996,583 $ 31,649,027 $ 33,351,044 $ 35,104,121 $ 36,909,791 Anticipated
Total Annual Deposit Required for Reserve
CFD Admin
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Industrial SqFt
Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds per SqFt
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds per Acre
Total Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipacted Annual CFD Withdrawls
Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin
$ 1,614,992 $ 1,663,442 $ 1,713,345 $ 1,764,746 $ 1,817,688 $ 1,872,219 $ 1,928,385 $ 1,986,237 22,080 22,522 22,972 23,432 23,901 24,379 24,866 25,363 $ 1,637,073 $ 1,685,964 $ 1,736,318 $ 1,788,178 $ 1,841,589 $ 1,896,597 $ 1,953,251 $ 2,011,600 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000

0.3277 0.3375 0.3476 0.3580 0.3687 0.3797 0.3910 0.4027 $ 1,637,073 $ 1,685,964 $ 1,736,318 $ 1,788,178 $ 1,841,589 $ 1,896,597 $ 1,953,251 $ 2,011,600 $ 1,637,073 $ 1,685,964 $ 1,736,318 $ 1,788,178 $ 1,841,589 $ 1,896,597 $ 1,953,251 $ 2,011,600 $ 146,817 $ 151,222 $ 155,759 $ 160,431 $ 165,244 $ 170,202 $ 175,308 $ 180,567 22,080 22,522 22,972 23,432 23,901 24,379 24,866 25,363 Subtotal $ 168,898 $ 173,744 $ 178,731 1 183,863 1 189,145 1 194,580 $ 200,174 $ 205,930 Aajjjpated CFD Cash Flow i
CFD Revenues $ 28,406,550 $ 29,932,974 $ 29,776,346 $ 31,395,548 $ 31,949,882 $ 33,667,874 $ 35,437,786 $ 37,261,174 Estimated Interest Earnings 14,203 14,966 14,888 15,698 15,975 16,834 17,719 18,631 Less: Replacement Costs - (1,729,181) - (1,113,807) - - - - Total Cumulative Annual CFD Balance $ 28,420,754 $ 28,218,759 $ 29,791,234 $ 30,297,438 $ 31,965,857 $ 33,684,708 $ 35,455,505 $ 37,279,805 Notes
1 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the just valves on the PW and Fire Distribution Loops. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule by Developer's Research. 2 Line item costs also include the associated asphalt repair costs need to construct the improvements. 3 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the PW and Fire Distribution Loops excluding the costs for valves. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule per Developer. 4 Average useful life of valves and the pipelines assumed to be 20 and 50 years respectively. 5 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation). 6 Annual O&M Costs are based on 10.00% of annual Replacement Funds. 7 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation) spread out through the average useful life of the equipment. Anticipated Replacement Funds escalated by 20 year average of the Engineerinv News -Record City Cost Index for Los Angeles. Page 1747 of 2269

Preliminary Cash Flow Analysis - February 2023
Beaumont Pointe Dev - Domestic Potable/Non-Potable Water and Fire Dist. Systems Initial Year
Acres
Building Square Feet
Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution Valves 'r= Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution Valves L2 - Estimated Yearly 2022 Base Bid Costs - Distribution System t'2 _ Estimated Yearly Escalated Bid Costs - Distribution System s'� _ Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution Valves"
Assumed Average Useful Life - Distribution System'
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
CFD Admire Escalation
CFD Interest Earnings
Operations and Maintenance (% of Replacement Fund)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
1 3 5

69.10 85.80 77.70
1,414,000 1,681,000 1,900,000
$ 1,005,144 $ 499,663 $ 303,370
$ 1,005,144 $ 530,092 $ 341,445
$ 4,646,190 $ 2,408,285 $ 1,398,813
$ 4,646,190 $ 2,554,949 $ 1,574,376
20 years
50 years

0.00% Or Replacement Costs

2.00%

0.05%
10%
49 50
5 52
53 54
Assumed Average Inflation Rate per Year for ENR
Total Annual Deposits into Reserve

3.00%
2071

3.00%
2072

3.00%
2073

3.00%
2074

3.00%
2075

3.00%
2076
Replacement Funds'
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop
Operation and Maintenance Funds
Operations and Maintenance
Mpl Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve
Replacement Costs
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 1'3 PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 2" PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop - Just Valves Phase 3'3 PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 1''s
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 2''s
PW / Non-PW and Fire Distribution Loop Phase 3r's
Repair and Replace Asphalt and Traffic Control
Operation and Maintenance Costs'
Operations and Maintenance
$ 502,225 $ 517,292 $ 532,811 $ 548,795 $ 565,259 $ 582,216 1,357,615 1,398,343 1,440,294 1,483,503 1,528,008 1,573,848 Subtotal $
1,859,840 $ 1,915,635 $ 1,973,104 $ 2,032,297 $ 2,093,266 $ 2,156,064 $ 185,984 $ 191,564 $ 197,310 $ 203,230 $ 209,327 $ 215,606 Subtotal $ 185,984 $ 191,564 $ 197,310 $ 203,230 $ 209,327 $ 215,606 Total Annual Deposit into Reserve $ 2,045,824 $ 2,107,199 $ 2,170,415 $ 2,235,527 $ 2,302,593 $ 2,371,671 $
- 20,368,460
$
$
11,200,657
$
$
6,901,916
Subtotal $
- $ 20,368,460 $ - $ 11,200,657 $
$ 6,901,916
$ 185,984 $ 191,564 $ 197,310 $ 203,230 $ 209,327 $ 215,606 Subtotal $ 185,984 $ 191,564 $ 197,310 $ 203,230 $ 209,327 $ 215,606 Total Annual Withdraws (Costs) from Reserve $ 185,984 $ 20,560,024 $ 197,310 $ 11,403,887 $ 209,327 $ 7,117,523 Total Balance in Resew,
Total Balance in Reserve' $ 38,769,631 $ 20,316,806 $ 22,289,910 $ 13,121,551 $ 15,214,817 $ 10,468,965 Anticipated C
Total Annual Deposit Required for Reserve
CFD Admin
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Industrial SqFt
Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds per SqFt
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds per Acre
Total Anticipated Developed CFD Proceeds
Anticipated Undeveloped CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipated Annual CFD Proceeds
Total Anticipacted Annual CFD Withdrawls
Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin
$ 2,045,824 $ 2,107,199 $ 2,170,415 $ 2,235,527 $ 2,302,593 $ 2,371,671 25,871 26,388 26,916 27,454 28,003 28,563
$ 2,071,695 $ 2,133,587 $ 2,197,331 $ 2,262,981 $ 2,330,596 $ 2,400,234 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000

0.4148 0.4271 0.4399 0.4530 0.4666 0.4805
$ 2,071,695 $ 2,133,587 $ 2,197,331 $ 2,262,981 $ 2,330,596 $ 2,400,234 $ 2,071,695 $ 2,133,587 $ 2,197,331 $ 2,262,981 $ 2,330,596 $ 2,400,234 $ 185,984 $ 191,564 $ 197,310 $ 203,230 $ 209,327 $ 215,606 25,871 26,388 26,916 27,454 28,003 28,563
Subtotal $ 211,855 $ 217,952 $ 224,226 $ 230,684 $ 237,330 $ 244,170 Anticipated CFD Cash Flow
CFD Revenues $ 39,139,645 $ 41,074,850 $ 22,700,031 $ 24,743,679 $ 15,648,660 $ 17,812,548 Estimated Interest Earnings 19,570 20,537 11,350 12,372 7,824 8,906 Less: Replacement Costs - (20,368,460) - (11,200,657) - (6,901,916) Total Cumulative Annual CFD Balance $ 39,159,215 $ 20,726,927 $ 22,711,381 $ 13,555,394 $ 15,656,484 $ 10,919,538 Notes
1 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the just valves on the PW and Fire Distribution Loops. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule by Developer's Research. 2 Line item costs also include the associated asphalt repair costs need to construct the improvements. 3 Estimated 2022 bid costs for the PW and Fire Distribution Loops excluding the costs for valves. Line item costs taken from the 5/26/2022 Beaumont Pointe Cost Detail Schedule per Developer. 4 Average useful life of valves and the pipelines assumed to be 20 and 50 years respectively. 5 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation). 6 Annual O&M Costs are based on 10.00% of annual Replacement Funds. 7 Total replacement funds are based on the future replacement costs (adjusted for inflation) spread out through the average useful life of the equipment. Anticipated Replacement Funds escalated by 2Qy ge 4 8 Engineering_ errin
News -Record City Cost Index for Los Angeles. Page

Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared for the
JRT BP1, LLC
' _,,,...,,,:"1.....:

BEAUMONT
August 2023
Prepared By:

DPFG

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & FINANCING GROUP

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Beaumont Pointe Business Park

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
Page

1. Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis 3

2. Project Description 3

3. Executive Summary 4

4. FIA Recurring Revenues 5

4.1 Property Taxes 5

4.2 Property Taxes In -Lieu of MVLF 6

4.3 Sales Taxes 6

4.3.1 Transient Occupancy Taxes 6

4.3.2 Commercial Retail Sales Taxes 6

4.4 Other Revenues 6

5. FIA Recurring Costs 7

5.1 Non Departmental 7

5.3 Community Development 7

5.5 Public Safety 7

5.6 Public Works 8

6. Limiting Conditions 8

7. General Sources of Information and FIA Methodology 9 Appendix A: Project Maps
Appendix B: Detailed Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix C: Time -Phased Fiscal Impact Analysis (Term of City Forecast) 2

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan

1. Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis
Representatives of JRT BP1, LLC have requested that DPFG, LLC. ("DPFG") prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis ("FIA") to estimate the annual recurring net fiscal impact that the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan ("Project") is anticipated to have on the City of Beaumont, California's ("City") General Fund at the Project's buildout, as well as its cumulative impact in the 20 years after buildout, if it were to be annexed into the City. Please note that the FIA is subject to limiting conditions outlined in this Report.

2. Project Description
The proposed Project is an employment and retail entertainment development which at buildout is anticipated to include approximately 246,000 square feet of general commercial uses, a 125 -room hotel, and approximately 4,995,000 square feet of industrial and warehouse uses in five buildings ranging in size from 600,000 and 1,400,000 square feet.

Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan (SP2019-0003)
The Project includes approximately 539.9 gross acres that are predominantly located just outside the City of Beaumont in the Unincorporated Area of the County of Riverside, between Moreno Valley and Beaumont, adjacent to Jack Rabbit Trail and below SR -60. The Project is within the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, which provides for the development of up to 539.9 acres comprising of 30.2 acres of General Commercial uses, approximately 232.6 acres of Industrial uses, and approximately 277.1 acres of Open Space. It is estimated that the Project will include an additional approximately 4,995,000 square feet of industrial uses, approximately 246,000 square feet of general commercial uses, and a 125 -room hotel upon buildout. A summary of the Project's land use assumptions is shown on the next page in Table -1, while the site plan is included in Appendix A-1. 3

August 2023
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Table -1
Beaumont Pointe Land Use Assumptions
Industrial
Probable Tenant Type
Bldg. SF (a)
Estimated Assessed
Total Assessed
Value per SF (b)
Value
Industrial (Self Storage) - PA 3
35,000
$
295
$ 10,325,000
Industrial Building 1- PA 4
1,379,000
295
406,805,000
Industrial Building 2- PA 5
981,000
295
289,395,000
Industrial Building 3- PA 6
700,000
295
206,500,000
Industrial Building 4- PA 7
600,000
295
177,000,000
Industrial Building 5- PA 8
1,300,000
295
383,500,000
Subtotal Industrial
4,995,000
$
295
$ 1,473,525,000
Commercial
Probable Tenant Type
Bldg. SF (a)
Estimated Assessed
Value per SF (b)
Total Assessed
Value
General Commercial
Restaurant
216,000
30,000
227
227
49,032,000
6,810,000
Subtotal Commercial Retail
246,000
$ 227
$ 55,842,000
Hospitality
Description
Estimated Assessed Total Assessed
Number of Rooms
Value per Room Value
Hotel
125
248,000
31, 000, 000
Total Project Assessed Value
$ 1,560,367,000
Footnotes:
(a) Per Developer and Beaumont Point Specific Plan. Represents maximum allowable building square footage.
(b) Per Developer.

3. Executive Summary
It is estimated that the Project, at buildout, if annexed into the City, would generate a positive annual recurring net fiscal impact to the City General Fund of $1,596,439. It is estimated that the Project will generate a positive net fiscal impact to the City General Fund of $24,850,643 over the 20 years after buildout as detailed in Table -2 on the following page.

Table -2
4

August 2023
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Beaumont Pointe Net Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary
Fiscal Impact Summary
Recurring Annual Revenues:

Property Taxes
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
Transient Occupancy Taxes
On -Site Sales Tax Revenue
Other Recurring Revenues
Total Annual Revenues
Recurring Annual Expenditures:

Non -Departmental
Administration
Community Development
Community Services
Public Safety
Public Works
Total Annual Expenditures:

Buildout (a)
$ 523,038
1,476,082
547,500
453,000
554,731
Buildout + 20 Yrs (b)
$ 12,708,439
35,864,922
12,055,405
11,006,709
13,478,502
$ 3,554,351 $ 85,113,976
$ - $
226,753
77,875
167,679
1,235,317
250,287
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
- Table 10
6,092,928 Table 10
2,092,538 Table 10
4,505,604 Table 10
40,846,946 Table 10
6,725,317 Table 10
$ 1,957,912 $ 60,263,333
Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $ 1,596,439 $ 24,850,643 Footnotes:
(a) Anticipated revenues are shown in 2023-2024 dollars. (b) 20 year projection assumes the sum of all 20 years assuming a 1% growth per year in Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue and a 2% growth per year for all other revenue categories for 20 years.

Expenditures assume a 5% Public Safety escalation with the remaining expenditures increasing at 3% per year for 20 years. Escalation factors per City of Beaumont.

Using the same escalation assumptions in the Buildout + 20 Yrs summary in Table 2 an annual time - phased analysis was prepared consistent with the term of the City forecast of sixteen years. This analysis includes the anticipated absorption of the project over 5 years and is included in Appendix C.

4. FIA Recurring Revenues
The revenue estimates in this section utilize the Equivalent Resident approach, with the exception of property and sales taxes which are estimated from the number of commercial square feet, industrial square feet, and number of hotel rooms developed, as shown in detail in Appendix B.

4.1 Property Taxes
In addition to the other ad valorem chargers imposed by various local agencies, landowners in the State of California are required to pay annual property taxes of 1% on the assessed value of their 5

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
property pursuant to Proposition 13. Each county in California is divided into tax rate areas ("TRA").

After the basic 1% property tax is collected by the County, the tax is allocated to various local agencies based on their respective share of the basic tax within the applicable TRA. Due to the Project being located within multiple TRA's, this analysis calculates a weighted average percentage of the share of the basic tax that would be allocated to the City if the Project were to be annexed. Property taxes are estimated by applying estimated assessed values to the number of commercial square feet, industrial square feet, and hotel rooms built within the Project. If it were to be annexed into the City, the Project is estimated to generate $523,038 in annual recurring revenues at buildout and $12,708,439 in cumulative annual revenues during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B Table 4.

4.2 Property Taxes In -Lieu of MVLF
In May 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a swap of city and county VLF revenue for additional property tax share as part of a budget agreement between the State and local governments.

The swap was included in the 2004 budget package. Under this legislation, property tax in -lieu of VLF is allocated to Cities and Counties pursuant to a complex formula involving each agencies relative share of assessed value. The property tax in -lieu of VLF revenue that will be generated by the Project can be estimated by determining the (i) percentage growth in the total assessed value of the City attributable to the Project and multiplying by (ii) the property tax in -lieu of VLF revenue of $6,762,693 expected to be received by the City in FY 2023-24 per the City Budget. Based on these calculations, the Project is anticipated to generate $1,476,082 in annual recurring revenue at buildout and $35,864,922 in cumulative annual revenues during the 20 years after buildout, as shown in Appendix B Table 5.

4.3 Sales Taxes

4.3.1 Transient Occupancy Taxes
Lodging Taxes are estimated from the number of hotel rooms built within the Project. Lodging tax revenues of 10.0% on all hotel rooms rented within the Project are collected by the City. This revenue estimate utilizes a 125 -room hotel, an average hotel room rate of $160 and an occupancy rate of

75.0%. Based on the total hotel lodging taxes, if it were to be annexed into the City, the Project is estimated to generate $547,500 in annual recurring revenue at buildout and $12,055,405 in cumulative annual revenues during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B Table 6.

4.3.2 Commercial Retail Sales Taxes
Commercial retail sales taxes are estimated from the number of square feet of retail space built within the Project. If it were to be annexed into the City, the Project is estimated to generate $453,000 in annual recurring revenue at buildout. If it were to be annexed into the City, the Project is anticipated to generate $11,006,709 in cumulative annual revenue during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B Table 7.

4.4 Other Revenues
The City receives revenues from other budgetary items for which case studies were not conducted upon. These revenues are in the form of Other Taxes, Licenses, Permits, and Fees, Charges for 6

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Service, Fines and Forfeitures, Cost Recovery, and Miscellaneous Revenue. Other Revenues are estimated using the estimated Project Equivalent Residents of 2,622. The Project is estimated to generate $554,731 in annual recurring revenue at buildout and $13,478,502 in cumulative annual revenues during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix Table 8.

5. FIA Recurring Costs
The cost estimates in this section utilize the Equivalent Resident approach, as shown in detail in Appendix B.

5.1 Non Departmental
Transfers Out are the only expense that makes up the Non -Departmental cost category. Costs are estimated using a Per Capita & 50% Employee Multiplier. This analysis assumes that 0% of the non -Departmental costs for Transfers Out are estimated to be impacted by the Project. The Project is estimated to generate $0 in annual recurring costs at buildout and $0 in cumulative annual costs during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B, Table 9.

5.2 Administration
The Administration cost category includes all expenses incurred by the City for Administrative services, City Council, City Clerk, Administration, Communication, IT Department, Risk and Human Resources, Legal services, and Finance and Budgeting. Costs are estimated by using a Per Capita & 50% Employee Multiplier, and 50.0% of the budgeted costs are estimated to be impacted by the Project. The Project is estimated to generate $226,753 in annual recurring costs at buildout and $6,092,928 in cumulative annual costs during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B, Table 9.

5.3 Community Development
The Community Development cost category includes all expenses related to the Planning Department, Community Enhancement, Building and Safety, and Economic Development, and is responsible for administering the City's planning and construction and code regulation programs.

Costs are estimated using a Per Capita & 50% Employee Multiplier, and 50.0% of the budgeted costs are estimated to be impacted by the Project. The Project is estimated to generate $77,875 in annual recurring costs at buildout and $2,092,538 in cumulative annual costs during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B, Table 9.

5.4 Community Services
The Community Services cost category includes expenses related to maintenance of parks, trails, and open space, maintenance of City owned facilities, and manages recreational operations and programs. Costs are estimated using a Per Capita & 50% Employee Multiplier, and 50.0% of the budgeted costs are estimated to be impacted by the Project. The Project is estimated to generate $167,679 in annual recurring costs at buildout and $4,505,604 in cumulative annual costs during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B, Table 9.

5.5 Public Safety
The Public Safety cost category includes expenses related to providing quality law enforcement, Fire Protection, animal control, and emergency management services in the most effective and 7

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
efficient manner possible. A majority of the costs are related to personnel expenses and operating expenses. This analysis has also modified the Fire costs from an original budgeted amount of $6,820,202 to a total of $11,396,728 which includes an anticipated $4,576,526 for a fire contract to operate an additional fire station. Costs are estimated using a Per Capita & 50% Employee Multiplier, and 100% of the budgeted costs are estimated to be impacted by the Project. The Project is estimated to generate $1,235,317 in annual recurring costs at buildout and $40,846,946 in cumulative annual costs during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B, Table 9.

5.6 Public Works
The Public Works cost category includes expenses related to the Public Works Department and the Street Maintenance Department for providing cost effective infrastructure and services to promote public health. Costs are estimated using a Per Capita & 50% Employee Multiplier, and 100.0% of the budgeted costs are estimated to be impacted by the Project. The Project is estimated to generate $250,287 in annual recurring costs at buildout and $6,725,317 in cumulative annual costs during the 20 years after buildout as shown in Appendix B, Table 9.

6. Limiting Conditions
This study prepared by DPFG, LLC is subject to the following considerations and limiting conditions. • It is our understanding that this Report is for the client's due diligence and other planning purposes.

Neither our Report, nor its contents, nor any of our work were intended to be included and, therefore, may not be referred to or quoted in whole or in part, in any registration statement, prospectus, public filing, private offering memorandum, or loan agreement without our prior written approval. This report is intended to be read and used as a whole and not in parts. • The reported recommendation(s) represent the considered judgment of DPFG, LLC based on the facts, analyses and methodologies described in the Report. • Except as specifically stated to the contrary, this Report will not give consideration to the following matters to the extent they exist: (i) matters of a legal nature, including issues of legal title and compliance with federal, state and local laws and ordinances; and (ii) environmental and engineering issues and the costs associated with their correction. The user of this Report will be responsible for making his/her own determination about the impact, if any, of these matters. This Report has not evaluated the feasibility or marketability of any site for planned uses. • The Report does not consider all of the costs to local governments associated with providing services such as emergency services to the development. Such analysis is beyond the scope of this Report.
• The analysis is based on the current tax structure and rates imposed by the State, County and City.

Changes in those rates would alter the findings of this Report. All dollar amounts are stated in 2023 dollars and, unless indicated, do not take into account the effects of inflation. The results of this Report are meant to reflect a typical year based on averages. While dollar figures are expressed in current dollars, the results from year to year will vary based on events held at the development generated throughout the year.
8

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Our analysis is based on currently available information and estimates and assumptions. Such estimates and assumptions are subject to uncertainty and variation. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, the actual results achieved may vary materially from the forecasted results. The assumptions disclosed in this Report are those that are believed to be significant to the estimates of results.

7. General Sources of Information and FIA Methodology
Annual recurring revenues/costs were calculated using the City of Beaumont's Fiscal Year 2024 Adopted Budget ("Budget"), as this was the most recent budget available. Annual recurring revenue/cost impacts to the City General Fund are estimated in 2023 dollars, and by using primarily either per person ("Per Capita") or equivalent resident ("Equivalent Resident") methodologies. In some simpler instances the FIA estimates impacts based on the number of Project commercial square feet, industrial square feet, or number of hotel rooms.

The Equivalent Resident approach is used for annual recurring revenues/costs that are impacted by the number of Project employees. This approach uses the Budget's revenues/costs, as well as the City's number of residents plus 50.0% of the employees in 2023 to establish an Equivalent Resident Factor. The Equivalent Resident Factor is then applied to the number of Project residents plus 50.0% of Project employees to estimate annual recurring fiscal impacts. 50.0% is estimated to be the percentage of Project employees that will live and shop in the City.

These approaches are summarized on Table -3.

Table -3
Beaumont Pointe Assumptions Summary
City
Project
Per Capita (a)
Per Employee (b)
56,590
24,600
5,451
Per Capita & 50% Employee
68,890
2,725
Case Study
-
-
N/A
-
-
Footnotes:
(a) Population data for the City of Beaumont per State of California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for January 1, 2023.
(b) Employee data per the State of California Employment Development Department Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places - May 2023.

Information used in preparing the FIA was obtained from the following sources: (1) City of Beaumont Fiscal Year 2024 Adopted Budget; (2) Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan; (3) U.S. Census 9

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Bureau population, household, employment, income, and other demographic data; (4) City Revenue Division taxing data; (5) County Assessor property valuations; (6) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics household and retail expenditures; (7) City Property Tax Division; (8) CBRE property occupancies and valuations; (9) Riverside County General Plan; (10) City of Beaumont Economic Development Department; (11) Landvision; (12) California Department of Transportation; (13) April 19, 1982 City of Beaumont Resolution 1982-24; and (14) JRT BP1, LLC ("Developer"). 10

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Appendix A
11

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Appendix B
12

Table 1
Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary
Beaumont Pointe
Fiscal Impact Summary
Recurring Annual Revenues:

Property Taxes
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
Transient Occupancy Taxes
On -Site Sales Tax Revenue
Other Recurring Revenues
Total Annual Revenues
Recurring Annual Expenditures:

Non -Departmental
Administration
Community Development
Community Services
Public Safety
Public Works
Buildout (a)
$ 523,038
1,476,082
547,500
453,000
554,731
Buildout + 20 Yrs (b)
$ 12,708,439
35,864,922
12,055,405
11,006,709
13,478,502
$ 3,554,351
$ 85,113,976
$ - $
226,753
77,875
167,679
1,235,317
250,287
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
- Table 9
6,092,928 Table 9
2,092,538 Table 9
4,505,604 Table 9
40,846,946 Table 9
6,725,317 Table 9
Total Annual Expenditures: $ 1,957,912 $ 60,263,333
Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit)
$ 1,596,439 $ 24,850,643
Footnotes:
(a) Anticipated revenues are shown in 2023-2024 dollars. (b) 20 year projection assumes the sum of all 20 years assuming a 1% growth per year in Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue and a 2% growth per year for all other revenue categories for 20 years.

Expenditures assume a 5% Public Safety escalation with the remaining expenditures increasing at 3% per year for 20 years. Escalation factors per City of Beaumont.

Table 2
Fiscal Revenue Analysis Absorption Summary
Beaumont Pointe
Anticipated Industrial Absorption
Fiscal Year
2023/24
2024/25
2025/26
2026/27
2027/28
2028/29
Total
Industrial (Self Storage) - PA 3
-
-
-
-
35,000
-
35,000
Industrial Building 1 - PA 4
1,379,000
-
-
-
-
-
1,379,000
Industrial Building 2 - PA 5
-
-
981,000
-
-
-
981,000
Industrial Building 3 - PA 6
-
-
700,000
-
-
-
700,000
Industrial Building 4 - PA 7
-
-
-
-
600,000
-
600,000
Industrial Building 5 - PA 8
-
-
-
-
1,300,000
-
1,300,000
General Commercial
-
-
-
-
216,000
-
216,000
Restaurant
-
-
-
-
30,000
-
30,000
1,379,000
-
1,681,000
-
2,181,000
-
5,241,000
Anticipated Hotel Absorption
Fiscal Year
2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Total
Hotel Rooms
125
125
Anticipated Revenue (a)
Fiscal Year
2022/23
2023/24
2024/25
2025/26
2026/27
2027/28
Total
Property Taxes
137,620
-
167,759
-
217,658
-
523,038
Transient Occupancy Taxes
-
-
-
-
547,500
-
547,500
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
388,383
-
473,439
-
614,260
-
1,476,082
On -Site Sales Tax Revenue
-
-
-
-
453,000
-
453,000
526,004
-
641,198
-
1,832,418
-
2,999,620
Footnotes:
(a) Anticipated revenue is in 2022/23 dollars.

Table 3
Land Use and Assessed Value Assumptions
Beaumont Pointe
Industrial
Probable Tenant Type
Bldg. SF (a)
Estimated Assessed
Total Assessed
Value per SF (b)
Value
Industrial (Self Storage) - PA 3
35,000
$
295
$ 10,325,000
Industrial Building 1 - PA 4
1,379,000
295
406,805,000
Industrial Building 2 - PA 5
981,000
295
289,395,000
Industrial Building 3 - PA 6
700,000
295
206,500,000
Industrial Building 4 - PA 7
600,000
295
177,000,000
Industrial Building 5 - PA 8
1,300,000
295
383,500,000
Subtotal Industrial
4,995,000
$
295
$ 1,473,525,000
Commercial
Probable Tenant Type
Bldg. SF (a)
Estimated Assessed
Value per SF (b)
Total Assessed
Value
General Commercial
Restaurant
216,000
30,000
227
227
49,032,000
6,810,000
Subtotal Commercial Retail
246,000
$ 227
$ 55,842,000
Hospitality
Description
Number of Rooms
Estimated Assessed Total Assessed
Value per Room Value
Hotel
125
248,000
31,000,000
Total Project Assessed Value
$ 1,560,367,000
Footnotes:
(a) Per Developer and Beaumont Point Specific Plan. Represents maximum allowable building square footage. (b) Per Developer.

Table 4
Post-ERAF Share of the Basic Tax Calculation
Beaumont Pointe
Agency
General
County Free Library
County Structure Fire Protection
Beaumont Unified School
San Jacinto Unified School
Mt San Jacinto Junior College
Riv. Co. Office of Education
Riv County Regional Park & Open Space
Flood Control Administration
Flood Control Zone 5
Summit Cemetery District
San Gorgonio Pass Mem Hospital
Beaumont Cherry Valley Rec & Park
Valley Wide Rec & Park
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency DS
ERAF Fund
Total
Project Acres (c)
% of Total
Footnotes:
56-006 56-007

12.84501768%

1.31177694%

5.36236594%

39.01510700%

0.00000000%

3.62238000%

3.73928600%

0.33306177%

0.21458408%

4.47826690%

1.55976984%

1.84545500%

3.51404580%

0.00000000%

3.24139820%

18.91748485%
100.000000%

13.85833051%

1.41419586%

5.78104164%

42.06127400%

0.00000000%

3.90520300%

4.03123600%

0.34206833%

0.23133765%

4.82791454%

1.68155142%

0.00000000%

3.78841073%

0.00000000%

0.00000000%

18.07743632%
100.000000%
TRA (c)
56-016 56-017

13.58799159%

1.38660869%

5.66826846%

41.24077100%

0.00000000%

3.82902300%

3.95259800%

0.33539575%

0.22682508%

4.73373520%

1.64874877%

1.95073200%

3.71450859%

0.00000000%

0.00000000%

17.72479387%
100.000000%

13.09636799%

1.33644021%

5.46318658%

39.74865000%

0.00000000%

3.69048600%

3.80959100%

0.32326118%

0.21861818%

4.56246498%

1.58909566%

0.00000000%

3.58011530%

0.00000000%

3.30234126%

19.27938166%
100.000000%
91-010

14.84232910%

1.51460970%

6.19151834%

0.00000000%

44.46009600%

4.18248800%

4.31746900%

0.36635702%

0.24776375%

5.17071592%

0.00000000%

0.00000000%

0.00000000%

1.05843310%

0.00000000%

17.64822007%
100.000000%
Wtd. Avg. of
TRAs (a), (b)

13.408067031%

1.368882514%

5.595805763%

29.757937180%

10.812686198%

3.780072961%

3.902067869%

0.341251513%

0.223925463%

4.673219194%

1.189681029%

1.246859598%

2.680263171%

0.257410712%

2.212769815%

18.549099989%
100.0000%
400.19 27.57

64.34% 4.43%

19.00 24.00

3.05% 3.86%
151.28

24.32%
Total County General Fund
622.04
100.00%

13.4081'%
Total
Total Assessed Value from Table 3
Base 1% Ad -Valorem Tax

1.00%
$ 1,560,367,000
$ 15,603,670
Total Property Taxes Generated

13.4081%
$ 2,092,151
City of Beaumont Share (d)

25.0000%
$ 523,038
Source: Fiscal Year 2022-23 Share of the Basic Tax per Riverside County Auditor -Controller's Office, Property Tax Division. (a) The weighted average of TRAs was calculated by the distribution of acreage among the TRAs within the Project. (b) Shares of the basic tax that are received by the County for each TRA are highlighted in bold print. (c) Data per LandVision.
(d) Per City of Beaumont Resolution No. 1982-24, the City is allocated 25% of the property tax revenue generated within the area to be annexed with the remaining 75% remaining with the County of Riverside.

Table 5
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
Beaumont Pointe
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
FY 2023/24 In Lieu MVLF Allocation to City
FY 2022/23 City of Beaumont Assessed value
Total Project Assessed Value from Table 3
Less: Existing Assessed Value
Net (New) Assessed Value
AV Growth from Project
$ 7,649,448 (a)
8,062,445,999 (b)
1,560,367,000
(4,590,000)
$ 1,555,777,000

19.297%
Annual City Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
$ 1,476,082
Footnotes:
(a) Per City of Beaumont Annual City budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. (b) Per County of Riverside Close of Roll Press Release dated July 10, 2023.

Table 6
Transient Occupancy Taxes
Beaumont Pointe
Proposed Resort Hotel
No. of Rooms
Average Daily Rate (ADR)
Occupancy Rate (%)
Total Annual Room Revenues
125
$ 160 (a)

75.0% (a)
5,475,000
Annual City Transient Occupancy Tax

10.00% (b)
$ 547,500
Footnotes:
(a) Estimate per DPFG ADR rate research regarding hotels located within Project area dated 12/8/2022.
(b) Transient occupancy tax rate per City of Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter

3.28.030.

Table 7
On -Site Sales Tax Revenue
Beaumont Pointe
Probable Tenant Type
Bldg. SF (a)
Estimated
Sales per SF Estimated %
(b) Taxable
Estimated
Taxable
Sales per SF
Total
Estimated
Taxable Sales
Commercial
Industrial (Self Storage) - PA 3
35,000
$ -
100%
$ -
$ -
Industrial Building 1 - PA 4
1,379,000
-
100%
$ -
$ -
Industrial Building 2 - PA 5
981,000
-
100%
$ -
$ -
Industrial Building 3 - PA 6
700,000
-
100%
$ -
$ -
Industrial Building 4 - PA 7
600,000
-
100%
$ -
$ -
Industrial Building 5 - PA 8
1,300,000
-
100%
$ -
$ -
General Commercial
216,000
175
100%
175
37,800,000
Restaurant
30,000
250
100%
250
7,500,000
Total
5,241,000
$ 45,300,000
Annual Sales Tax to City

1.00%
$ 453,000
Footnotes:
(a) Per Developer.
(b) Preliminary DPFG estimates based on industry knowledge and review of various data sources in addition to Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers (2008) by Urban Land Institute.

Table 8
Other Recurring Revenues
Beaumont Pointe
City FY 2023/24
Percentage
Project
Equivalent
Project
Revenue Category
Adopted Budget (a)
Adjustment
Adjusted Budget
Multiplier
Factor
Persons
Revenues
Taxes
Secured Property Taxes
$
7,569,785
100%
$ 7,569,785
Case Study

0.00 -
$ -
Unsecured Property Taxes
236,531
100%
236,531
Case Study

0.00 -
-
Property Transfer Tax
342,371
100%
342,371
Case Study

0.00 -
-
Street Light Assessment (Prop 13)
957,344
100%
957,344
Per Capita & 50% Employee

13.90 2,725.29
37,873
Sales & Use Taxes
28,374,719
100%
28,374,719
Case Study

0.00 -
-
1/2% Sales Tax - Public Safety
257,705
100%
257,705
Per Capita & 50% Employee

3.74 2,725.29
10,195
Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Taxes
7,649,448
100%
7,649,448
Case Study

0.00 -
-
Vehicle License Collection
63,324
100%
63,324
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.92 2,725.29
2,505
Utility Users Tax
2,152,970
100%
2,152,970
Per Capita & 50% Employee

31.25 2,725.29
85,171
Transient Occupancy Tax
416,381
100%
416,381
Case Study

0.00 -
-
Total Taxes
$
48,020,578
$ 48,020,578
$ 135,744
Franchies Fees (b)
$
3,299,914
$ 3,299,914
Per Capita & 50% Employee

47.90 2,725.29
$ 130,545
Charges for Services
Transportation Permits
5,000
100%
5,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.07 2,725.29
198
Code Enforcement - Weed Abatement
44,267
100%
44,267
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.64 2,725.29
1,751
Code Enforcement - Turbo Data
37,005
100%
37,005
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.54 2,725.29
1,464
Code Enforcement Lien Recovery
4,500
100%
4,500
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.07 2,725.29
178
Live Scan Fingerprinting
20,000
100%
20,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.29 2,725.29
791
Notary Fees
200
100%
200
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.00 2,725.29
8 Passport Fees
-
100%
-
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.00 2,725.29
-
Special Police Services
94,000
100%
94,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

1.36 2,725.29
3,719
Building Rental
85,000
100%
85,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

1.23 2,725.29
3,363
Parks Rental
70,000
100%
70,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

1.02 2,725.29
2,769
Administrative Fees - DIF
40,000
100%
40,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.58 2,725.29
1,582
Administrative Fees - Planning
10,000
100%
10,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.15 2,725.29
396
Administrative Fees - Public Works
148,000
100%
148,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

2.15 2,725.29
5,855
Other Charges for Services (c)
769,775
0%
-
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.00 2,725.29
-
Total Charges for Service:
$
1,356,247
$ 557,972
$ 22,073
Licenses (d)
$
375,000
100%
$ 375,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

5.44 2,725.29
$ 14,835
Permits
Building Permits and Inspections
2,190,097
100%
2,190,097
Per Capita & 50% Employee

31.79 2,725.29
86,640
Yard Sale
4,200
0%
-
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.00 2,725.29
-
Misc Permits - Alarm Permit
1,500
100%
1,500
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.02 2,725.29
59 Encroachment Permits
9,000
100%
9,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.13 2,725.29
356
Building Plan Check
704,528
100%
704,528
Per Capita & 50% Employee

10.23 2,725.29
27,871
Railcar Fees
5,892
100%
5,892
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.09 2,725.29
233
Planning Department Revenue
300,000
100%
300,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

4.35 2,725.29
11,868
Public Works - Permits
14,000
100%
14,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.20 2,725.29
554
Public Works - Permits Labor
-
100%
-
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.00 2,725.29
-
Public Works - Plan Check
80,000
100%
80,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

1.16 2,725.29
3,165
Public Works - Inspection
80,000
100%
80,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

1.16 2,725.29
3,165
Public Works - Inspection Labor
8,000
100%
8,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.12 2,725.29
316
Public Works - Engineering
10,000
100%
10,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.15 2,725.29
396
Public Works - Engineering Labor
10,000
100%
10,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.15 2,725.29
396
Fire Department Fees
250,000
100%
250,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

3.63 2,725.29
9,890
Total Permits:
$
3,667,217
$ 3,663,017
$ 144,909
Other Financing Sources (e)
$
-
0%
$ -
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.00 2,725.29
$ -
Cost Recovery (f)
$
866,920
100%
$ 831,920
Per Capita & 50% Employee

12.08 2,725.29
$ 28,065
Miscellaneous Revenue (g)
$
1,870,860
100%
$ 1,870,860
Per Capita & 50% Employee

27.16 2,725.29
$ 74,011
Fines and Forfeitures (h)
$
115,000
100%
$ 115,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

1.67 2,725.29
$ 4,549
Transfers (i)
$
8,218,067
0%
$ -
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.00 2,725.29
$ -
Total i
$
67,789,803
$ 58,734,261
$ 554,731
Footnotes:
(a) Based on City of Beaumont FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget. (b) Franchise Fees include revenues from Edison, Cable, Verizon/Frontier, Gas Company, and Waste Management. (c) Other Charges for Service includes revenues from Animal License, Care and Recovery Cost, School Resource Officer Program, Community Programs, Bond Acceptance/Reduction/Exoneration, Building and Parks Rental, Community Service Staff Time, Sale of Miscellaneous Copies, Sale of Misc Copies, and Parks and Recreation Contract Classes. (d) Licenses includes revenues from Business Licenses.
(e) Other Financing Sources includes revenues from Sale of Property. (f) Cost Recovery includes revenues from Solid Waster Support Services, Plan Check, Inspection, Credit Card Fees, Coachella/ Stagecoach, RAID, PACT, BUSD, OES, Park Utilities, POST, Insurance Recovery, and Claims.
(g) Miscellaneous Revenue includes revenues from Release of Lien, Interest, Interest - CFD Bonds, Principle Received - CFD, Cost Recovery Plan Check/Inspections, Lease Revenue, Admin Overhead Revenue, and Cal Card Rebate.
(h) Fines and Forfeitures includes revenues from Abandoned Vehicle Program, General Fines, Parking Fine Revenue, and CA Vehicle Code Fines. (i) Transfers includes revenues from Transfers In and Transfers In- Overhead.

Table 9
Recurring Expenditures
Beaumont Pointe
City FY 2023/24
Percentage
Project
Equivalent
Expenditure Category
Adopted Budget (a)
Adjustment
Adjusted Budget
Multiplier
Factor
Persons
Project Cost
Non -Departmental
S 10,935,086
0%
-
Per Capita & 50% Employee
-
2,725
$ -
Transfers Out
Subtotal Non -Departmental
10,935,086
-
-
Administration
City Council
202,143
50%
101,072
Per Capita & 50% Employee

1.47 2,725
3,998
City Clerk
459,449
50%
229,725
Per Capita & 50% Employee

3.33 2,725
9,088
Administration
1,545,057
50%
772,529
Per Capita & 50% Employee

11.21 2,725
30,561
Communication
390,477
50%
195,239
Per Capita & 50% Employee

2.83 2,725
7,724
IT Department
1,798,922
50%
899,461
Per Capita & 50% Employee

13.06 2,725
35,583
Risk and Human Resources
3,625,354
50%
1,812,677
Per Capita & 50% Employee

26.31 2,725
71,709
Legal
1,500,000
50%
750,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

10.89 2,725
29,670
Finance and Budgeting
1,942,334
50%
971,167
Per Capita & 50% Employee

14.10 2,725
38,419
Subtotal Administration
11,463,736
5,731,868
226,753
Community Development
Community Development
812,062
50%
406,031
Per Capita & 50% Employee

5.89 2,725
$ 16,063
Economic Development
1,207,540
50%
603,770
Per Capita & 50% Employee

8.76 2,725
23,885
Community Enhancement
362,525
50%
181,263
Per Capita & 50% Employee

2.63 2,725
7,171
Building and Safety
1,554,947
50%
777,474
Per Capita & 50% Employee

11.29 2,725
30,757
Subtotal Community Development
3,937,074
1,968,537
$ 77,875
Community Services
Parks and Recreation
1,899,199
50%
949,600
Per Capita & 50% Employee

13.78 2,725
$ 37,566
Building Maintenance
1,118,910
50%
559,455
Per Capita & 50% Employee

8.12 2,725
22,132
Parks and Grounds Maintenance
5,459,105
50%
2,729,553
Per Capita & 50% Employee

39.62 2,725
107,981
Subtotal Community Services
8,477,214
4,238,607
$ 167,679
Public Safety
Public Safety - OES
15,000
100%
15,000
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.22 2,725
$ 593
Police
16,486,010
100%
16,486,010
Per Capita & 50% Employee
239.31
2,725
652,186
Police Support
2,928,561
100%
2,928,561
Per Capita & 50% Employee

42.51 2,725
115,854
Fire (b)
11,396,728
100%
11,396,728
Per Capita & 50% Employee
165.43
2,725
450,854
K-9
14,214
100%
14,214
Per Capita & 50% Employee

0.21 2,725
562
Animal Control
385,923
100%
385,923
Per Capita & 50% Employee

5.60 2,725
15,267
Subtotal Public Safety
31,226,436
31,226,436
$ 1,235,317
Public Works
Public Safety - OES
Engineering and Public Works
3,606,165
100%
3,606,165
Per Capita & 50% Employee

52.35 2,725
$ 142,660
Street Maintenance
2,720,618
100%
2,720,618
Per Capita & 50% Employee

39.49 2,725
107,628
Total Public Works
6,326,783
6,326,783
$ 250,287
Total
$ 72,366,329 1
$ 49,492,231
$ 1,957,912
Footnotes:
(a) Per the City of Beaumont FY 2023/2024 Annual Budget. (b) Public Safety Fire Expenditures are from the 23/24 Annual Budget and includes an additional $4,576,526 fire contract to operate an additional fire station.

Table 10
Permanent Employment per Developer EIR
Beaumont Pointe
Bldg. SF
Estimated SF per
Estimated
Tenant Type
(a)
Employee (b)
Employees
Commercial Areas
Industrial (Self Storage) - PA 3
35,000
1,000
35 Industrial Building 1 - PA 4
879,000
1,000
879
Industrial Building 1 - PA 4 (c)
500,000
750
667
Industrial Building 2 - PA 5
981,000
1,000
981
Industrial Building 3 - PA 6
700,000
1,000
700
Industrial Building 4 - PA 7
600,000
1,000
600
Industrial Building 5 - PA 8
1,300,000
1,000
1,300
General Commercial
216,000
1,163
186
Restaurant
30,000
1,163
26 Subtotal - Industrial / Commercial
5,241,000
5,373
Hotel
Hotel - 125 Rooms
90,000
1,163
77 Subtotal Hotel
90,000
77 Total
5,331,000
5,451
Footnotes:
(a) Per Table 3.
(b) Values for Square Feet per Employee based on Specific Plan EIR dated 12/20/2022 and Provided by Developer 6/29/2023.
(c) Represents general light industiral square footage portion of industrial warehouse building.

Fiscal Impact Analysis
August 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Appendix C
13

Fiscal Revenue Analysis Time -Phased Revenue and Expenditure Summary Beaumont Pointe
Square Footage / Room Count 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 2035/36 2036/37 2037/38 2038/39 2039/40 (a)
Industrial
General Commercial
Restaurant
Hotel Rooms
1,379,000 1,379,000 3,060,000 3,060,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 - - - - 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 - - 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 Revenues (b)
2023/24
2024/25
2025/26
2026/27
2027/28
2028/29
2029/30
2030/31
2031/32
2032/33
2033/34
2034/35
2035/36
2036/37
2037/38
2038/39
2039/40
Property Tax
$ 136,362
$ 139,089
$ 314,811
$ 321,107
$ 566,153
$ 577,476
$ 589,025
$ 600,806
$ 612,822
$ 625,078
$ 637,580
$ 650,332
$ 663,338
$ 676,605
$ 690,137
$ 703,940
$ 718,019
TOT
-
-
-
-
569,731
575,428
581,182
586,994
592,864
598,793
604,781
610,828
616,937
623,106
629,337
635,631
641,987
VLF
384,831
392,528
888,439
906,208
1,566,016
1,629,714
1,629,283
1,661,869
1,695,106
1,729,009
1,763,589
1,798,860
1,834,838
1,871,534
1,908,965
1,947,144
1,986,087
On -Site Sales Revenue
-
-
-
-
490,342
500,149
510,152
520,355
530,762
541,377
552,204
563,249
574,514
586,004
597,724
609,678
621,872
Other Revenues
157,310
160,456
341,660
348,494
600,459
612,468
624,717
637,211
649,956
662,955
676,214
689,738
703,533
717,604
731,956
746,595
761,527
Total Revenues
$ 678,503
$ 692,073
$ 1,544,910
$ 1,575,809
$ 3,792,700
$ 3,895,234
$ 3,934,360
$ 4,007,235
$ 4,081,510
$ 4,157,211
$ 4,234,368
$ 4,313,007
$ 4,393,159
$ 4,474,853
$ 4,558,119
$ 4,642,988
$ 4,729,491
Expenditures (c)
2023/24
2024/25
2025/26
2026/27
2027/28
2028/29
2029/30
2030/31
2031/32
2032/33
2033/34
2034/35
2035/36
2036/37
2037/38
2038/39
2039/40
Non -Departmental
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Administration
64,302
66,231
142,409
146,682
255,212
262,868
270,754
278,877
287,243
295,861
304,737
313,879
323,295
332,994
342,984
353,273
363,871
Community Development
22,084
22,746
48,909
50,376
87,649
90,279
92,987
95,777
98,650
101,610
104,658
107,798
111,032
114,362
117,793
121,327
124,967
Community Services
47,550
48,977
105,309
108,468
188,724
194,386
200,218
206,224
212,411
218,783
225,347
232,107
239,070
246,243
253,630
261,239
269,076
Public Safety
350,310
367,825
806,249
846,561
1,501,536
1,576,613
1,655,443
1,738,216
1,825,126
1,916,383
2,012,202
2,112,812
2,218,452
2,329,375
2,445,844
2,568,136
2,696,543
Public Works
70,976
73,105
157,190
161,906
281,701
290,152
298,856
307,822
317,057
326,568
336,365
346,456
356,850
367,556
378,582
389,940
401,638
Total Expenditures
$ 555,222
$ 578,885
$ 1,260,066
$ 1,313,993
$ 2,314,822
$ 2,414,298
$ 2,518,259
$ 2,626,916
$ 2,740,487
$ 2,859,205
$ 2,983,308
$ 3,113,052
$ 3,248,700
$ 3,390,530
$ 3,538,833
$ 3,693,915
$ 3,856,095
Total Surplus (Deficit)
$ 123,281
$ 113,188
$ 284,845
$ 261,816
$ 1,477,878
$ 1,480,937
$ 1,416,101
$ 1,380,319
$ 1,341,022
$ 1,298,007
$ 1,251,059
$ 1,199,955
$ 1,144,460
$ 1,084,323
$ 1,019,286
$ 949,073
$ 873,396
Footnotes:
(a) Per Developer. Analysis shows anticipated absorption and the estimated annual surplus / (deficit) from the date of first construction until FY 2039/40. Escalation factors provided by City of Beaumont. (b) Analysis estimated a 2.00% increase for all revenues except TOT which escalates at 1.00%. (c) Analysis estimates a 3.00% increase for all expenditures except Public Safety which escalates at 5.00%. Public Safety Fire Expenditures are from the 23/24 Annual Budget and includes an additional $4,576,526 fire contract to operate an additional fire station.

Fiscal Impact Analysis
For
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
October 2023
Prepared By:

DPFG

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & FINANCING GROUP
EDPFG

Table of Contents
Page

1. Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis 1

2. Project Description 1

3. FIA Limiting Conditions 1

4. General Sources of Information and Methodology Used in FIA 2

5. Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary and Conclusions 5

6. Impact of Current Market Conditions 5

7. General Fund Projected Recurring Revenues 6

7.1 Property Tax 6

7.2 Documentary Transfer Tax 6

7.3 Sales Tax 6

7.3.1 On -Sales Tax 7

7.3.2 Off -Sales Tax 7

7.4 Interest Earnings 7

7.5 Property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fees ("VLF") 7

7.6 Transient Occupancy Tax 8

7.7 Other Revenues 8

8. General Fund Projected Recurring Costs 8

8.1 General Financing Requirements 8

8.2 Public Protection 8

8.2.1 Judicial 8

8.2.2 Police Protection 8

8.2.3 Detention and Correction 8

8.2.4 Fire Protection 9

8.2.5 Protection and Inspection 9

8.2.6 Other Protection 9

8.3 Public Ways and Facilities 9

8.4 Health and Sanitation 9

8.5 Public Assistance 9

8.6 Education, Recreation and Cultural Services 9

8.7 Debt Service 9

9. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Fire Fund 9

10. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to Library Fund 10

11. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Transportation Fund 10

12. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Flood Control Zone 5 Operations 11

13. Glossary of Defined Terms and Acronyms 11
Appendices:

Appendix A Site Utilization Plan
Appendix B Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables
LPFG

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan

1. Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis
This Fiscal Impact Analysis ("FIA") has been prepared to determine the estimated fiscal impacts on the County of Riverside ("County") in connection with the proposed development of the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan ("Project"). The reader should be aware that the FIA contains estimates or projections of the Project's future revenue and cost impacts on the County and actual fiscal results may vary from estimates because events and circumstances may occur in a manner that is different than projected in the FIA. The primary purpose of this FIA is to estimate the Project's net fiscal impact on the County's General Fund upon build -out.

2. Project Description
The proposed Project is an employment and retail entertainment development which at buildout is anticipated to include approximately 246,000 square feet of general commercial uses, a 125 -room hotel, and approximately 4,995,000 square feet of industrial and warehouse uses in five buildings ranging in size from 600,000 and 1,400,000 square feet.

Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan (SP2019-0003)
The Project includes approximately 539.9 gross acres that are predominantly located just outside the City of Beaumont in the Unincorporated Area of the County of Riverside, between Moreno Valley and Beaumont, adjacent to Jack Rabbit Trail and below SR -60.

The Project is within the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, which provides for the development of up to 539.9 acres comprising of 30.2 acres of General Commercial uses, approximately 232.6 acres of Industrial uses, and approximately 277.1 acres of Open Space. It is estimated that the Project will include an additional approximately 4,995,000 square feet of industrial uses, approximately 246,000 square feet of general commercial uses, and a 125 -room hotel upon buildout.

3. FIA Limiting Conditions
The FIA is subject to the following limiting conditions:
• The FIA contains an analysis of recurring revenues and costs to the County from development of the Project. The FIA is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from DPFG's research, interviews, telephone discussions with County staff, and information from DPFG's database which were collected through fiscal impact analyses previously prepared by DPFG and others. • The sources of information and basis of the estimates are stated herein. While we believe the sources of information are reliable, DPFG does not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accuracy of such information. • The analysis of recurring revenues and cost impacts to the County contained in the FIA is not considered to be a "financial forecast" or a "financial projection" as technically defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The word 1

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
"projection" used within this report relates to broad expectations of future events or market conditions.
• Since the analyses contained herein are based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, DPFG cannot represent that results will definitely be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections.

4. General Sources of Information and Methodology Used in FIA The FIA was prepared in accordance with the general methodologies outlined in the County of Riverside Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports ("County FIA Guide"), dated January 1995. Per the County FIA Guide, the methodology used to determine the allocable revenue and cost impacts to County Funds as a result of the Project's development is a combination of case study methods and multiplier methods.

When projecting fiscal impacts using a multiplier method, the FIA determines per capita/employee impacts by applying the appropriate per capita, per employee and per capita and employee factors ("Factors") to the Project land use assumptions. The Factors were calculated using the County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget; Factors for the entire county were calculated for revenues and costs that affect the entire County and unincorporated Factors were calculated for revenues and costs that only affect unincorporated parts of the County. Cost and revenue factors are projected in 2023 dollars, and are not adjusted for inflation; however, in accordance with the County of Riverside Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports, each year the cumulative residential and non- residential assessed value from prior years, which is used to calculate property tax revenue, is deflated at a rate of 0.4385% (Calculated by subtracting the 2.00% limit on annual increases in assessed value imposed by Proposition 13 from the historical average U.S. inflation rate from 2002 to 2022 of 2.44%, per InflationData.com).

Information used in preparing the FIA was obtained from the following sources: (1) the County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget Volume II ("County Budget"); (2) JRT BP1, LLC ("Developer"); (3) County of Riverside Auditor — Controller's Office (Property Tax and Assessed Value Information) (4) The California Department of Finance (Population Information); (5) the California Employment Development Department (employment information); (6) Riverside County Sheriff's Depaitiuent (police cost case study information); (7) Riverside County Fire Department (Fire Cost Case Study Information); (8) Riverside County Transportation Fund ("Transportation Fund") administrative office (Recurring Transportation Fund Revenue and Cost Information); (9) Inflationdata.com (Average Historical U.S. Inflation Rate); (10) Landvision; (11) California Revenue and Taxation Code; and (12) County of Riverside General Plan. 2

October 2023
The FIA is organized as follows:

Fiscal Impact Analysis
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Appendix
Table
Description
B
1 Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary
B
2 Post-ERAF Share of the Basic Tax Calculation
B
3 Land Use and Absorption Assumptions
B
4 Property Tax and Documentary Transfer Tax Calculations B
5 Sales and Use Tax and Interest Earnings
B
6 Property Tax In -Lieu of MVLF
B
7 Transient Occupancy Taxes
B
8 Other General Fund Discretionary Revenue Calculations B
9 General Fund Financing Requirements Budget, Net of Revenue Sources B
10 General Fund Financing Requirements Calculations
B
11 Police Protection Cost Calculation
B
12 Fiscal Impact to Fire Fund
B
13 Fiscal Impact to Library Fund
B
14 Fiscal Impact to Transportation Fund
B
15 Fiscal Impact to Flood Control Zone 5 Operations Fund B
16 Phasing Analysis Detail
B
17 Phasing Analysis Summary
3

October 2023
The FIA uses the following key assumptions:

Fiscal Impact Analysis
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Key Assumptions
Fiscal Year Budget
2023/24
County Residential County Population (a)
2,439,234
Residential Population in Unincorporated Section (a)
401,693
Resdeints Per household (a)

3.12 County Employment (b)
$ 1,078,700
County Employment in Unincorpoarted Section (b)
$ 106,700
County Share of the Basix Tax (c)

13.41%
Library Fund Share of basic Tax (c)

1.37%
Fire Fund Share of Basic Tax (c)

5.60%
Flood Control Zone 3 Operations Share of the Basic Tax (c)

4.67%
Property Tax Deflation Factor (d)

0.4385%
On -Site Sales and Use Tax Generation rate per Sq.Ft (e) $ -
Residential Units
-
Weighted Average price
$ -
(Less) Homeowners Exemption
$ -
Residential Property Value per Unit
$ -
Hotel Average Daily Rate (ADR)
$ 160
Hotel Occupancy
75%
(a) Per the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2023. (b) Per the California Employment Development Department, as of June 2023. (c) Per Riverside County Auditor/Controller, See Appendix B, Table 2. (d) The FIA assumes an annual assessed value deflation factor of 0.4385% (Calculated by subtracting the 2% limit on annual increases in assessed value imposed by Proposition 13 from the historical average U.S. inflation rate from 2002 to 2022 of 2.44% per InflationData.com).
(e) Estimate of $175 psf was used for General Commercial and $250 psf was used for restaurants.
4

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan

5. Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary and Conclusions
The FIA examines the financial impact the Project will have on the County's general fund ("General Fund"), fire fund ("Fire Fund"), library fund ("Library Fund"), transportation fund ("Transportation Fund"), and flood control zone 5 operations ("Flood Control Zone 5 Operations"). The Project will generate additional income for the General Fund primarily through increased property taxes, sales taxes, and franchise taxes while increasing the need for County services such as police, fire, and health and sanitation.

Beaumont Pointe Business Park
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
1 $-
• u
Financing
Sources
Financing
Requirements
Net Annual
Surplus /
(Deficit)
o General Fund
$4,684,028
$615,633
$4,068,395
• Fire Fund
$900,495
367,265
-
o Library Fund
$220,316
29,308
191,008
o Transportation Fund
$37,003
37,003
-
■ Flood Control Zone 5
$752,029
752,029
-
o Total
$6,593,871
1,801,238
$4,792,634
As seen in the chart above, the Project is anticipated to generate a $4,792,634 surplus to the County on an annual basis once the Project is fully developed. The FIA does not consider the impact of potential reduced County expenditures due to privately maintained amenities, parks, or streets.

6. Impact of Current Market Conditions
Please see Table 16 for full detail on the Project's buildout through Year 20. As seen in Table 16, at buildout, the Project's General Fund, Fire Fund, and Library Fund will have positive fiscal amounts, and the Project is projected to have no annual fiscal impact on the Transportation Fund or Flood Control Zone 5 Operations. This results in the Project having an overall positive impact on the County. The Project is also anticipated to have an overall positive impact on the County 5 years after buildout and 10 years after buildout, as seen in the Phasing Analysis Detail for the proposed land use plan. 5

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
From 5 -Years after Buildout to 10 -Years after Buildout, projected recurring revenue for the General Fund, Fire Fund, Library Fund, and Flood Control Zone 5 Operations is anticipated to steadily decrease due to the incorporation of a Property Tax Deflation Factor, per the County FIA Guide. All of these funds rely on property tax as a major revenue source, and the FIA accounts for the deflating effects of Proposition 13 on property tax revenue. In accordance with the County FIA Guide, the FIA assumes that the 2% annual increase in assessed valuation allowed under Proposition 13 will not keep pace with the inflation rate estimated at 2.44% (historical average U.S. inflation rate from 2002 to 2022, per InflationData.com). The reader should note that the deflation of property tax revenue does not take property turnover into account; in most cases when property is sold, it is reassessed at the current market rate.

7. General Fund Projected Recurring Revenues

7.1 Property Tax
In 1992, to meet its obligations to fund education at specific levels under Proposition 98, the State of California enacted legislation that shifted partial financial responsibility for funding education to local governments (cities, counties, and special districts). The state did this by instructing County auditors to shift the allocation of local property tax revenues to educational revenue augmentation funds ("ERAF") to support schools. As such, the FIA calculates a weighted average share of the basic tax after the shift of revenue to ERAF.

Since the Project is within five different tax rate areas, the post-ERAF share of the basic tax is calculated using a weighted average post-ERAF share of the basic tax based on acreage. The FIA assumes that the County will receive , post-ERAF, of the 1% ad valorem property taxes assessed to property owners within the Project (See Appendix B, Table 2).

The County will receive $2,157,669 per year in non-residential property taxes at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 4. The County's share of non-residential property tax also includes an unsecured property tax component estimated at 10% of the secured property taxes levied on non-residential property pursuant to the County FIA Guide.

7.2 Documentary Transfer Tax
The County receives property transfer tax as new or existing property is sold and ownership is transferred. According to the Riverside County Recorder, property transfer tax is collected upon the sale of property at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of valuation. The FIA assumes a non-residential turnover rate of 5% of total assessed value per year. See Appendix B, Table 4 for the detailed calculation. Property transfer tax is projected to total $80,462 at buildout.

7.3 Sales Tax
Under the California Sales and Use Tax Law, the sale of tangible personal property is subject to sales or use tax unless exempt or otherwise excluded. When the sales tax applies, the use tax does not apply and the opposite is true. The sales tax is imposed on all retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property in the state of California and is measured by the retailer's gross receipts. Use tax is imposed on purchasers of tangible personal property from any retailer for the purpose of storage, use, or other consumption in this state and is measured by the sales price of the property purchased. However, if an 6

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
out-of-state retailer is engaged in business in this state, it is required to register with the State of California and collect the use tax from the purchaser at the time of making the sale.

There is a 7.25% statewide sales and use tax base rate that is collected by the State of California. Since January 1, 2013, the State government has received 6.25% of the 7.25% and local governments receive the remaining 1% which is transferred to the local government's general fund. This analysis assumes use tax revenue at 10.5% of sales tax revenue.

7.3.1 On -Sales Tax
The FIA estimates on -site retail sales and use tax revenue that the County will receive by projecting taxable purchases made within the Project. The FIA assumes that restaurants within the commercial land use will generate $250 of taxable sales per building square foot per year, and all other general commercial land uses will generate $175 of taxable sales per building square foot per year. After calculating total Project retail taxable expenditures captured in the Project, the FIA assumes the County receives sales tax revenue of 1% of taxable sales and use tax revenue of 10.5% of sales tax revenue. Applying this methodology, the County would receive approximately $500,565 in annual on -site sales and use tax revenue at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 5.

7.3.2 Off -Sales Tax
The County will likely receive off -site sales and use tax revenue from taxable purchases made by new Project residents within the County, but outside the Project area. However, to take a conservative approach and avoid potential double -counting, the FIA excludes Project generated indirect sales tax revenue.

7.4 Interest Earnings
The County earns interest on dollars held in the General Fund and other County Funds.

Investment earnings, as specified in the County FIA Guide, are estimated using the historic average interest rate of the 90 -day Treasury Bill. The analysis assumes a rate of 0.77% the 10 -year historic average interest rate of the 90 -day Treasury Bill from 2013 to 2022. In 1994, the County FIA Guide calculated a historic average interest rate of 6.98%. Interest earnings are calculated on property tax, property transfer tax, and sales tax. Interest earnings are projected to total $21,404 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 5.

7.5 Property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fees ("VLF") According to the County Budget, the State of California is projected to convert $357,949,214 of MVLF revenue to property tax revenue and distribute it to the County of Riverside. The FIA projects MVLF revenue on a valuation basis, as seen in Appendix B, Table 6, and MVLF revenue is anticipated to total $1,334,200 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 6.
7

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan

7.6 Transient Occupancy Tax
The County receives Transient Occupancy Taxes (also known as Bed Tax or Hotel Tax) on 10% of annual revenues for projects with hotels, motels, campgrounds, and RV parks.

The FIA uses an occupancy rate of 75% and calculates annual Transient Occupancy Tax received by the County as (Average Room Rate x Total Rooms x Occupancy Rate x 10% x 365). The FIA projects Transient Occupancy Tax revenues to the County to total $547,500 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 7.

7.7 Other Revenues
All other General Fund Revenue sources including federal revenue sources, state revenue sources, charges for services, license and permit revenue, and other revenue have been netted against the costs that they are earmarked to offset in the County Budget. The remaining net costs to the general fund in each major cost category are described in detail in the following section.

8. General Fund Projected Recurring Costs

8.1 General Financing Requirements
The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to general financing requirements costs. The FIA projects general financing requirements costs of $12,371 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.2 Public Protection

8.2.1 Judicial
The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to recurring judicial costs and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County judicial costs of 25%. The FIA projects recurring judicial costs of $25,388 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.2.2 Police Protection
Projected recurring police protection costs are estimated using the case study approach.

The FIA estimates a cost per sworn officer based on total police costs identified in the County Budget and the estimated number of sworn officers included in the County Budget and multiplies the cost per sworn officer by the number of additional officers required to service the Project. The police protection calculation is based on a service standard of 1 officer per 1,000 residents, per the Riverside County Service Goals and Strategies. The FIA projects recurring police protection costs of $383,818 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 11.

8.2.3 Detention and Correction
The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to recurring detention and correction costs and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County detention and correction costs of 50%. The FIA projects recurring detention and correction costs of $135,303 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10. 8

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan

8.2.4 Fire Protection
The FIA assumes that the Project will not increase County Forest Fire Protection Costs that are budgeted to protect undeveloped land. Increases to structural fire protection costs will affect the Fire Fund, which is examined in the following section.

8.2.5 Protection and Inspection
The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to protection and inspection costs and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County protection and inspection costs of 50%. The FIA projects recurring protection and inspection costs of $283 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.2.6 Other Protection
The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to other protection costs. The FIA projects recurring other protection costs of $7,056 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.3 Public Ways and Facilities
The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to public ways and facilities costs. The FIA projects recurring public ways and facilities costs of $217 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.4 Health and Sanitation
The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to health and sanitation costs. The FIA projects recurring health and sanitation costs of $48,124 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.5 Public Assistance
This analysis assumes that future Project residents will require minimal aid from the Riverside County Department of Social Services and projects a marginal increase in aid program costs of 10%. The FIA assumes that the project will affect a 1:1 increase on all other applicable public assistance costs. Using a per capita approach, the FIA projects recurring public assistance costs of $1,590 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.6 Education, Recreation and Cultural Services
Using a per capita approach, the FIA projects recurring education costs of $1,482 at buildout, as shown in Appendix B, Table 10.

8.7 Debt Service
The FIA assumes that the Project will not have a fiscal impact on the County's debt service costs.

9. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Fire Fund
Appendix B, Table 12 summarizes the Project's fiscal impact on the Fire Fund. To calculate the Project's fiscal impact on the Fire Fund, which is used to fight non -forest fires and provide paramedic service, the FIA projects recurring revenue and costs to the Fire Fund. The FIA projects recurring revenue by determining the Fire Fund's weighted average 9

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
share of the basic 1% property tax for the tax rate areas that compose the Project, calculated in Appendix B, Table 2. The weighted average share of the basic tax of approximately

5.596% yields recurring Fire Fund revenue totaling $900,495 .

The FIA uses the case study method to calculate recurring costs to the Fire Fund. The annual recurring Fire Fund costs are estimated to be $367,265 .

At buildout, the Project is projected to have a positive annual fiscal impact of $533,230 on the Fire Fund.

10. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to Library Fund
Appendix B, Table 13 summarizes the Project's fiscal impact on the Library Fund. To calculate the Project's fiscal impact on the Library Fund, the FIA projects recurring revenue and costs to the Library Fund. The FIA projects recurring revenue by determining the Library Fund's weighted average share of the basic 1% property tax for the tax rate areas that compose the Project, calculated in Appendix B, Table 2. The weighted average share of the basic tax of approximately 1.369% yields a recurring revenue totaling $220,316 for the Library Fund.

The FIA also projects the Project's share of revenue related to fines and forfeitures and use of library assets using a per capita approach.

Recurring library costs were projected using a per capita approach. The annual recurring Library Fund costs are estimated to be $29,308 .

At buildout, the Project is projected to have a positive annual fiscal impact of $191,008 on the Library Fund. The Project's fiscal impact on the Library Fund reflects current market conditions.

11. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Transportation Fund Appendix B, Table 14 summarizes the Project's fiscal impact on the Transportation Fund.

The Transportation Fund funds ongoing road maintenance costs as well as the construction of large transportation projects. To estimate recurring road maintenance revenue, the FIA projects gas tax using a per capita method. According to the Transportation Fund administrative office, the transportation expense line item listed in the County Budget includes all of the Transportation Fund's road maintenance costs as well as some non- recurring expenses. As such, the FIA projects recurring road maintenance costs using a per capita method and assumes 100% of the transportation expense amount is used to pay for recurring road maintenance costs.

At buildout, the Project is projected to have no annual recurring fiscal impact on the County Transportation Fund.
10

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan

12. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Flood Control Zone 5 Operations Ongoing flood control maintenance and operations related to the Project will be handled by Flood Control Zone 5 Operations.

Appendix B, Table 15 summarizes the Project's fiscal impact on Flood Control Zone 5 Operations. To calculate the Project's fiscal impact on Flood Control Zone 5 Operations, the FIA projects recurring revenue and costs. The FIA projects recurring revenue by determining the flood control zone's weighted average share of the basic 1% property tax for the tax rate areas that compose the Project, calculated in Appendix B, Table 2. The weighted average share of the basic tax of approximately 4.673% yields recurring revenue totaling $ 752,029 per Appendix B, Table 15.

Per the County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget, Flood Control Zone 5 Operations is funded using a reserve approach. Each year a portion of the revenues are allocated to fund current year expenditures, with the remainder allocated to the Fund Balance. In years when expenditures exceed revenues, the Fund Balance is used to pay the difference, maintaining a balanced fund. As such, this fund remains balanced, with financial requirements equaling financing sources.

At buildout, the Project is projected to have no annual fiscal impact on Flood Control Zone 5 Operations.

13. Glossary of Defined Terms and Acronyms
Budget
County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget
County
County of Riverside
Developer
JRT BP1, LLC
DPFG

DPFG, LLC
FIA
Fiscal Impact Analysis
General Fund
County of Riverside General Fund
Project
Beaumont Pointe Business Park
State
State of California
TRA
Tax Rate Area
VLF
Vehicle License Fees
11

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Appendix A
12

Fiscal Impact Analysis
October 2023 Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Appendix B
13

Table 1 - Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary
Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
FY 2023/24
Table Percent Buildout Buildout
Ref. Buildout of Total Plus 5 Plus 10
I. General Fund
General Fund Financing Sources
Property Tax Table 4 $ 2,157,669 46.1% $ 2,110,780 $ 2,064,910 Documentary Transfer Tax Table 4 80,462 1.7% 78,713 77,003 Property Tax In -Lieu of MVLF Table 6 1,334,200 28.5% 1,305,206 1,276,842 Transient Occupancy Tax Table 7 547,500 11.7% 547,500 547,500 On -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax Table 5 500,565 10.7% 500,565 500,565 Interest Earnings Table 5 21,404 0.5% 21,024 20,652
Other Discretionary Revenue Table 8 42,229 0.9% 42,229 42,229 Total Financing Sources $ 4,684,028 100.0% $ 4,606,017 $ 4,529,701 General Fund Financing Requirements
General Financing Requirements Table 10 $ 12,371 2.0% $ 12,371 $ 12,371 Public Protection
Judicial Table 10 25,388 4.1% 25,388 25,388
Police Protection Table 11 383,818 62.3% 383,818 383,818 Detention and Correction Table 10 135,303 22.0% 135,303 135,303 Fire Protection Table 10 0.0% -
Protection/Inspection Table 10 283 0.0% 283 283
Other Protection Table 10 7,056 1.1% 7,056 7,056
Public Ways & Facilities Table 10 217 0.0% 217 217
Health and Sanitation Table 10 48,124 7.8% 48,124 48,124 Public Assistance Table 10 1,590 0.3% 1,590 1,590
Education, Recreation and Cultural Services Table 10 1,482 0.2% 1,482 1,482 Debt Service Table 10 - 0.0% - -
Total Financing Requirements $ 615,633 100.0% $ 615,633 $ 615,633 Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) $ 4,068,395 $ 3,990,384 $ 3,914,068 Revenue/Cost Ratio 7.61 7.48 7.36
II. Fire Fund
Financing Sources Table 12 $ 900,495 $ 880,926 $ 861,782 Financing Requirements Table 12 367,265 367,265 367,265 Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) $ 533,230 $ 513,661 $ 494,518 III. Library Fund
Financing Sources Table 13 $ 220,316 $ 215,529 $ 210,846 Financing Requirements Table 13 29,308 29,308 29,308
Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) $ 191,008 $ 186,221 $ 181,538 IV. Transportation Fund
Financing Sources Table 14 $ 37,003 $ 37,003 $ 37,003
Financing Requirements Table 14 37,003 37,003 37,003
Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) $ - $ - $ -
V. Flood Control Zone 5 Operations Fund
Financing Sources Table 15 $ 752,029 $ 735,687 $ 719,699 Financing Requirements Table 15 752,029 735,687 719,699 Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) $ - $ - $
VI. Net Fiscal Impact of Project
Financing Sources $ 6,593,871 $ 6,475,162 $ 6,359,032
Financing Requirements 1,801,238 1,784,895 1,768,908
Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) $ 4,792,634 $ 4,690,267 $ 4,590,124

Table 2 - Post-ERAF Share of the Basic Tax Calculation
Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
TRA (c) Wtd. Avg. of
Agency 56-006 56-007 56-016 56-017 91-010
General 12.84501768% 13.85833051% 13.58799159% 13.09636799% 14.84232910% 13.40806703% County Free Library 1.31177694% 1.41419586% 1.38660869% 1.33644021% 1.51460970% 1.36888251% County Structure Fire Protection 5.36236594% 5.78104164% 5.66826846% 5.46318658% 6.19151834% 5.59580576% Beaumont Unified School 39.01510700% 42.06127400% 41.24077100% 39.74865000% 0.00000000% 29.75793718% San Jacinto Unified School 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 44.46009600% 10.81268620% Mt San Jacinto Junior College 3.62238000% 3.90520300% 3.82902300% 3.69048600% 4.18248800% 3.78007296% Riv. Co. Office of Education 3.73928600% 4.03123600% 3.95259800% 3.80959100% 4.31746900% 3.90206787% Riv County Regional Park & Open Space 0.33306177% 0.34206833% 0.33539575% 0.32326118% 0.36635702% 0.34125151% Flood Control Administration 0.21458408% 0.23133765% 0.22682508% 0.21861818% 0.24776375% 0.22392546% Flood Control Zone 5 4.47826690% 4.82791454% 4.73373520% 4.56246498% 5.17071592% 4.67321919% Summit Cemetery District 1.55976984% 1.68155142% 1.64874877% 1.58909566% 0.00000000% 1.18968103% San Gorgonio Pass Mem Hospital 1.84545500% 0.00000000% 1.95073200% 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 1.24685960% Beaumont Cherry Valley Rec & Park 3.51404580% 3.78841073% 3.71450859% 3.58011530% 0.00000000% 2.68026317% Valley Wide Rec & Park 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 1.05843310% 0.25741071% San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency DS 3.24139820% 0.00000000% 0.00000000% 3.30234126% 0.00000000% 2.21276982% ERAF Fund 18.91748485% 18.07743632% 17.72479387% 19.27938166% 17.64822007% 18.54909999% Total
100.00000000% 100.00000000% 100.00000000% 100.00000000% 100.00000000% 100.00000000% Project Acres (c) 400.19 27.57 19.00 24.00 151.28 622.04 % of Total 64.34% 4.43% 3.05% 3.86% 24.32% 100.00%
Total County General Fund 13.4081%
Total to County 25.0460%
Footnotes:

Source: Fiscal Year 2022-23 Share of the Basic Tax per Riverside County Auditor -Controller's Office, Property Tax Division. (a) The weighted average of TRAs was calculated by the distribution of acreage among the TRAs within the Project. (b) Shares of the basic tax that are received by the County for each TRA are highlighted in bold print. (c) Data per LandVision.

Table 3 - Land Use and Absorption Assumptions
Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
Ahsorption (a)
Residential
Property Value /
Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Assessed Value
Price Per SqFt
II. Non -Residential Land Use (a)
Industrial Building 1 - PA 3 $ 295 - - - - - - 35,000 - 35,000 $ 10,325,000 Industrial Building 2 - PA 4 295 1,379,000 1,379,000 406,805,000 Industrial Building 3 - PA 5 295 - - - - 981,000 - - - 981,000 289,395,000 Industrial Building 4 - PA 6 295 700,000 700,000 206,500,000 Industrial Building 5 - PA 7 295 - - - - - - 600,000 - 600,000 177,000,000 Industrial Building 6 - PA 8 295 - - 1,300,000 1,300,000 383,500,000 IndoorActivites 227 - - - - - - 216,000 - 216,000 49,032,000 Restaurant 227 - - - - - 30,000 30,000 6,810,000
Total Non -Residential $ 292 - - 1,379,000 - 1,681,000 - 2,181,000 - 5,241,000 $ 1,529,367,000 Price Per Room
(a)
Hotel $ 248,000
125 - 125 31,000,000
Total Non -Residential Assessed Value $ 1,560,367,000
SqFt Per Employee
Non -Residential Building SqFt (b) Total Employees
Industrial Building 1 35,000 1,500 23
Industrial Building 2 1,379,000 1,500 919
Industrial Building 3 981,000 1,500 654
Industrial Building 4 700,000 1,500 467
Industrial Building 5 600,000 1,500 400
Industrial Building 6 1,300,000 1,500 867
Indoor Activites 216,000 1,030 210
Restaurant 30,000 500 60
Total 5,241,000 3,600
Hotel
Room Count Employee Per Room
125 1 125
Total Anticipated Employees 3,725
Entire Unincorporated
County Area Project
Total Residents (c) 2,439,234 (c) 401,693 0
Employees (d) 1,078,700 (d) 106,700 3,725
3,517,934 508,393 3,725
Total Anticipated Residents and Employees 3,725
Total Anticipated Residents and 50% Employees 1,862
Footnotes:
(a) Per Developer. Land use is preliminary and subject to change. Represents maximum allowable square footage per specific plan. Anticipated assessed values per estimated poperty value using (b) Due to the anticipated annexation, employee estimates are per Appendix E-2: Socioeconomic Build Out Assumptions and Methodology of the County of Riverside General Plan. (c) Per California Department of Finance, January 1, 2023. (d) Per California Employment Development Department, dated June 2023. (e) Employment was reduced by 50% to account for the estimated less frequent use of public services by employees than residents.

Table 4 - Property Tax and Documentary Transfer Tax Calculations Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
I. Property Tax Table
Non -Residential Property Tax
Total Non -Residential Assessed Value 3 $ 1,560,367,000 Total Non -Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.4385% (20 Yr) (a) 1,462,938,124 Basic Rate 1.000%
Basic Tax Paid - Non -Residential [2] $ 14,629,381
Non -Residential Unsecured Property Tax as a % of Secured 10% Total Unsecured Property Tax [3] $ 1,462,938
Total Basic Tax Paid - Non -Residential [2]+[3]=[4] $ 16,092,319 Total Basic Tax Paid - Residential and Non -Residential [1]+[4]=[5] $ 16,092,319 County General Fund Post-ERAF Share of Basic Tax [6] 2 13.40807% Total County General Fund Tax Share [5]X[6]=[7]
II. Documentary Transfer Tax
$ 2,157,669
Non -Residential Turnover Rate 5%
Total Non -Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.4385% (15 Yr) (a) $ 1,462,938,124 Value of Annual Turnover 73,146,906
Transfer Tax Rate (b) 0.1100%
Total Non -Residential Documentary Transfer Tax $ 80,462 Total Documentary Transfer Tax
Footnotes:
$ 80,462
(a) Since the deflation factor is 0.4385% , a deflation has been projected (Calculated by subtracting the 2% limit on annual increases in assessed value imposed by Proposition 13 from the historical average U.S. inflation rate from 2002 to 2022 of 2.44%, per InflationData.com).
(b) The County may levy a transfer tax at the rate of $0.55 for each $500 of assessed value. A City within the County that levies this tax can levy a transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1000. If both the County and City levy the transfer tax, a credit shall be allowed against the amount imposed by the County in the amount of tax that is imposed by the City per California Revenue and Taxation Code 11911.

Table 5 - Sales And Use Tax and Interest Earnings
Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
I. On -Site Sales and Use Tax
Taxable Sales
Industrial
Indoor Activities
Restaurant
Total Direct Taxable Sales
Project On -Site Sales and Use Tax to County
Sales Tax (@1% of Taxable Sales)
Use Tax (@10.5% of Sales Tax)
Net On -Site Sales and Use Tax
II. Interest Earnings
County Share of Residential and Non -Residential Property Tax (Table 4) Documentary Transfer Tax (Table 4)
Net On -Site Sales and Use Tax
Total Revenue Generating Interest Earnings
Interest Earnings @ 0.78% (b)
Footnotes:

Taxable Sales Per Sq. Ft. Taxable
Square Feet (a) (Table 3) Sales
$
4,995,000 $ -
175 216,000 $ 37,800,000
250 30,000 $ 7,500,000
5,241,000 $ 45,300,000

1.00% $ 453,000

10.50%
47,565
112U
$ 2,157,669
80,462
500,565
$ 2,738,696
(a) Preliminary DPFG estimates based on industry knowledge and review of various data sources in addition to Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers (2008) by Urban Land Institute.
(b) Investment earnings, as specified in the Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports, are estimated using the historic average interest rate of the 90 -day Treasury Bill. The analysis assumes a rate of 0.78%, the 10 -year historic average interest rate from 2013 through 2022 of the 90 -day Treasury Bill.

Table 6 - Property Tax In -Lieu of MVLF
Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
III. Motor Vehicle License Fee ("MVLF")
FY 2004-05
FY 2023-24
Nominal Dollars:

Property Tax Vehicle License Fees (VLF) (a) $ 128,200,332 County Assessed Valuation (b) 138,771,615,256
VLF Increase per Assessed Valuation Increase (AV) Increase VLF Increase per $1,000,000 increase in AV
$ 357,949,214
390,804,653,343
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF:

Project Assessed Value:

Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.4385% (Table 4) Non -Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.4385% (Table 4) Total Assessed Value
Assessed Valuation / 1,000,000
VLF Increase per $1,000,000 increase in AV
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF
Footnotes:

Change
229,748,882
252,033,038,087

0.000912
[3] $
912
1,462,93 8,124
=[4]*[5] $
[6] $
=[3]
=[3]*[6]
1,462,93 8,124
1,463
912
1,334,200
(a) Per page 69 of the County of Riverside FY 2023-24 Recommended Budget, Volume II. (b) Per the Riverside County Assessor, assessed value by base year for the 2023-24 tax year.

Table 7 - Transient Occupancy Taxes
Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
Proposed Resort Hotel
No. of Rooms
Average Daily Rate (ADR)
Occupancy Rate (%)
Total Annual Room Revenues
125
$ 160 (a)

75.0% (a)
5,475,000
Annual County Transient Occupancy Tax

10.00% (b)
$ 547,500
Footnotes:
(a) Estimate per Developer and DPFG ADR rate research regarding hotels located within Project area dated 7/24/2023.
(b) Transient occupancy tax rate per County of Riverside Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports.

Table 8 - Other General Fund Discretionary Revenue Calculations Proposed Land Use Plan
Beaumont Pointe
October 5, 2023
Description
General Fund Discretionary Revenue
Taxes
Prop Tax Current Secured
Prop Tax Current Unsecured
Prop Tax Prior Unsecured
Prop Tax Current Supplemental
Prop Tax Prior Supplemental
Sales & Use Taxes
Measure A -Transit
Documentary Transfer Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Non Comm Aircraft
Racehorse Tax
RDV Prty Tax, LMIH Resdul Asts
Total Property Tax
Franchises
Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties
Fee-POC Transaction
Fine -Traffic Motor Vehicle MC
Health -Safety Fees
Fine -Traffic School
AB 233 Realignment
Other Fines
Penalties & Int On Del Taxes
Penalties & Int - Del Tax
Teeter Overflow
Total Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties
Interest
Interest -Invested Funds
Total Interest
CA -Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Tax
Miscellaneous Federal and State
CA -Homeowners Tax Relief
CA-Suppl Homeowners Tax Relief
CA -Mandate Reimbursement
Federal In Lieu Taxes
In Lieu -Tax from So Cal Fair
Total Federal and State
Page
Ref.

LUL3-L4 Aaoptea Dy County
Boad of Supervisors Equivalent
(a) Units (b) Factor
[I] [2] [1]x[2]=[3]
65 $ 325,818,829
65 13,100,000
65 500,000
65 3,000,000
65 2,450,000
65 49,422,241
65 392,000
65 19,604,925
65 12,694,736
65 260,501
65 6,000
65 59,425,635
$ 486,674,867
Measurement (b)
- not used
- not used
- not used
- not used
- not used
- not used
See Table 4
See Table 4
See Table 5
See Table 4
See Table 7
Project
Equivalent Financing
Units (c) Requirements
[4] [3]X[4]
66 $ 7,048,221 455,043 $ 15.49 per capita & 50% employee, unincorporated only 66 82,499
66 850,000
66 1,000
67 1,050,000
67 10,200,000
67 292,524
68 3,371,103
68 3,110,035
68 $ 20,000,000
$ 38,957,161
64 $ 40,043,895
2,978,584 $ 0.03 per capita & 50% employee, entire county 455,043 1.87 per capita & 50% employee, unincorporated only - not used
455,043 2.31 per capita & 50% employee, unincorporated only - not used
455,043 0.64 per capita & 50% employee, unincorporated only 2,978,584 1.13 per capita & 50% employee, entire county 2,978,584 1.04 per capita & 50% employee, entire county not used

7.02 40,043,895 $
69 $ 357,949,214
70 70
70 73
81 $
Tobacco Tax Settlement 82
Miscellaneous Revenue
Court Fees & Costs
Superior Court Fees
Cash Over -Short
El Sobrante Land Fill
Sale of Real Estate
Rebates & Refunds
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
Total General Fund Discretionary Revenue
Footnotes:
(a) Based on County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2023-24 Recommended Budget, Volume 11. (b) Based on (i) 2,439,234 total Riverside County residents and 401,693 residents in the unincorporated sections of Riverside County per the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2023, (ii) 1,078,700 total Riverside County employees and 106,700 employees in the unincorporated sections of Riverside County per the California Employment Development Department, June 2023, and (iii) county employment was reduced by 50% to account for the estimated less frequent use of county public services by employees than residents. (c) See Table 3 - Land Use Assumptions.
75 75
81 81
82 81
2,334,885
42,398
2,500,000
3,600,000
34,727
$ 8,512,010 $
not used
not used
not used
not used
not used
11,537,208 not used
421,500
42,000
38,307
3,600,000
2,810,010
1,500
6,913,317
2,978,584
2,978,584
2,978,584
$ 0.16
See Table 5
See Table 6
1,863 $ 28,856
1,863 $ 52
1,863 3,480
1,863 4,299
1,863 1,198
1,863 2,109
1,863 1,945
- $
$ 13,082

0.14 per capita & 50% employee, entire county

0.01 per capita & 50% employee, entire county
not used
not used
not used

0.00 per capita & 50% employee, entire county
957,635,893 $ 22.67
1,863 264
1,863 26
1,863 1
$ 291
$ 42,229