or rear yard. The required setbacks apply to that portion of the building wall containing and extending 3 feet on either side of any window. a. For any wall containing living room or other primary room windows, a setback of at least 15 feet shall be provided.
b. For any wall containing sleeping room windows, a setback of at least 10 feet shall be provided.
c. For all other walls containing windows, a setback of at least 5 feet shall be provided.
2. Required building wall on designated streets . Along Riverside Drive and Central Avenue south of Highway 60, building walls shall be constructed along or within 10 feet of the front property line for a minimum of 70 percent of the primary street frontage and 40 per cent on secondary street frontages. This requirement may be waived by the Director of Development Services upon finding that:
a. Ground-floor residential uses are proposed, a minimum 15 -foot setback is proposed, and s ubstantial landscaping will be located bet ween the build-to and ground-floor residential units as a buffer; b. Entry courtyards, plazas, entries, or outdoor eating areas are located between the build-to line and the building and buildings are constructed at the edge of the courtyard, plaza, or dining area;
c. The building incorporated an alternative entrance design that creates a welcoming entry facing the street.
3. Required ground floor transparency for non-residential uses. Exterior walls for non-residential ground-floor uses facing and within 20 feet of a front or street side property line shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 60 percent of the building wall area between 2 feet and 8 feet above the sidewalk. No wall shall run in a horizontal plane more than 25 feet without an opening.
a. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into display areas, sales areas, work area, lobbies or other active spaces, and window displays shall be at least 3 feet in depth. b. Parking garages are not required to meet these transparency requirements.
c. Alternatives to the building transparency requirement may be approved by the Director of Development Services for uses that have unique operational requirements making windows or doors infeasible or for
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 296
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
street-facing building walls that exhibit architectural relief and detail with landscaping that creates visual interest at the pedestrian level.
4. Building entrances.
a. Principal building entries shall front upon the primary street. b. Building entries shall be accented with features such as moldings, lighting, overhangs, or awnings.
5. Building mass and scale.
a. To reduce upper-story building mass, floorplates for the fourth story shall not exceed 80 percent of the ground -floor floorplate. The Director of Development Services may waive this requirement upon finding the architectural articulation of exterior walls and a sloped roof modulates the visual mass of the top of the building and avoids the appearance of a box-like structure.
b. Buildings that are more than 150 feet in length shall include a minimum 2-foot vertical variation in height for at least 50 feet. c. To maintain a human -scale at the street level where ground floor commercial space is provided, building storefront widths shall not exceed 30 feet without a recess or a break, which may be a building entry or a separate display window.
d. Minimum ground floor height for commercial uses, including retail shops, restaurants, and offices: 14 feet.
6. Pedestrian orientation and accessible pedestrian facilities on designated streets.
a. Along Riverside Drive and Central Avenue south of Highway 60, all development on sites over two acres in size shall incorporate features such as plazas, interior walkways, canopies, arcades, paseos, ornamental gates, trellises, lighting, plant materials, seating, fountains, or other similar features, as appropriate, to support and enhance pedestrian spaces.
b. Outdoor pedestrian space shall be la ndscaped and shall include appropriate street furniture to encourage pedestrian activity. c. Clearly marked pedestrian connections shall be provided between parking areas and buildings.
d. Encroachments into the public right -of-way are allowed for outdoor seating in conjunction with full -service restaurants and food retailers,
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 297
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
provided a minimum 6 -foot wide walkway and pedestrian clear zone is maintained, and the outdoor eating area is contiguous with interior eating space and does not encroach into the public right-of-way of an adjacent business. An encroachment permit issued by the City is required, and a fee may be charged.
e. All sidewalks, crosswalks, courts, plazas , and residential buildings shall be designed to be safe, accessible, and convenient for indivi duals of all abilities, whether travelling by foot, wheelchair, or other mobility aid, consistent with the City’s adopted Policy on Accessible Pedestrian Facilities.
7. Parking.
a. Long-term parking and residents’ guest parking areas are prohibited between the building and primary street edge. On-site parking shall be in the rear of buildings in the back half of the lot or development site. Short- term drop-off spaces, short -term parking for retail shops, and a limited number of parking spaces for guests of resid ents may be allowed with valet service in courtyards and at building entries with approval of the Planning Commission.
b. Multi-story parking structures within 25 feet of a street frontage shall be buffered with foundation planting or lined with commercial, r etail, or residential use at the ground floor.
c. Building siting and parking design shall maximize opportunities for shared parking, access entries and driveways in order to minimize the number of curb cuts and thus limit possible conflict between pedestrians and automobiles.
d. Whenever possible, vehicle access sh all be provided from side streets and alleys to limit the number of driveways along arterial streets.
8. Landscaping.
a. Street trees shall be included along all street frontages of mixed -use development. Trees shall be selected from a list of city -approved trees and shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to installation.
b. Where pedestrian paths or walkways cross parking areas or driveways, the paths shall incorporate landscaping and decorative paving to define the pedestrian space.
H. Open spaces standards for residential projects. The open space requirements of the Multiple-Family Residential Design Standards in Section 20.17.050 for private areas and common areas shall apply to all proposed residential development and to
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 298
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
residential units in mixed use development with the following modifications. Private areas shall consist of balconies, decks, patios, or fenced yards directly acc essible from the residence. Common areas shall consist of landscaped areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, picnic and barbeque areas, playgrounds, children’s play areas, playing courts, turf, rooftop areas, gym and fitness facilities, space for yoga, dance and instruction, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor living environment of the development and to provide recreational facilities for residents . Landscaped courtyard entries that are oriented towards the public street and create a welcoming entry feature are also considered common areas. All areas not improved with buildings, parking, vehicular accessways, trash enclosures, and similar items or devoted to perimeter landscaping shall be developed as common areas with the types of attributes described above
1. Minimum amount of outdoor living area (private or common open space). The minimum percentage of net lot area devoted to permanent open space is 20 percent, and the minimum area to be devoted to outdoor living area (private or common open space) shall be 400 square feet per unit.
2. Minimum amount of private open space. The minimum amount of private open space shall be at least 25 percent of the amount of outdoor living area required.
This space shall be provided on patios, decks or balconies shall be as follows:
a. Ground floor units: 1 50 square feet patio with a minimum horizontal dimension of 10 feet or 72 square foot deck with a minimum horizontal dimension of 6 feet; and
b. Upper level units: 72 square feet with a minimum horizontal dimension of 6 feet.
3. Minimum amount of common open space areas. A minimum of 65 percent of the required outdoor living area shall be provided as common open space with a minimum horizontal dimension of 20 feet. This common open space shall be a well-designed, coherent area that is an essential component of the project’s design, not merely space left over after the building mass is placed. a. Landscape areas having minimum dimensions of less than 20 feet but at least five feet at any point which are contiguous with and an integral part of the common open space or are connected to the common open space by walkways, may be included in calculating the area of such space. Non- contiguous landscape areas proposed to be included shall not exceed 20 percent of the total area of common open space.
b. Up to one-half of covered patio areas designed to be commonly used by residents of a development may be included in calculation of common
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 299
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
open space provided such area does not comprise more than 25 percent of the total common open space.
c. Up to 1 5 percent of the required common open space area may be provided within a recreational building.
4. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other serviceable, dust -free surfacing. The maximum slope shall not exceed 10 percent.
5. Accessibility.
a. Private Open Space. The space shall be accessible to only one living unit by a doorway to a habitable room or hallway.
b. Common Open Space. The space shall be accessible to the living units on the lot. It shall be served by any stairway or other accessway qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room.
6. Recreational facilit ies requirements . In high density multi -family or mixed use development with a minimum of 25 dwelling units per gross adjusted acre, essential recreational facilities, as prescribed below, may be propo sed in lieu of the requirements of major and minor facilities in Section 20.17.050 (C) which require more land than may be available in a high density project. These essential recreational facilities may include: 1) a gym or fitness room, 2) space for yoga , dance, or other instruction, 3) enclosed or outdoor space for playing courts or games, 4) children's play area, 5) picnic and barbeque area, or 6) child ren’s daycare space. At least 250 square feet per unit shall be provided for these recreational facili ties, and there shall be a minimum of 2 of these facilities in projects with 10-50 units, 3 of these facilities in projects with 51-100 units, and 4 or more of these facilities in projects with more than 100 units . No essential recreational facilities are required in a small project, with less than 10 dwelling units. The space allocated for recreational facilities shall count toward the requirement for common open space, and this space may be within buildings.
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 300
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
I. Minimum affordable housing requirement.
1. Requirement. Residential development projects in an AHO and an MUO district with 10 or more dwelling units shall provide the following minimum numbers of affordable housing units:
a. Rental projects: 9 percent of the total units affordable to low income households at an affordable rent.
b. For-sale projects: 3 percent of the total units in a Common Interest Development for moderate income households at an affordable sales price, provided that all of the units are offered to the public for purchase. c. Projects with both rental units and for sale units: The minimum numbers shall be calculated separately for each type of housing.
2. Calculations. All calculations of the number of affordable units required to be built on-site in a project that result in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
3. Common owners and control. An applicant for development within an AHO or MUO district shall not avoid the requirements of this section by submitting piecemeal planning applications. At the time of the first application for residential development, the applicant shall identify all contiguous property under common ownership and control. The applicant shall not be required to construct housing on contiguous property but must include such property in a comprehensive affordable housing plan.
4. Income qualifications . Household income qualifications shall be those established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development each year for San Bernardino County, as adjusted for household size, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932, and Health and Safety Code Section 50093.
5. Location, size, design, and distribution of affordable units . Affordable units shall have the same bedroom and bathroom count ratio as the market rat e units in a project, be equally distributed within the project, and have the same type or quality of appliances, fixtures, and finishes. The affordable housing units shall be integrated with other housing units in the housing development with regard to si ting and placement within buildings and shall not differ in exterior appearance from the other housing units. The location of the affordable housing units may or may not be on contiguous parcels within the site. In no event shall the affordable housing uni ts be located in only one
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 301
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
portion of the housing development or situated in one building of a multi - building development.
6. Timing of Construction . All required affordable units shall be made available for occupancy prior to, or concurrently with, the market -rate units. The affordable units may be constructed in phases if the market -rate units are constructed in phases, provided that the percentage of affordable units developed in each phase shall be equivalent to or greater than the total percentage of affordable units to be developed as part of the residential development until such time that all the affordable units have been built.
J. Alternatives. In lieu of providing the affordable units in the housing development project required by Section 20.09.090 (D) and ( I), the requirements of th ose subsections may be satisfied through one or more of the alternatives set forth below.
1. In-Lieu Fee.
a. For housing development projects proposing up to 20 units, the developer may, by right, pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units on site.
b. For housing developme nt projects proposing more than 20 units, the developer shall only be allowed to pay in -lieu fees if the Planning Commission makes a finding that providing affordable units on-site would result in an extreme financial hardship to the developer and make the proposed project financially infeasible. The develo per shall submit a request to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units on site as part of the project application. Such request shall include sufficient documentation and financial analysis to allow the Planning Commission to make the required findings . At the City’s discretion, the City may contract with a third -party financial consultant to evaluate the documentation and analysis submitted by the applicant and make a recommendation to the City regarding the issues of extreme financial hardship and financial infeasibility. The developer shall be required to reimburse the City for all costs related to hiring any such third -party consultant, which shall be in addition to any other required applica tion fees. The demonstration of financial hardship and infeasibility may be based on, among other things, such factors as project size, site constraints, and/or excessively large affordability gaps, or upon a demonstration that in the absence of allowing for payment of in-lieu fees, the imposition of the affordable housing production requirements in this Section would violate the California and/or United States Constitutions
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 302
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
because it would be a regulatory taking of property without fair and just compensation.
c. In-lieu fees shall be paid as follows:
(i) The amount of the fee shall be calculated using the fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council at the time the fee is paid.
(ii) One-half of the in -lieu fee required by this subsection shall be paid (or a letter of credit posted) prior to issuance of a building permit for all or any part of the housing development project. The remainder of the fee shall be paid before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any unit in the housing development pr oject. In a phased project, payment of fees also may be allowed in phases, corresponding to the number of units in each phase.
(iii) The fees collected shall be deposited in the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund established by Section 20.09.090 (M).
2. Land Dedication. In lieu of providing affordable units on-site, a developer may request City Council approval to dedicate land to the City or to a City-approved affordable housing developer that the Director of Develo pment Services determines is suitable for the construction of the required number of affordable units and is within one mile of the project site . To accept a land dedication in lieu of on-site affordable units, the City Council must determine the fair market value of the dedicated land is equivalent to or greater than the amount of in - lieu fees that would have been needed to satisfy the housing development project's affordable housing obligation and that the required number of units for very low income residents will be built on this land based on a proposed conceptual site plan and proforma financial analysis demonstrating project feasibility with available funding.
a. The developer must submit evidence that the land proposed to be dedicated is under the developer’s control, will be conveyed at no cost to the City or a City-approved affordable housing developer with experience building rental housing for very low income households , is free of any liens, all p roperty taxes and special taxes have been paid, does not contain any hazardous materials, has the appropriate General Plan designation and zoning to allow construction of the required number of units, and has the necessary infrastructure and public improve ments to support the required number of affordable units. Only sites within an AHO or MUO district that are within one mile of the project site can be considered for land dedication.
b. The developer must disclose whether any hazardous materials were previously contained on the site; and hazardous materials were
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 303
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
previously remediated, the developer must provide evidence that the cleanup was performed in accordance with applicable law. c. The land proposed for dedication cannot have been improved with any residential use for at least five years prior to the submission of a land dedication proposal.
d. The affordable units to be constructed on the dedicated land shall be at least 20 percent of the total number of units in the project, and these units must be rental units affordable to very low income households.
3. Off-site Construction. A market-rate developer may enter into an agreement with an affordable housing developer to construct, own, and operate affordable rental housing units required by Sections 20.09.090 (D) and (I), provided:
a. The affordable housing developer is approved by the Director of Development Services on the basis of recent relevant experience; b. The affordable housing developer does not request any financial assistance from the City;
c. The affordable rental housing units shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with the market -rate development triggering the affordable housing requirement; and
d. At least 20 percent of the total number of units to be built on the site shall be rental units affordable to very low income residents.
K. Review Procedures.
1. Preliminary Review. A developer requesting additional density above 26 units per adjusted gross acre for a rental project under Section 20.09.090(D) shall submit an application for preliminary review, accompanied by the required application fee, for feedback prior to the submittal of any formal requests for approval of additional density. The purpose of the preliminary review is to determine whether the proposed development is in sub stantial compliance with applicable planning regulations and to establish the basis and procedures for granting the additional density. The following information is required to be submitted for preliminary review in the form of a proposed affordable housing plan in addition to information required by the Department’s preliminary review checklist:
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 304
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
a. Evidence that the project includes the qualifying percentages of affordable units set forth in Section 20.09.090(D) to justify the additional density requested;
b. Calculations showing the maximum base density and the density with the additional units;
c. Number and percentage of total units that are proposed to meet affordability criteria and the income level to which the units will be restricted; and
d. A description of an y proposed waivers or reductions of development standards or other zoning requirements, consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 95915 (k).
2. Site approval required. All residential development or mixed use development with residential units in an AHO or MUO district shall require approval of a Site Approval application as outlined under Section 20.23.090. For residential development and mixed use development with residential units, design review by the Planning Commissi on shall be undertaken only to determine compliance with the City’s objective design standards using the Site Approval process.
3. Additional findings for approval. The Planning Commission shall grant a Site Approval if it makes the findings required by Sect ion 20.23.090 and the following additional findings:
a. The proposed development meets the affordability criteria for the requested density in accordance with the requirements of subsection (D) and (I); and
b. The increased density would not have a specific ad verse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources.
4. Conditions of approval. The Planning Commission has the authority to impose reasonable conditions that are related and proportionate to what is being requested by the applicant, as deemed necessary and appropriate to ensure that the provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan adopted by the City Council, and this Title are met, including requirements for needed off-site public improvements. The Commission may require reasonable guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being, or will be, met.
L. Required affordable housing agreement for continued affordability. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential development project with affordable
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 305
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
housing units in an AHO or MUO district, the applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City ensuring the continued affordability of the affordable dwelling units for a period of not less than 75 years or as long as the property is in residential use, whichever is greater, for rental units and 45 years for for-sale units. The terms and conditions of the agreement shall be binding upon the successor in interest of the developer and shall be recorded in the main office of the San Bernardino County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, and include provisions for the following:
1. The number and proportion of housing units affordable to moderate -income, low-income, and very-low income households by type, their location, and the number of bedrooms in each one;
2. Standards for maximum qualifying household incomes and maximum rents or sale prices;
3. Minimum home buyer payments and sources of funds for them;
4. The party responsible for certifying rents and sales prices of affordable housing units and reporting this information to the City;
5. The process that will be used to certify incomes of tenants or purchasers of the affordable housing units;
6. The manner in which vacancies will be marketed and filled, including the screening and qualifying of prospective renters and purc hasers of the affordable units;
7. Deed restrictions on the affordable housing units binding on property upon sale or transfer and any subsequent sale or transfer;
8. Enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the affordable rental units are continuously occupied by eligible households and are not rented, leased, sublet, assigned, or otherwise transferred to non -eligible households, with reasonable allowances for inherited units and units initially occupied by very low income individuals who incomes may increase to a low income level;
9. Provisions allowing moderate income homebuyers to resell the unit at fair market value in return for the City receiving payment equal to the original Affordability Gap plus a defined share of the equity appreciation achieved on sale, which shall be deposited in the City’s Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund and used within three years for any of the purposes described in
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 306
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote homeownership; and
10. Project phasing, including the timing of completions, and rental or sale of the affordable housing units, in relation to the timing of the market-rate units.
M. Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund. There is a separate fund of the City known as the Overlay District Afford able Housing Fund , and all in -lieu fees or other funds collected under this section shall be deposited into the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund . Additional funds from other sources also may be deposited in the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund.
1. Money deposited in the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund may be used to pay for the direct costs associated with administration and enforcement of the affordable housing program established for the AHO and MUO districts.
2. After payment of expenses, at least 70 percent of the remaining money shall be expended to provide housing affordable to low income and very low income housing holds; the remaining money may be expended to provide housing affordable to moderate-income households.
3. The fund shall be administered by the Director of Development Services.
4. A developer receiving funding from the fund shall implement a local preference in their resident selection criteria.
Section 4. Chapter 20.18 (Parking) is hereby amended as fo llows ( additions in Red; deletions in strikethrough):
…
20.18.030 - Number of parking spaces required.
A. Off-street parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided as specified in Table
20.18-1 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) of this chapter.
B. Uses not listed. Off-street parking requirements for uses not specifically listed shall be as determined by the Director of community development Development Services,
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 307
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
based upon the requirements for comparable uses and the particular characteristics of the site and proposed use.
C. Multiple uses. Whenever more than one land use is conducted on a lot or parcel, the required number of parking spaces shall be the sum of the requirements for each individual use.
D. Fractional spaces. If the number of required parking spaces does not result in a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
TABLE 20.18-1 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Uses, Activities and
Facilities
Number of Required Parking Spaces
(all spaces are uncovered unless otherwise noted)
Residential Uses
Single-Family
Dwellings 2 garage spaces per dwelling
Duplexes 2 garage spaces per dwelling
1 covered space per dwelling less than 950 sq. ft.
Multiple-Family
Dwellings (Less than
16 units/acre)
Studio Units: 1 covered space per dwelling,
1 Bedroom Units: 1.5 covered spaces per dwelling,
2 or more Bedroom Units: 2 covered spaces
Guest Parking: 1 space for every 10 dwelling units
Multiple-Family
Dwellings (16-19
units/acre)
Studio Units: 1 covered space per dwelling
1 Bedroom Units: 1 covered and 0.5 uncovered space per
dwelling
2 or more Bedroom Units: 1 covered and 1 uncovered
space per dwelling
Guest Parking: 1 space for every 10 dwelling units
Multiple-Family
Dwellings (20
units/acre or greater)
Studio Units: 1 covered or uncovered space per dwelling, 1 Bedroom Units: 1.5 covered or uncovered spaces per
dwelling,
2 or more Bedroom Units: 2 covered or uncovered spaces
Guest Parking: 1 space for every 10 dwelling units
Accessory Dwelling
Units
1 covered or uncovered space per dwelling, in compliance with section 20.11.020 (Accessory Structures - Accessory Dwelling Units).
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 308
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
TABLE 20.18-1 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Uses, Activities and
Facilities
Number of Required Parking Spaces
(all spaces are uncovered unless otherwise noted)
Live/Work Units
1.5 spaces for up to 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 0.5 additional space for every additional 500 sq. ft. of floor area above the first 1,000 sq. ft.
Group Homes and
Facilities 1 space per bed plus 1 space per employee
Mobile Home Parks
1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling, 1
uncovered guest space for every 5 dwellings and 1
recreational vehicle parking space for every 5 dwellings Senior Housing
Projects
1 covered or uncovered space per dwelling, plus 1
uncovered guest space for every 10 dwelling units, plus 1 uncovered space for each 2 employees (if any) during the largest shift
20.18.040 – General parking regulations.
…
E. Reductions to the required number . The planning commission may grant a reduction in the amount of required parking when one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Shared parking. Multiple uses may use joint parking facilities when operations for the respective uses are not normally conducted during the same hours, or
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 309
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
when hours of peak use differ. Requests for the use of shared parking must meet the following conditions:
a. A parking demand study has been prepared which demonstrates that there will be no substantial conflicts between the subject uses with regard to principal hours of operation and periods of peak parking demand. b. The total number of parking spaces required fo r the subject uses does not exceed the number of parking spaces reasonably anticipated to be available at periods of maximum use.
c. The proposed joint parking facility is not located further than four hundred feet from the uses which it serves.
d. A written a greement by and between the City of Chino and all other affected parties shall be executed and recorded with the county recorder, assuring the availability of the number of parking spaces designated for joint use, during the hours specified in the agreement, for the duration of the uses.
2. Low demand. The number of parking spaces required by this chapter may be reduced if it can be demonstrated that the use will not utilize the required number of spaces due to the nature of the specific use, or the manner in which the specific use is conducted.
3. Transportation management plan. The number of required parking spaces may be decreased, subject to the approval of an alternate commute mode awareness plan, prepared in accordance with standards set forth by the city's transportation manager and adopted by resolution of the city council.
4. Bus stop/transportation facility credit. A commercial or multiple -family development project located within four hundred feet of a bus stop may reduce the number of required parking s paces by up to five percent with approval of a site approval. If a commercial or multiple -family development project is located within four hundred feet of a bus transportation facility, the project may reduce the number of required parking spaces by up to ten percent with approval of a site approval. A transportation facility is defined as a place where more than four bus routes converge and where passenger amenities, such as trash receptacles, benches and covered waiting areas are also located.
5. Mixed use projects. A mixed use project with both commercial and residential units may reduce parking requirements up to fifty percent for either the commercial or residential use, whichever parking requirement is smaller. A mixed use project with both office and c ommercial uses and residential may reduce parking requirements up to seventy-five percent for either the office or residential uses, whichever parking requirement is smaller, with approval of a
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 310
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
site approval if the Planning Commission makes the following f indings in addition to the findings otherwise required:
a. That adequate measures will be put in place to reduce parking demand, such as promoting use of public transit, bicycling, and walking, and allowing telecommuting; and
b. That the reduction or elimination of the required parking spaces will not substantially reduce the availability of on-street parking for the occupants of nearby commercial, office, and/or residential buildings.
6. Affordable housing projects. Where an applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that variations in the number of spaces or the standards or dimensions otherwise required by this Chapter are warranted for affordable housing, an alternative parking area design and loading plan may be allowed with site approval. To grant such a variation, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in addition to the findings otherwise required for a site approval:
a. That the applicant qualifies for reduced parking under Section 65915 of the Government Code; or
b. That the applicant has convincingly demonstrated that the alternative plan is a superior solution and the requested modifications in the design and parking area layout standards are warranted to be able to reduce development costs and as a consequence of provide affordable housing; and
c. That the alternative parking arrangement will be in place at all times during operation and life of the principal uses to be served by the parking (a minimum of 45 years for for-sale projects and a minimum of 75 years or as long as the property is in residential use, whichever is greater, for rental projects).
…
20.18.050 - Parking design standards.
…
B. Location of parking areas and spaces.
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 311
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
1. Setbacks of parking stalls and drive aisles from property lines and buildings shall be as provided in Table 20.18-4 (Parking and Drive Aisle Setbacks, Minimum).
2. Carpool and vanpool spaces should be located as close as possible to the primary employee entrance(s) of the user(s) which they are intended to serve.
3. Parking spaces for multiple unit residential dwellings shall be located within one hundred fifty feet from the dwelling unit (front or rear door) for which the space is provided.
4. For residential development at densities exceeding 16 units per acre, including residential uses in mixed use development, required off-street parking located in the front half of a lot or within 25 feet of the side street on a corner lot shall be covered with a carport, garage or roofed structure. Other spaces may be uncovered if located in the rear half of the lot or site or when more than 25 feet from a side street. On larger sites with 10 or more dwelling units, uncovered spaces are allowed if setback at least 50 feet from a front property line and 25 feet from a street side property line and screened by a wall or landscaping so as not to be visible from a public street.
Section 5 . Chapter 20.21 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) is hereby amended as follows (additions in Red):
CHAPTER 20.21 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES
…
20.21.490 Farm Employee Housing
Farm Employee Housing must be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards, where allowed by the land use regulations for the agricultural or open space zoning district in Chapter 20.08.
A. Eligible facilities . Farm employee housing may consist of a variety of living quarters, dwelling units, group housing, tents, bunkhouses, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, or other housing designed and maintained for use by eligible farm employees for temporary or seasonal residency or permanent residency. Farm employee housing does not include a hotel, motel, inn, tourist hotel, multiple -family dwelling, or single -family homes where the housing is offered and rented to nonagricultural employees on the same terms as to farm employees, the owner of the housing is not an agricultural employer, or the housing is classified as “employee community housing” under the California Health and Safety Code Section 17005.5, which is owned by a public entity or is privately owned by a qualified nonprofit entity and has been granted an exemption under Health and Safety Code Section 17031.3.
B. Streamlined review – when only a zoning clearance is required in an agricultural zone. Small farm employee housing, consisting of no more than 36
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 312
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
beds in group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household on a site in an Agricultural Zone, OS 1 Zone, or OS 2 Zone, is a permitted agricultural use and only requires a Zoning Clearance under Section 20.23.120 to confirm that the standards of this Section and other applicable requirements of this Title are met. Large farm employee housing requires Site Approval by the Plann ing Commission; however, the time limits for review and approval, established in Section 17021.8 of the California Health and Safety Code apply.
C. Limits on location . No farm employee housing shall be allowed in the following locations:
1. Within 75 feet of barns, pens, or structures housing livestock or poultry;
2. Within 50 feet of a Residential zoning district;
3. On wetlands as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993);
4. Within a high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection;
5. On a hazardous waste site , unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses;
6. Within a delineated earthquake fau lt zone, as determined by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 313
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and by the City’s building department;
7. Within a flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has been issue d a flood plain development permit;
8. Within a floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
9. On land subject to a natural community conservatio n plan, habitat conservation plan , or other adopted natural resource protection plan, or subject to a conservation easement (excluding Williamson Act contracts); and
10. On land where the groundwater is within five feet of the soil surface where onsite wastewater disposal would serve six or more family units.
D. Limits on fees. No taxes or permit fees that are not normally required for other agricultural activities in an Agricultural Zone , OS 1 Zone, or OS 2 Zone can be required of an applicant developer of farm employee housing.
E. Maximum height. 25 feet.
F. Minimum sleeping area – group quarters. In group quarters, the minimum floor area available for sleeping purposes shall be 50 square feet per occupant.
G. Accessory uses and structures – group quarters. The following accessory uses and struc tures are allowed for farm employee group quarters: food se rvice for residents with a kitchen and dining hall; laundry facilities; storage facilities; and community facilities for education, group or individual meetings, reading, health, or other services.
H. No limits on density . Farm employee housing is exempt fro m the density limits of the Agricultural zoning district
I. No occupancy restrictions. The occupants are not required to live in the housing as a condition of employment or of securing employment and the occupants are not required to live in the housing by th e employer of the occupants, an agent of the employer of the occupants, or an agricultural employer as defined the California Labor Code.
J. Open space required. When a farm employee housing project includes more than 10 dwelling units, recreational faciliti es and common open space for residents’ use shall be provided as follows:
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 314
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
1. Common area. A minimum of 20 percent of the site area for the farm employee housing shall be outdoor common area with recreational facilities for activities such as baseball, basketball, soccer, horseshoes, or children’s play areas.
2. Private open space. Private open space shall be provided as follows:
a. A minimum of 80 square feet per unit for ground -floor units with a minimum horizontal dimension of 8 feet; and
b. A minimum of 36 square f eet for upper -level units with a minimum horizontal dimension of 6 feet.
K. Employee housing for six or fewer employees . Employee housing that accommodates six or fewer employees shall be considered a single-family structure and residential use pursuant to C alifornia Health and Safety Code Section 17021. 5 and only has to meet the standards that apply to a single family dwelling on a lot. Use of a single -family dwelling for such housing does not constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of State Housing Law or the City’s Building Code.
L. Permit Required. A permit from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required for housing for five or more employees pursuant to the California Employee Housing Act; a copy of the HCD permit shall be provided to the Director of Development Services within 14 days of issuance.
M. Exterior lighting. Exterior lighting shall be limited to security needs only, directed downward, and full shielded from streets and adjacent residences.
N. Off-street parking. Off-street parking shall be provided as requ ired by Chapter
20.18, Parking. The minimum parking requirement for farm employee housing shall be one parking space for one bedroom or studio units, two spaces for units with two or more bedrooms, and one space per three beds for group quarters.
O. Setbacks. All farm employee housing shall be a minimum of 75 feet from any barn, pen, or other structure that houses livestock or poultry and a minimum of 50 feet from any other agricultural use.
P. Water and wastewater disposal. All farm employee housing shall have public water service and public wastewater collection service unless a private on-site wastewater disposal system in approved by the City.
Q. Minimum period of occupancy. The owner of farm employee housing approved under this section must agree to maintain this housing for a minimum period of 10 years after issuance of a final building permit. Failing to do so would allow the County to recover any taxes, fees, assessments, or charges that were waived for the farm worker housing.
R. Compliance with other codes . Farm employee housing shall conform with all the requirements of the City that are applicable to agricultural uses in an Agricultural Zone
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 315
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
in which the property is located. All farm employee housing must satisfy building, fire, and safety standards, such as fire lane widths, minimum fire flows, and emergency egress, as established through State of California’s Fire and Building Codes and as amended by the City.
Section 6. Chapter 20.23 (Administration) is hereby amended as follows ( additions in Red; deletions in strikethrough):
CHAPTER 20.23 ADMINISTRATION
…
20.23.090 - Site approvals.
A. Purpose and intent . The purpose of the site approval procedure is to provide a process whereby the integrity and character of the physical fabric of the residential, commercial, and industrial, and agricultural areas of the city will be protected in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the city's general plan. This is assured through the review of development plans for the suitability of:
…
B. Applicability.
1. Site approval shall be required for the physical alteration of a lot or parcel, the construction of a ne w building, or the addition to or alteration of an existing building, except that site approval shall not be required for:
a. The development of buildings or structures reviewed and approved pursuant to the provisions of section 20.23.120 (Administrative Approval);
b. Changes in tenancy of an existing building, structure or land where that change does not involve the issuance of a special conditional use permit, or the alteration of either the site or the existing building; and c. Tenant improvements wholly within an existing building.; and d. Single family dwellings, accessory dwelling units, caretaker units, and agricultural buildings in agricultural zones.
…
F. Review and Action
…
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 316
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
4. A site approval application for large farm employee housing shall be reviewed and approved within the time limits established in Section 17021.8 of the California Health and Safety Code.
20.23.110 - Zoning clearance.
…
B. Applicability.
1. Within residential zones, a zoning clearance is required for the following:
a. Development of or alterations to any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit.
ba. Construction of or alterations to non -habitable structures accessory to residential dwellings, including garages, when such structures are six hundred square feet or less in area.
cb. Single-story additions to existing single-family or duplex dwelling units. dc. Alterations to existing multiple family dwellings and developments, provided that the addition will not result in an increase in density. ed. Alterations to existing parking facilities accessory to any building or structure. fe. Alterations to existing landscaping as required by Chapter 20.19.020 (Landscaping-applicability) of this Zoning Code.
gf. Construction or alterations to walls and fences.
hg. Construction or alterations to patios, patio covers and patio enclosures. ih. Alterations to on-site exterior lighting.
ji. Alterations to existing single-family or duplex dwelling units. kj. The installation of solar panels on multi-family residential homes. lk. The keeping of chickens in the RD 4.5 zone, consistent with the standards in section 20.21.030.
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 317
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
…
4. Within the Agricultural Zone , OS 1 Zone, and OS 2 Zone , a zoning clearance is required for the following:
a. Small farm employee housing pursuant to Section 20.21.490. …
E. Special procedures for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. The Development Services Director or the Director's designee shall act on an application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit as required by State law, and no zoning clearance is needed. within sixty days from the date the city receives a completed application if there is an existing single -family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the city may delay acting on the application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the city acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit sh all be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the sixty-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.
F. Special procedure for small farm employee housing . The Director of Development Services shall confirm that the standards of Section 20.21.490 and other applicable requirements of this Title are met and act on an application to create small farm employee housing within 90 days from the date the City receives a completed application.
FG. Public notice and hearing . No public notice or hearing is required for a zoning clearance.
…
Section 7. Section 20.24.020 (Definition) is hereby amended to add the following terms, which shall be added in alphabetical order within their respective subsections (additions in Red):
A. Definitions, "A".
Affordable housing. A housing unit which is available for rent or sale to households with income levels at the very low-, low-, or moderate-income level as those terms are defined in this section.
Affordable housing development. A development project of ten or more residential units, including mixed-use developments, that includes affordable housing.
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 318
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
Affordable housing agreement. A legally binding agreement between an Applicant and the City of Chino to ensure that continued affordability of affordable housing units that may be required by this Title persists and the units are maintained in accordance with this Title.
Affordable rent. means the total housing costs paid by a qualifying household, which shall not exceed a specified fraction of their gross income, adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit, as follows:
• For purposes of the City’s density bonus in the AHO and MUO zoning districts, the low income rent shall be based on 30 percent of 80 percent multiplied by the area median income for San Bernardino County as p ublished by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
• For applicants seeking a density bonus under Government Code Section 65915, the calculation methodology in Section 50053(b) of the Health and Safety Code will be applied.
Affordable sales price . The maximum purchase price that can be charged for an affordable unit calculated in accordance with Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code . The affordable sales price is equal to the lesser of: 1) the sum of the assumed mortgage cost plus the benchmark down payment, which is used solely for calculation of the affordable sales price, or 2) the purchase price prospective buyers are willing to pay in return for purchasing a home that is subject to restrictive covenants. The benchmark down payment is set at five percent of the affordable sales price.
B. Definitions, "B".
Bedroom. A habitable space within a dwelling unit in which people sleep, which can also include permanent provisions for living, eating, and either sanitation or kitchen facilities but not both.
D. Definitions, "D".
Development costs. The aggregate of all costs incurred in connection with a development which are reasonable and necessary, including, but not limited to, those costs listed in California Health and Safety Code Section 50065.
Development standard. A site or construction con dition, including, but not limited to, height limits, required setbacks, maximum floor area ratio, on -site open -space requirement, or required parking that applies to a development pursuant to any ordinance, General Plan, Specific Plan, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
Discretionary approval. Any entitlement or approval, including but not limited to a use permit, variance, site approval, and subdivision map.
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 319
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
E. Definitions, "E".
Equity share agreement. An agreement by which appreciation on the value of an affordable unit from the time of the original purchase at an affordable price to the time of resale shall be shared between the purchaser of the affordable unit and the City according to details specified in the Affordable Housing Agreement for the project . Having such an agreement shall be a condition of sale of the affordable unit.
F. Definitions, "F".
Fair market value. The real estate market value of an affordable housing unit at the time of initial purchase of that unit without regard to any restrictions on sales price, as substantiated by an appraisal in a form and substance , and by an appraiser, acceptable to the City.
Farm employee. A person employed in agriculture or activities associated with agricultural packing and storage and transportation of agricultural products. The employment may be full-time, full-time seasonal, temporary, or part-time.
Farm employee housing, large. Farm employee housing consisting of more than 36 beds in group quarters used exclusively for farm employees, or more than 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household with one or more farm employees.
Farm employee housing, small. Farm employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters used exclusively for farm employees, or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household with one or more farm employees. Farm employee housing includes single -family dwelling units occupied by a farmworker employed full -time and working on -site where the dwelling unit is located and the farmworker’s household.
I. Definitions, "I".
Income (household), very low. A household whose gross income does not exceed 50 percent of the area median income for San Bernardino County, adjusted for family size, as published and periodically updated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Income (household), low. A household whose gross income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income for San Bernardino County, adjusted for family size, as published and periodically updated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Income (household), lower. A household whose gross income falls under the categories of very low-, or low-income as those terms are defined in this glossary.
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 320
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
Income (household), moderate. A household whose gross income does not exceed 120 percent of the area median income for the San Bernardino County, adjusted for family size, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing a nd Community Development pursuant to Section 500 93 of the California Health and Safety Code.
M. Definitions, "M".
Maximum allowable density. The maximum number of dwelling units per acre as allowed under the General Plan Land Use Designation. Where an Affo rdable Housing Development is permitted by an overlay in a Land Use Designation that does not provide a residential density allowance, the maximum allowable density shall be calculated in reference to the residential density allowance designated in the Zoning Code for the overlay zone. In non -residential zones, the Maximum Allowed Density shall be the maximum number of dwelling units, without the inclusion of Density Bonus Units or associated incentives, concessions, waivers, and reductions, that can be developed on the site in substantial conformance with General Plan policies, and applicable Development Standards.
S. Definitions, "S".
San Bernardino County area media n income . The median income published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") each year as required by California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932 and Health and Safety Code Section 50093.
W. Definitions, "W".
Walk-in clientele. A business providing direct services to patrons or clientele that may or may not require appointments. This classification includes employment agencies, insurance agent offices, real estate offices, travel agencies, utility company offi ces, and offices for elected officials.
Section 8. Zone Change. The overlays shown in Exhibit A are hereby added to the City’s Zoning Map.
Section 9. Preliminary Application. A proposed housing development project located in an Affordable Housing Overlay district that designates a minimum of five percent of its units for very low income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105, for which a complete prelimi nary application has been submitted to the City that satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1, and for which a full application has been submitted to the City (whether or not it has been determined to be complete), prior to the effective date of this ordinance, is subject to the base density of 30 dwelling units per adjusted gross acre, is not subject to the affordability requirements applicable to the Affordable Housing Overlay district, and is not subject to the development standards applicable to the Affordable Housing Overlay district; provided, that the project is in substantial conformance with the preliminary application per SB 330, in substantial conformance with the full application as deemed complete by the City , that
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 321
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
the project complies with all state building and fire code requirements, and that the preliminary application has not expired as of the date the City considers whether to approve or deny the project. Such a project shall nonetheless be subject to all ordinances, policies, and standards, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(4), that may be applied to the project pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The applicant for a project under this section shall ensure the affordability of all very low income units for at least 55 years through the recordation of an appropriate legal instrument.
Section 10. CEQA Findings. The City has prepared and adopted an Addendum to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021 -2029) Project Negative Declaration pu rsuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for the Zone Changes and Zoning Ordinance Amendment s in this ordinance . The Addendum has determined the project is within the scope of the ND, which adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA, and includes findings supported by substantial evidence that there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment attributable to PL22-078 (ZOA) and PL22-077 (ZC).
Section 11. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any other provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. The city council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its second reading and adoption.
Section 13. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Chino shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the Chino Champion, a newspaper of general circulation, within said city in accordance with the provisions of the Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF APRIL 2023.
By:
EUNICE M. ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
By:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 322
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-008
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) §
CITY OF CHINO )
I, Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk of the City of Chino do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance of the City of Chino was duly adopted by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of April 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
By:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
Exhibit A – Map and List of Sites Receiving the AHO and MUO Designations
11.13.g
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 323
11.13.h
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 324
APN Address OVERLAY ACRES
101403103 11488 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 4.54
101465201 11700 BLOCK CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.24
101439302 11700 BLOCK CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.44
101403132 11436 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.70
101551127 6210 RIVERSIDE DR AFF-OV 8.19
101551103 6132 RIVERSIDE DR AFF-OV 2.31
102103122 13700 BLOCK CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.00
102103116 5319 SCHAEFER AVE AFF-OV 1.45
102103126 13779 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 0.97
102011101 6033 RIVERSIDE DR AFF-OV 3.83
102010146 5993 RIVERSIDE DR AFF-OV 1.19
101557211 5559 PARK PL AFF-OV 2.38
101437138 11740 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.09
101437137 11712 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 0.74
101438102 11769 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.38
101438103 11761 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.38
101438101 11791 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 1.80
101551129 6180 RIVERSIDE DR AFF-OV 1.10
101551128 6160 RIVERSIDE DR AFF-OV 1.12
102004425 13001 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 0.58
102519106 4500 BLOCK CHINO HILLS PKWY AFF-OV 5.38
102548201 4700 BLOCK CHINO HILLS PKWY AFF-OV 0.47
102515108 4700 BLOCK CHINO HILLS PKWY AFF-OV 2.43
102549101 4700 BLOCK CHINO HILLS PKWY AFF-OV 0.37
101465101 11817 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 0.80
102103117 5345 SCHAEFER AVE AFF-OV 0.77
105205121 13078 EUCLID AVE AFF-OV 0.34
105205122 12900 BLOCK EUCLID AVE AFF-OV 0.34
105205123 13102 EUCLID AVE AFF-OV 0.69
105205124 13134 EUCLID AVE AFF-OV 3.15
105325102 6622 EDISON AVE AFF-OV 4.76
105325103 6566 EDISON AVE AFF-OV 4.68
105325104 6522 EDISON AVE AFF-OV 3.36
105327109 6950 EDISON AVE AFF-OV 12.77
101403101 11436 CENTRAL AVE AFF-OV 2.29
102521129 4300 BLOCK CORPORATE CENTER DR AFF-OV 4.14
101945117 13375 RAMONA AVE AFF-OV 4.62
101951105 13555 RAMONA AVE AFF-OV 4.39
102029427 5088 CHINO AVE AFF-OV 0.45
11.13.h
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 325
APN Address OVERLAY ACRES
102029410 13100 BLOCK 5TH ST AFF-OV 0.16
102029411 13100 BLOCK 5TH ST AFF-OV 0.16
102029412 13286 5TH ST AFF-OV 0.14
101562221 5130 RIVERSIDE DR AFF-OV 8.98
102606105 14700 BLOCK EUCLID AVE AFF-OV Partial 113.29
101462151 11900 BLOCK CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 2.21
101507108 5501 PHILADELPHIA ST MU-OV 4.65
101910105 4117 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 4.93
101529202 12404 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 3.45
101529206 12454 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 1.56
101537102 12516 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 3.01
101537103 12526 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 1.41
101537105 12550 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 1.93
101555301 5832 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 2.88
102045112 13300 BLOCK CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 2.41
101462150 11980 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 2.08
102520106 14700 BLOCK RAMONA AVE MU-OV 4.08
102519107 4500 BLOCK CHINO HILLS PKWY MU-OV 8.41
101506107 5459 PHILADELPHIA AVE MU-OV 6.20
101506108 5463 PHILADELPHIA ST MU-OV 7.52
102033111 5300 BLOCK G ST MU-OV 0.39
102033112 13399 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 0.78
102033113 13339 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 1.38
102033114 13309 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 1.76
102033116 5300 BLOCK CHINO AVE MU-OV 0.52
105205106 7041 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 0.68
105205107 7049 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 0.66
105205108 6900 BLOCK RIVERSIDE AVE MU-OV 0.33
105205109 7063 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 0.49
105205110 7075 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 0.11
105205112 12956 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.49
105205113 12962 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.64
105205114 12976 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.62
105205115 12986 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.98
105205116 13012 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 1.23
105205117 13024 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.82
105205118 13046 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.34
105205120 12900 BLOCK EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.96
105205125 13062 EUCLID AVE MU-OV 0.34
11.13.h
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 326
APN Address OVERLAY ACRES
105258103 13500 BLOCK EUCLID AVE MU-OV 10.36
105258104 13500 BLOCK EUCLID AVE MU-OV 3.20
102513206 14659 RAMONA AVE MU-OV 8.67
102257109 4093 GRAND AVE MU-OV 8.07
101530116 12356 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 2.00
101460119 5402 PHILADELPHIA ST MU-OV 6.09
101460120 5440 PHILADELPHIA ST MU-OV 3.10
101459116 5536 PHILADELPHIA ST MU-OV 3.40
101557827 5650 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 0.47
101557828 5664 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 0.43
101557829 5684 RIVERSIDE DR MU-OV 0.24
101504107 12266 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 1.79
101504106 12206 CENTRAL AVE MU-OV 0.60
11.13.h
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 327
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE EAST CHINO SPECIFIC PLAN, THE
EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAJESTIC
SPECTRUM SPECIFIC PLAN REVISING THE TEXT OF VARIOUS
SECTIONS WITHIN THESE SPECIFIC PLANS RELA TED TO THE
ADDITION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MIXED USE
OVERLAY DISTRICTS TO THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 20 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE ). PL22-0089 (EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT), PL22 -0090 (MAJESTIC SPECTRUM SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT), AND PL2 2-0091 (EAST CHINO
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
The City Council of the City of Chino, California, does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The East Chino Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows . Additions are shown in red; deletions are in bold strikethrough, and existing text that is not shown and will not be amended is denoted by ellipsis (“…”).
Pg. 14
Residential Policies:
(a) Utilize public facilities, such as libraries, parks and schools to create a focal point for individual neighborhoods.
(b) Orient the design of residential subdivisions to the paseo trail system and loop roads to create a focus for neighborhood structure and identify.
(c) Establish a comprehensive series of design standards compatible throughout the Specific Plan, yet v arying by neighborhood which address items such as street design, landscaping, architecture, site planning, and key neighborhood features.
Residential Objective:
(3) Provide sites that can be developed for residential uses and affordable housing to meet the goals of the City’s Housing Element.
Residential Policies:
(a) Provide sites for affordable housing with an Affordable Housing Overlay District and a Mixed Use Overlay District as established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance on land identified in the Gene ral Plan and Housing Element.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 328
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
2. Commercial
Pg. 45
e. Overlay Districts
…
(2) Residential Planned Development Overlay District (RPD) The Residential Planned Development (RPD) Overlay District may only be used for projects receiving an affordable housing density bonus. To facilitate the higher density the RPD Overlay District establishes special regulations for single family projects. Multi- family projects, however, must meet the base district regulations. (3) Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHO; 26 to 30 DU/AC) The purpose of the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) district is to enable the development of affordable housing for moderate, low, and very low income households at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre if affordability requirements established in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance are met. The AHO applies to sites shown in East Chino Specific Plan Exhibit II. (4) Mixed Use Overlay District (MUO; 26 to 30 DU/AC)
The purpose of the Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) district is to enable the development of affordable housing for moderate, low, and very low income households at densitie s of up to 30 dwelling units per acre if affordability requirements established in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance are met. The MUO enables both horizontal and vertical mixed use development. The MUO applies to sites shown in East Chino Specific Plan Exhibit II.
3. Neighborhood Structure
Pg. 47
Statistical Summary
The following table provides a statistical summary of the Activity Corridor by subarea. Parcel numbers shown on the chart may be referenced to the Neighborhood Summary Map for the exact location of each subarea. The number of units shown was estimated by multiplying the base density by the adjusted gross acres (defined on page 39 37). Density bonuses, up to 25 50 percent, may
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 329
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
be achieved through the City's affordable housing policy and the provisions of Chapter 20.14 (Residential Density Bonuses) in the Zoning Ordinance.
A total of 44 acres is within the AHO and 8.35 acres is within the MUO; parcels included in each of these designations are listed in the Site Inventories of the General Plan Housing Element. P rovisions for increases in density above the base of 20 units per acre are allowed as provided for in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Pg. 83
3. Site Planning Concepts
This section provides two conceptual site plans which have been provided to illustrate various site planning techniques related to the Activity Corridor (Figure 23), and single family neighborhoods (Figure 24). Each plan considers the total context of the site including: placement of buildings, building pads, streets and interval driveways, parking areas, and the relationship to adjacent development. The intent is to show basic design concepts applicable to the Specific Plan. They should not be taken literally in terms of specifying final site plan design. Rather, issues such as density, building coverage and placement, setbacks, etc., will be determined during the normal city review process.
In areas subject to the MUO, the standards in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance allow both horizontal and vertical mixed use development. Horizontal mixed use development can accommodate a range of uses adjacent to one another, either in separate buildings o r parcels or on one parcel. Individual buildings may share project components, such as parking, serving, loading, and utility areas. By contrast, vertical mixed use allows for a mix of uses within a single building where non-residential uses occupy the ground floor and residential uses are on the upper levels. A vertical mixed use project may have surface parking, subterranean parking decks, and/or at grade and above grade parking decks.
Also, in the MUO, active and pedestrian -oriented frontages must be provided. More specifically, along the primary building frontage in mixed use buildings with residential uses, active ground floor uses are required for at least 60 percent of street -facing spacing. These may include retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, retail banks, personal services, and offices for walk -in clientele (e.g. real estate and insurance offices, travel agencies, utility company offices, and offices for elected officials) . For residential only buildings along a primary building frontage, an active frontage with a pedestrian orientation can include windows and glass doors, stoops and steps, covered entries, and windows providing views into active
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 330
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
space within the building, such as lobbies and gyms. The Director of Development Services also may allow these active and pedestrian-oriented frontages to be provided along private streets, interior walkways, and around plazas and courtyards within the interior of a mixed use project rather than on exterior frontages facing arterial streets.
Pg. 91
1. Purpose and Intent
This chapter contains the development regulations and guidelines for all new construction in the East Chino Specific Plan. The provisions herein will implement the city of Chino General Plan and are tailored to accomplish the goals specified in Chapter III, and structure described in Chapter IV (Specific Plan Components). The intent is to establish a distinctive, well designed and high quality environment which enhances the agricultural and rural heritage of the area.
There are eleven basic land use categories within the Specific Plan listed below. In addition, two four overlay districts are established to address special circumstances pertaining to interim agricultural uses and affordable housing. Refer to the Specific Plan Land Use Map and to Exhibit II to determine the boundaries of each category.
LAND USE CATEGORIES DESIGNATION
Residential
Residential Development 20 DU/AC RD 20
Residential Development 14 DU/AC RD 14
Residential Development 8 DU/AC RD 8
Residential Development 4.5 DU/AC RD 4.5
Residential Development 2 DU/AC RD 2
Commercial
Village Commercial VC
General Commercial GC
Office Commercial OC
Industrial
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 331
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Business Park BP
Light Industrial LI
Open Space/Overlay District
Southern California Edison Easement EE
Interim Agricultural Overlay District (A-A)
Residential Planned Development Overlay District (RPD)
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)
Mixed Use Overlay (MUO)
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 332
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Figure 4a (between pages 45 and 46) - The following map shall replace the existing map.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 333
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Pg. 94
(3) This section is not to be construed so as to modify or abridge the state law set out in the California Civil Code relative to nuisances, but rather it is only to be utilized in the
interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of City ordinances and regulations.
8. Land Use Regulations and Site Development Standards in the AHO and MUO
Use of the provisions of the AHO and MUO is voluntary; no specific obligations to build housing are established for the sites subject to the AHO and MUO designations unless such a requirement is established by the base zone. However, when an applicant proposes a housing development in the AHO or a mixed use development in the MUO, and that development would not be permitted under the base zone, then the land use regulations, development standards, design standards, and related provisions governing the location, design, size, number, income level, and distribution of affordable units that are established for these overlay s in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance control in the case of a conflict with the land use regulations, development and design standards, affordable unit requirements, and design guidelines for the underlying land use . However, when an applicant proposes only non-residential uses or residential uses that are permitted in the base zone , then only the land use regulations, development and des ign standards, design guidelines, and site planning guidelines applicable to the base zone apply.
8 9. Severability
If any regulation, condition, program or portion thereof of the Specific Plan is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
Pg. 141
*NOTE: This chart indicates changes to base district standards only. Refer to Section V of the Specific Plan for the remainder of development standards in each district.
4. Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHO)
a. Purpose and Applicability
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 334
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is intended to enable the development of affordable housing for low and very low income households at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre if affordability requirements established in Chapter 20.0 9 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance are met.
This district implement s the goals of the Chino General Plan and East Chino Specific Plan as they apply to land identified in the Sites Inventory of the General Plan Housing Element.
b. District Boundaries
The parcels within the AHO District are shown in Exhibit II. c. Permitted Uses
Buildings, structures and land shall be used and structures shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged only as allowed under the land use regulations of the East Chino Specific Plan and, for housing projects, the land use regulations and minimum affor dable housing requirements of Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for the AHO District.
d. Site Development Standards
All development is subject to the development standards set forth in this specific plan and, for housing projec ts, the specific standards established in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for the AHO District, including development and design standards and standards for the location, size, design, and distribution of affordable units. T he provisions in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for maximum density and increased density for affordable housing in the AHO District also apply and are incorporated by reference. In the case of conflicts, the City’s zoning standards shall apply. Finally, no covered parking is required for housing projects at densities of 20 units per acre or more , and only the standards for parking set in the Chino Zoning Ordinance apply.
e. Design Guidelines
Housing projects not otherwise permitted under the base zone only have to meet the multiple family residential design standards established in Section 20.17.050 (Multiple-Family Residential Design Standards) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance as modified by Chapter
20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for the AHO District.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 335
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
f. Required Affordable Housing Agreement for Continued Affordability Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential development project with affordable housing units in an AHO District, the developer shall enter into a written agreement with the City ensuring the continued affordability of the affordable dwelling units for a period of not less than 55 years for rental units and 45 years for for-sale units. The terms and condit ions of the agreement shall be binding upon the successor in interest of the developer and shall be recorded in the main office of the San Bernardino County Assessor- Recorder-Clerk. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and include all of the provisions required for such agreements in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance.
5. Mixed Use Overlay District (MUO)
a. Purpose and Applicability
The Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) District is intended to enable the development of affordable housing for low and very low income households in mixed use projects at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre if affordability requirements established in Chapter
20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance are met.
The MUO allows both horizontal and vertical mixed use, and residential development may be in standalone buildings or on upper floors of a mixed use building.
This district is intended to implement the goals and policies of the Chino General Plan and East Chino Specific Plan.
b. District Boundaries
The parcels within the MUO District are show on the map in Exhibit II.
c. Permitted Uses
Buildings, structures and land shall be used and structures shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged only as allowed under the land use regulations of the East Chino Specific Plan and, for housing projects or for mixed use projects with a residential component, the land use regulations and minimum affordable housing requirements of Chapter 20.09 (Overlay District) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for the MUO District.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 336
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
d. Site Development Standards
All development is subject to the development standards set forth in the East Chino Specific Plan and, for mixed use projects with a residential component, the specific standards established in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for the MUO and Section
20.09.090 (E)(4), including development and design standards and standards for the location, size, design, and distribution of affordable units. In the case of conflicts with the design guidelines of the specific plan , the City’s zoning standards shall apply. No covered parking is required, and only the standards for parking set in the Chino Zoning Ordinance apply.
e. Design Guidelines
All commercial development and market rate housing development are subject to the design guidelines for the underlying use as established in this specific plan. Housing projects only have to meet the multiple family residential design standards established in Section 20.17.050 (Multiple-Family Design Standards) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance and the mixed use design guidelines established in Section 20.17.060 (Mixed Use Design Standards) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance as modified by Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for the MUO district.
f. Required Affordable Housing Agreement for Continued Affordability Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential development project with affordable housing units in an MUO District, the developer shall enter into a written agreement with the City ensuring the continued affordability of the affordable dwelling units for a period of not les s than 55 years for rental units and 45 years for for-sale units. The terms and conditions of the agreement shall be binding upon the successor in interest of the developer and shall be recorded in the main office of the San Bernardino County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and include all of the provisions required for such agreements in Chapter
20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2. The Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows.
Additions are shown in red; deletions are in bold strikethrough, and existing text that is not shown and will not be amended is denoted by ellipsis (“…”).
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 337
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Pg. 1
The EBPSP was approved by the City of Chino Planning Commission on September 17, 1990, and subsequently by the City Council on December 18, 1990.
Since its adoption, various land holdings and market conditions have generated the request for the ability to develop a high quality large industrial, manufacturing and warehouse/distribution business park in the easterly portion of the specific plan boundaries. In an attempt to accommodate this land usage, an amendment to the specific plan was adopted that addressed these specific needs.
In addition, in 2023 the EBPSP was amended to address affordable housing needs identified in the General Plan Housing Element and support the City’s efforts to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by adding provisions for overlay designation for affordable housing and for mixed use with affordable housing.
Pg. 12
8. Overlay Designations. Two overlay designations have been established and apply to designated parcels within the boundaries of the specific plan. • The purpose of the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) district is to enable the development of affordable housing for low and very low income households at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre if affordability requirements established in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay District) of the Zoning Ordinance are met.
• The purpose of the Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) district is to enable the development of affordable housing for low and very low income households in mixed use projects at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre if affordability requirements established in Chapter
20.09 (Overlay District) of the Zoning Ordinance are met. The MUO enables both horizontal and vertical mixed use development.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 338
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Pg. 19
The primary goals of the EBPSP are to:
1. Provide a mix of employment and sales tax generating uses which promote a sound and diversified economic base, ample employment opportunities for the residents of the City of Chino, and a high quality image for the City's industrial area.
2. Establish a specific, well-defined pattern of commercial, office, industrial, warehouse/distribution and manufacturing activities which has good access to regional transportation systems; meets the personal needs of area workers and the service needs of area firms; and is compatible with surrounding industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential land uses.
3. Enhance the attractiveness of the EBPSP area for quality businesses that wish to locate within an attractive, pleasant work environment, which has a broad range of support services and amenities available to their employees.
4. Provide opportunities for the development of affordable housing at appropriate locations, consistent with the General Plan Housing Element.
Pg. 22
d. Southern California Edison Easement (SCE) and San Antonio Channel.
Integrate the SCE easement and San Antonio Creek Channel into the EBPSP area as an area amenity.
(i) Provide for planting of tall vertical trees adjacent to the towers to reduce their visual prominence.
(ii) Where feasible, integrate the SCE easement into the EBPSP area by permitting appropriate use of the easement by adjacent businesses.
(iii) Provide trail connections along the SCE easements and San Antonio Creek Channel.
(iv) Encourage crop production and horticultural activities within the SCE easement.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 339
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
e. Residential and Mixed Land Uses.
(i) Create opportunities for affordable housing and mixed use development along the Chino Valley Freeway (SR 71) and east of Ramona Avenue and north of Chino Hills Parkway on sites identified in the General Plan Housing Element.
▪ Establish minimum affordability requirements and allow for increased density for projects meeting specific affordability criteria.
▪ Ensure that residential and mixed use development is
compatible with adjacent office and general commercial uses using objective development and design standards.
Pg. 42
LAND USE PLAN
1. Overall Concept. The overall land use concept for the EBPSP area is oriented around achieving three primary objectives: (a) provide significant local employment opportunities; (b) create a highly imageable development pattern which will appeal to firms seeking a prestigious location; and (c) ensure a positive balance of municipal revenues and costs. As a result, the most visible portions of the EBPSP area will be used for sales tax generating retail uses and intensive employment generating office uses. Chino Valley Freeway frontage has been reserved for an expansion of automotive sales, creating a viable auto mall; commercial and commercial recreation; and mixed use office/commercial/residential development.
The Central Avenue frontage, which has excellent visibility, but which also has significant traffic limitations, will be used for a less intensive mix of commercial offices, support commercial, and industrial development in a business park atmosphere transitioning to larger scale industrial uses to the west to Monte Vista Avenue.
Finally, the interior portions of the specific plan area have been reserved for manufacturing, warehouse and distribution uses and for affordable housing and mixed use development . These uses will feature and emphasize job creation and positive cost/benefit for the City and also help meet the City’s housing needs.
…
2. Land Use Categories. The land use types within the EBPSP area are Auto Mall, Business Park, Commercial, Commercial/Office, and
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 340
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Manufacturing—see Table IV -A (Land Use Summary) and Figure IV-1 (Land Use Plan). Such designations are intended to respond to a wide range of demands for land uses, while offering a variety of development and employment opportunities which meet City of Chino objectives and concerns for the study area. The overlay designations for affordable housing and mixed use are shown in Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Figure IV-1.1.
Pg. 43 – Replace existing map with following map.
Figure IV-1.1-Land Use Plan
Pg. 97
A. URBAN DESIGN CONCEPT
The diversity of land uses and the various developments that comprise the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP) will work together to accomplish the primary design objective: Creation of an attractive development that will contribute to and enhance the City's image.
1. Auto Mall, Commercial, Commercial/Office, Mixed Use, and Affordable Housing Design Concept. The Auto Mall, Commercial, and
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 341
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Commercial/Office, Affordable Housing, and Mixed Use land uses are primarily located within the most highly visible areas, adjacent to the Chino Valley Freeway and Chino Hills Parkway. Land uses adjacent to highly visible areas present the opportunity to create aesthetic and dynamic views, and entries into the project area. Buildings within this area shou ld be designed to take advantage of the visibility of the structures. Buildings within these land use categories should be designed to present pleasing views for the public, not only from adjacent streets and parking areas, but also from the Chino Valley Freeway and Chino Hills Parkway. They also should offer opportunities for pedestrian -oriented development with attractive landscaping, plazas, courtyards, and open space areas for workers, residents, and visitors.
Pg. 135
(iv) Residential and M ixed Use Guidelines. The design of residential development should reflect the multiple family residential design standards established in Section 20.17.050 of the Chino Zoning Ordinance, while design of mixed use development should reflect the mixed use design guidelines established in Section 20.17.060 of the Chino Zoning Ordinance.
If a development project includes affordable housing, it should follow the modifications to the citywide residential and mixed use design guide lines that are c odified in Chapter 20.09 of the Chino Zoning Ordinance for the AHO and MUO districts.
(iv v) Manufacturing and General Industrial Guidelines. …
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 342
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Pg. 152
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
This chapter includes the development regulations and guidelines for all new development within the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP). The EBPSP is intended to carry out the goals and policies contained in the City of Chino General Plan in an orderly and attractive fashion in order to establish a well designed, high qu ality working and shopping environment. All development within EBPSP area shall therefore be consistent with the provisions of the Chino General Plan. The provisions contained herein are also intended to accomplish the goals and objectives identified in Chapter III, to implement the component plans identified in Chapter IV, and to facilitate implementation of the design guidelines contained in Chapter V.
1. Relationship to the City of Chino Zoning Ordinance.
Development standards and criteria contained in this document will supplement or replace those of the City of Chino's Zoning Ordinance.
Whenever the regulations contained herein conflict with the provisions of the Chino Zoning Ordinance, the regulations contained herein shall take precedence. Any standards or land use proposals not specifically covered herein shall be subject to the regulations, standards, and specifications of the City of Chino Zoning Ordinance.
In the case of housing projects proposed in areas subject to the AHO and MUO designations, the regulations and standards for these overlays that are established in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the City of Chino Zoning Ordinance shall apply and take precedence over any regulation or standard in the EBPSP.
Pg. 154
B. PERMITTED USES
Table VI -A (Land Use Matrix) establishes the uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted, administratively permitted, or not permitted within each of the land use categories within the EBPSP, excluding the Commercial (C) land use category which shall be regulated according to the CG (Commercial General) zoning district in Table 20.06-1, Allowed Uses in the Commercial Zoning Districts, of the Chino Zoning Code, and the AHO and MUO districts which shall be regulated according to Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Code. The regulations contained in this section apply not only to the primary use of property within the specific plan area, but also to each accessory and support use.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 343
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Pg. 162
C. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Development Regulations. Table VI -B (Development Regulations) establishes the minimum standards for development proposed within the EBPSP area that is not subject to an AHO or MUO designation . These regulations shall govern the development of all property within the specific plan area and shall supersede the provisions of the City of Chino Zoning Ordinance. Applicants that propose housing on land subject to an AHO or MUO designation are only required to conform to the development and design standards and development approval requirements established for the AHO and MUO districts in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Code.
Section 3. The Majestic Spectrum Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows.
Additions are shown in red; deletions are in bold strikethrough, and existing text that is not shown and will not be amended is denoted by ellipsis (“…”).
Pg. viii - Add Mixed Use Overlay District Amendment to table of amendments, including date.
Pg. 2
• Amendment No. 15 – Amends sign provisions for freeway identification signs (Ordinance No. 2002-16, adopted October 15, 2002)
• Mixed Use Overlay District Amendment – Amends the land use provisions to add the Mixed Use Overlay (Ordinance No. ____; adopted ____) Pg. 12
1. Redesignation of Planning Areas “C” and “D”
…
2. Addition of Overlay
Specific Plan Mixed Use Overlay District Amendment adds a Mixed Use Overlay designation to 8.07 acres, as shown in Exhibit 1 in Section II, Summary of Land Use Changes , to be consistent with the General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update . This designation provides an opportunity for affordable hous ing and mixed use development on a site designated for Regional Commercial land use to help the City meet its
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 344
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2021 -2029 planning period.
Pg. 45
6. Mixed Use Overlay District Amendment
The Specific Plan Mixed Use Overlay District Amendment adds a Mixed Use Overlay designation to 8.07 acres, as shown in Exhibit 1, to be consistent with the General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update. This designation provides an opportunity for affordable housing on a site designated for Regional Comme rcial land use to help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2021 -2029 planning period.
The permitted uses shall be those designated for the Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Chino Municipal Code and the regulations for residential uses and affordable housing in that chapter take precedence over the provisions in this specific plan, including Amendment No. 7.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 345
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Pg. 45 - The following map shall be added.
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 346
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Residential development on land subject to an MUO may occur in conjunction with non- residential uses or in a standalone residential project. A minimum affordability requirement for rental or for-sale housing, expressed as the minimum number of units to be available for residents in a specific income category, is established in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) . Household income qualifications are those established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development each year for San Bernardino County, as adjusted for household size, pursuant to California Code of regulations, Title 25, Section 6932 and Health and Safety Code 50093. Additional density, above the maximum density for residential development of 20 units per adjusted gross acre, may be allowed by the Planning Commission through a site approval process for projects that qualify for additional density under the provisions established in Chapter
20.09 (Overlay Districts).
Residential development in the MUO is not required; an owner retains the right to develop a project that only has non-residential uses under the Regional Commercial designation.
However, if housing with 10 units or more is built, the minimum housing afforda bility requirement, expressed as a percentage of the total units, must be met.
Pg. 46
This section establishes the site development standards and requirements for the Regional Commercial and Commercial Manufacturing Districts, as well as the Regional Mall Overlay. The standards are divided into four sections: standards that apply to the Regional Commercial category, Commercial Manufacturing category, and the Regional Mall Overlay (Section IV.A), standards that apply to the Regional Commercial category (Section IV.B), standards that apply only to the Regional Mall Overlay (Section IV.C), and standards that apply only to the Commercial Manufacturing category (Section IV.B).
Development standards that apply to projects within the area subject to t he MUO are in Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) of the Chino Zoning Ordinance. All residential-only and mixed use development with residential units in the area subject to the MUO must comply with the development standards in Chapter 20.09 for the MUO and with the residential design standards in Section 20.17.050 (Multiple-Family Residential Design Standards) , the mixed use design standards in Section 20.17.060 (Mixed Use Design Standards), and the supplemental design standards in Chapter 20.09; non -residential development only must comply with the development standards of Regional Commercial land use that are presented below. In the MUO, new street curb cuts are not allowed on lots with al ley access unless approved by the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer to accommodate affordable housing units. In the case of conflicts with the development standards in this specific plan, the standards of Chapter 20.09 for the MUO shall apply.
In addition, site development standards that apply to large warehouses within the Light Industrial Category and to Business Parks are also included. …
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 347
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Pg. 81
G. PARKING STANDARDS
This section establishes requirements for off -street parking within the Regional Commercial land use category and the Regional Mall Overlay. Parking requirement for residential and mixed use development in the Mixed Use Overlay designated area and the Light Industrial designated areas shall be in accordance with the Chino Municipal Code Chapter 20.18 (Parking) . No covered parking is required for residential and mixed use development. Except where noted, this section supersedes Chapter 20.18 of the City of Chino Zoning Ordinance.
…
Pg. 93
This Chapter contains landsc aping concepts and design guidelines for the Amendment No. 7 area. Topics addressed include streetscape and on-site landscaping concepts and guidelines; site planning guidelines; pedestrian areas; internal circulation, parking and loading guidelines; site lighting criteria; and architectural guidelines. This section establishes design parameters to ensure quality of design. The provisions contained in this section are often general in nature, in order to permit design flexibility, and to facilitate creativity in developing design concepts and solutions. These standards are distinguished from the provisions of Chapter 4 which establish specific and mandatory requirements for site development.
Residential and mixed use development in the Mix ed Use Overlay (MUO) designated area are only subject to the development and design standards established in Chapter
20.09 (Overlay Districts) for the MUO. To streamline the development approval process, only these design standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission in the site approval process for projects in this area. This will reduce the review and approval time and development costs for applicants proposing affordable housing.
This section also contains requirements for the preparation of a Design Manual that will be developed as an implementation action for that portion of Amendment No. 7 designated as Regional Commercial or Regional Mall Overlay. The Design Manual will provide more detailed information regarding specific architectural de signs to ensure the consistency of future phases with the first phase of development. A description of the Design Manual is provided in Section V.D.3.
Section 4. CEQA Findings. The City has prepared and adopted an Addendum to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021 -2029) Project Negative Declaration that includes an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, supported by substantial evidence that there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment attributable to PL22-0089 (Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Amendment), PL22-0090 (Majestic Spectrum Specific Plan Amendment), and PL22-0091 (East Chino Specific Plan Amendment).
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 348
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any other provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. The city council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its second reading and adoption.
Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Chino shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same t o be published in the Chino Champion, a newspaper of general circulation, within said city in accordance with the provisions of the Government Code.
ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF APRIL 2023.
By:
EUNICE M. ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
By:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 349
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) §
CITY OF CHINO )
I, Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk of the City of Chino do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance of the City of Chino was duly adopted by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of April 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
By:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
11.13.i
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 350
RESOLUTION 2023-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO,
CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING AN IN -LIEU FEE FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER
20.09.090 OVERLAY DISTRICTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OF
THE CHINO MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City’s current schedule of fees and charges adopted by the City Council on January 4, 2022 (Resolution 2022-007), became effective February 1, 2022;
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 2023 -008 amending selected provisions of Title 20 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to adopt regulations for an affordable housing overlay district and a mixed use overlay district, including inclusionary housing requirements, to implement the general plan housing element;
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2023-008 (Chapter 20.09.090) establishes in-lieu fee payment options, recognizing that Inclusionary Housing requirements have a disproportionate impact on smaller pr ojects because there are fewer market rate units available to spread the impact created by the income and affordability standards;
WHEREAS, the City commissioned a Financial Evaluation/Nexus Study which determined that the following inclusionary housing r equirements are supportable in apartment developments (9% and 13% Low Income in developments with density at 26 to 30 units per acre) and ownership housing developments ( 3% Moderate Income) and do not constrain the opportunities for residential development;
WHEREAS, the Financial Evaluation/Nexus Study (Attachment A) established In-Lieu Fee Payment Amounts Per Inclusionary Unit and Per Square Foot of Leasable/Saleable Area in a 100% Market Rate Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHIN O DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Fee Schedule Amendment
The City’s current schedule of fees and charges adopted by the City Council (Resolution No. 2022-007) became effective February 1, 2022 . This fee will be added to that fee schedule, with the next annual update in 2024.
Section 2. Fees
The following affordable housing in-lieu fee payment schedules shall be applied, in 2023 dollars, to be effective upon the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance:
11.13.j
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 351
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-016
Square Foot of Leasable or Saleable Area
Units Apartments Ownership
Housing
10 $2.05 $0.75
11 $4.11 $1.51
12 $6.16 $2.26
13 $8.22 $3.02
14 $10.27 $3.77
15 $12.33 $4.53
16 $14.38 $5.28
17 $16.44 $6.04
18 $18.49 $6.79
19 $20.55 $7.55
20 $22.60 $8.30
Section 3. In-Lieu Fee Payment Timing
Payment of the in -lieu fee shall be required when building permits are obtained for the project. However, for phased projects, the developer shall be allowed to pay a pro rata share of the in -lieu fee concurrently with the issuance of building permits for each development phase. Fees shall be deposited into the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund and implemented as outlined in Chapter 20.09.090 (Overlay Districts for Affordable Housing).
Section 4. Fee Adjustment
This in-lieu fee will be adjusted, by resolution, on an annual basis, based on the percentage change in the average new home sales price for San Bernardino County as published by the Real Estate Research Council.
Section 5. Separability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council declares that it would have enacted this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of any determination of invalidity.
Section 6. Repealer
All resolutions and other actions of the City Council in conflict with the c ontents of this resolution are hereby repealed.
11.13.j
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 352
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-016
Section 7. Certification
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF APRIL 2023.
EUNICE M. ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
State of California )
County of San Bernardino ) §
City of Chino )
I, Natalie Gonzaga , City Clerk of the City of Chino, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Chino City Council at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of April 2023, by the following votes:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
Attachment: Attachment A – Financial Evaluation/Nexus Study (KMA Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations)
11.13.j
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 353
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING:
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Prepared for:
City of Chino
Prepared by:
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
March 15 , 2023
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 354
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page i
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1 A. FINANCIAL ANALYSES .......................................................................................................................... 1 B. REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................................................... 2 II. FINDINGS: UPDATED FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 2 III. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 3 A. THRESHOLD PROJECT SIZE .................................................................................................................... 4 B. INCOME AND AFFORDABILITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................... 4 C. COVENANT PERIODS ........................................................................................................................... 8 D. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ................................................................................ 9 IV. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 15 A. MARKETING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................. 15 B. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 15 C. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM UPDATES ........................................................................................ 15 D. STAFFING PLAN ................................................................................................................................ 15 V. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................ 16 A. APARTMENT PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 16 B. OWNERSHIP HOUSING PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 19 VI. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 22
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 355
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page ii
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 356
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 1
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
The City of Chino (Chino) is currently exploring the opportunity for creating an Inclusionary Housing program. To assist in this process, the City engaged Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to undertake the following tasks:
1. A financial evaluation of the impacts created by the imposition of income and affordability restrictions on new residential development; and
2. The recommendation of policies to be incorporated into the Inclusionary Housing program.
I. BACKGROUND
Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners (Dyett & Bhatia) was engaged by the City to assist in preparing a General Plan update. As part of the update, Dyett & Bhatia is proposing the creation of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and a Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (Overlay Zones). These Overlay Zones are located in areas that generally do not permit residential development.
A. Financial Analyses
KMA was subsequently engaged as a subconsultant to Dyett & Bhatia to assist the City in creating an Inclusionary Housing program. As the first step in this process, KMA prepared an Inclusionary Housing:
Financial Evaluation (Financial Evaluation) that is dated January 30, 2023. The Financial Evaluation is focused on the potential for imposing Inclusionary Housing obligations in the Overlay Zones.
During a Planning Commission public hearing that was held on March 6, 2023 speakers questioned components of the Financial Evaluation. One significant issue was that the Financial Evaluation used public permits and fees estimates, derived from the City’s Draft Housing Element, which did not fully account for current and projected fee amounts. City staff and the speakers worked collaboratively to arrive at estimates that reflect the amounts that will be in place by 2024.
Given the magnitude of the increase in the public permits and fees estimates, KMA updated the pro forma analyses of prototype developments on March 14, 2023. The findings of this updated analysis have been factored into this Policy Recommendations report.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 357
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 2
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
B. Report Organization
Based on the results of the Financial Evaluation and the March 14, 2023 update (collectively referred to as the Updated Financial Analysis), KMA prepared the Inclusionary Housing program policy recommendations that are presented in the following report. The report is organized as follows:
1. The findings of the Updated Financial Analysis are summarized.
2. The components of the recommended policies are identified.
3. The recommended implementation package is described.
4. Case studies are presented to compare the Inclusionary Housing options that could potentially be applied to hypothetical projects in the Overlay Zones.
II. FINDINGS: UPDATED FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The supportable Inclusionary Housing requirements within the Overlay Zones are:
1. Apartment Development:1
a. Density at 26 Units Per Acre – 9% Low Income.
b. Density at 30 Units Per Acre – 13% Low Income.
2. A 3% moderate income requirement can be supported by ownership housing development.
The supportable in-lieu fee payment amounts are presented in the following table:
1 The Financial Evaluation concluded that developers may mitigate the impacts created by the Inclusionary Housing requirements by using the Government Code Section 65915 et seq. (Section 65915) density bonus. In those cases the City’s low income requirement may be fulfilled with the very low income units used to fulfill the density bonus requirements.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 358
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 3
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
In-Lieu Fee Payment Amounts
Overlay Zones
In-Lieu Fee
Apartments
(9% Low Income)
Ownership Housing
(3% Moderate Income)
Per Inclusionary Unit $313,000 $436,300
Per Square Foot of
Leasable/Saleable Area in a 100%
Market Rate Project
$22.60 $8.30
III. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
KMA’s Inclusionary Housing policy recommendations cover the following topics:
1. The minimum residential project size that will trigger an Inclusionary Housing obligation.
2. The income and affordability requirements that will be applied to apartment projects and ownership housing projects.
3. The covenant periods under which the income and affordability standards should be imposed for apartment projects and ownership housing projects.
4. The City is required to provide options for fulfilling the Inclusionary Housing requirements.
These options should be tailored to the type of housing being developed in Chino order to mitigate the financial impacts created by the Inclusionary Housing requirements. The following Inclusionary Housing fulfillment options are recommended to be offered under specified circumstances:
a. On-site production;
b. Off-site production;
c. Land dedication;
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 359
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 4
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
d. Parcelization of a market rate ownership housing development site to create a separate site for the development of an affordable apartment project; and e. In-Lieu Fee Payment.
5. The development standards that should be imposed on the affordable housing units that are produced to fulfill the Inclusionary Housing requirements.
6. Implementation activities that should be undertaken by the City are identified.
A. Threshold Project Size
The majority of Inclusionary Housing programs in California include a threshold project size below which projects are not subject to the affordable housing production requirements. Common thresholds fall between three and 10 units. It is KMA’s recommendation that the threshold project size be set at 10 units.
B. Income and Affordability Standards
An Inclusionary Housing program’s income and affordability standards should be set at levels that do not constrain the opportunities for residential development. The Updated Financial Analysis provides context for the on-site production requirements that are being recommended.
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
Affordable Rent Calculation Methodology
KMA recommends that the “Affordable Rents” be based on the following standards:
1. The low income rents should be based on 80% of area median income (AMI). This percentage of AMI is based on the standard imposed in Assembly Bill 1505.
2. The affordable rents used in Section 65915 density bonus projects are required to be based on the household income standards imposed by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) §50053.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 360
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 5
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
Recommended Income and Affordability Standards
On-Site Production of the Required Inclusionary Units
The results of the Updated Financial Analysis indicate that the following Inclusionary Housing requirements can be supported for apartment development projects:
Recommended Inclusionary Housing Requirements
Low Income Requirement
Overlay Zones Apartment Development
Density Percentage
Units / Acre Requirement
20 9%
30 13%
The City is proposing to translate these requirements into the following sliding scale:
Proposed Inclusionary Unit Obligation – Sliding Scale
Density (Units/Acre) 26 27 28 29 30
Low Income % 16% 17% 18% 19% 20%
Off-Site Production of the Required Inclusionary Units
If a developer chooses to produce the Inclusionary Units in an off-site location, KMA recommends that the Inclusionary Housing requirements be set as follows:
1. The Inclusionary Housing percentage should be set at 20% of the total number of units in the market rate project; and
2. The affordable units should be required to be rented at the very low income standard.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 361
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 6
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Affordable Sales Price Calculation Methodology
KMA recommends that the City apply the H&SC §50052.5 methodology to the calculation of “Affordable Sales Prices”. In addition, the following specific calculation metrics are being recommended by KMA.
Benchmark Mortgage Interest Rate
The mortgage interest rate chosen to be applied in the calculations creates a significant impact on the Affordable Sales Price. In establishing a benchmark interest rate it is important to understand the following issues that are commonly faced by moderate income first time home buyers:
1. Credit history and scores that do not fall within the exceptional level required to obtain the lowest interest rate available in the marketplace;
2. Back-end ratios that are often higher than the typical ratios applied in conventional lenders’ underwriting standards for the lowest interest rate mortgages; and
3. There is a limited pool of mortgage lenders that are willing to provide loans on homes that are subject to income and affordability covenants. These lenders do not generally offer the lowest interest rates available in the marketplace.
Given that mortgage interest rates can be expected to fluctuate over time, KMA recommends that the City apply the following conservative methodology in setting the benchmark interest rate used in the Affordable Sales Price calculations:
1. KMA recommends that the benchmark mortgage interest rate be set on the first day of each calendar quarter.
2. In setting the benchmark interest rate, KMA recommends using the interest rate published by Freddie Mac for 30-year fixed interest rate fully amortizing mortgages. However, other sources that provide the same type of information are also acceptable.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 362
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 7
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
Range of Allowable Home Buyer Down Payments
An Inclusionary Housing program is intended to target home buyers that could otherwise not afford to purchase a home in Chino. To achieve that goal while minimizing the risk of defaults, KMA recommends that the following down payment requirements be imposed:
1. The minimum home buyer down payment amount should be set at 5% of the Affordable Sales Price:
a. At least 1% of this down payment amount must be provided from the home buyer’s own funds.
b. Gifts funds may be obtained by the home buyer to fulfill the balance of the 5% requirement.
2. The maximum down payment amount should be set at 35% of the Affordable Sales Price:
3. Gift funds of up to $75,000 may be used for the down payment amount that falls between 1% and 35% of the Affordable Sales Price.
Recommended Income and Affordability Standards
On-Site Production of the Required Inclusionary Units
Based on the results of the Updated Financial Analysis, KMA recommends that if the Inclusionary Units are provided on site within the market rate project, the Inclusionary Housing requirements should be set as follows:.
1. The Inclusionary Housing percentage should be set at 3% of the units in the market rate project; and
2. The units should be required to be sold at the moderate income standard.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 363
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 8
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
Off-Site Production or Parcelization to Fulfill the Inclusionary Housing Requirements KMA recommends that the developers of ownership housing projects be given the option to fulfill the Inclusionary Housing obligation in one of the following ways:
1. The off-site production of affordable apartment units; or
2. The creation of a parcel within an ownership housing development site on which affordable apartment units are constructed.
For both of these options, KMA recommends that the Inclusionary Housing requirement be set as follows:
1. The Inclusionary Housing percentage should be set at 20% of the total number of units in the market rate project; and
2. The units should be required to be rented at the very low income standard.
C. Covenant Periods
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
KMA recommends that the covenants for the Inclusionary Housing apartment units should be required to remain in place for as long as the property is developed with a residential use, but for not less than 75 years. Following the 75-year term, the covenant should only be removed if at some point the property is rezoned and subsequently put to a non-residential use.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
KMA recommends that a 45-year covenant period be applied to affordable ownership housing units.
However, the homeowner should be allowed to resell the home at the unrestricted fair market value at any time during the covenant period in return for providing the City with the following monetary consideration:
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 364
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 9
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
1. The difference between the fair market value of the home and the Affordable Sales Price when the home was originally purchased. This is known as the “Affordability Gap”; plus
2. A percentage share of the equity appreciation achieved upon the resale of the home. The equity appreciation share should be based on the percentage share the Affordability Gap represented of the home’s fair market value on the original purchase date.
D. Inclusionary Housing Development Standards
ON-SITE PRODUCTION OPTION
KMA recommends that the following standards be applied to the on-site production of Inclusionary Units within both market rate apartment projects and ownership housing projects:
1. The affordable housing units should be required to be constructed concurrently with the market rate project, and they must be dispersed throughout the project.
2. The affordable housing units should be required to comply with the following development scope requirements:
a. The Inclusionary Units must be equally distributed throughout the project; b. The bedroom and bathroom mix for the Inclusionary Units must be proportional to the bedroom and bathroom mix of the market rate units;
c. The Inclusionary Units must have the same exterior finishes as the market rate units in the project; and
d. The Inclusionary Units must have the same type or quality of appliances, fixtures, and finishes as the market rate units in the project.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 365
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 10
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
OFF SITE AND PARCELIZATION PRODUCTION OPTIONS
If a developer chooses to fulfill the Inclusionary Housing obligation off site, or by creating a separate parcel on the development site for the affordable units, the following development standards should be imposed:
1. The Inclusionary Housing obligation must be fulfilled with apartment units.
2. An off-site development parcel must be located within an Overlay Zone and within one mile of the market rate project that is subject to the Inclusionary Housing obligations.
3. Under the following circumstances the developer of the market rate project should be allowed to enter into an agreement with an affordable housing developer to construct, own and operate the affordable housing project:
a. The affordable housing developer must have recent relevant experience, and be approved by the City.
b. The affordable housing developer may not request any financial assistance from the City.
c. The developer may apply to use the Section 65915 density bonus and the statutorily established number of incentives or concessions.
4. The affordable housing project must be constructed prior to or concurrently with the market rate project that triggered the Inclusionary Housing obligation. If the market rate project is proposed to be developed in phases, the affordable housing units should be required to be developed along with the first phase of the market rate project.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 366
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 11
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
IN-LIEU FEE PAYMENT OPTION
In-Lieu Fee Payment Thresholds
In accordance with City Council and Planning Commission guidance, the City will establish objective criteria under which in-lieu fee payments are allowed. To assist the City in making these determinations, KMA offers the following recommendations:
1. Inclusionary Housing requirements have a disproportionate impact on smaller projects, because there are fewer market rate units available to spread the impact created by the income and affordability standards. KMA recommends that an in-lieu fee payment be allowed by right for apartment projects with 20 or fewer units.
2. The City Council should be provided with the discretion to allow an in-lieu fee to be paid for apartment projects with more than 20 units if the obligation is deemed to create an extreme financial hardship circumstance.
In-Lieu Fee Schedules
It is KMA’s opinion that an in-lieu fee measured against the square footages of the units corresponds more closely to the Affordability Gap than an in-lieu fee that is measured by the number of units in the project. As such, KMA recommends that the in-lieu fee be based on the leasable area for apartment projects and the saleable area for ownership housing projects.
KMA recommends that the following in-lieu payment schedules be applied, in 2023 dollars, the first year following the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance:
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 367
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 12
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
Recommended In-Lieu Fee Schedules
Per Square Foot of Leasable or Saleable Area
Units
Apartments
Ownership
Housing
10 $2.05 $0.75
11 $4.11 $1.51
12 $6.16 $2.26
13 $8.22 $3.02
14 $10.27 $3.77
15 $12.33 $4.53
16 $14.38 $5.28
17 $16.44 $6.04
18 $18.49 $6.79
19 $20.55 $7.55
20 $22.60 $8.30
In-Lieu Fee Payment Timing
Developers should be required to pay the in-lieu fee when building permits are obtained for the project. However, for phased projects, the developer should be allowed to pay a pro rata share of the in-lieu fee concurrently with the issuance of building permits for each development phase.
LAND DEDICATION OPTION
The City Council should have the discretion, but not the requirement, to approve a developer’s proposal to dedicate property in lieu of producing Inclusionary Units. KMA recommends that the following threshold requirements be imposed for any property put forth for City Council consideration:
1. The developer must be willing to convey the property to the City at no cost.
2. The developer must provide evidence of the following when the land dedication proposal is submitted:
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 368
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 13
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
a. The developer must have site control with lien-free title. Any encumbrances or easements that adversely impact the property’s title must be disclosed and factored into the estimated value of the interests proposed to be conveyed to the City. b. The property cannot contain any hazardous materials at the time the land dedication proposal is submitted:
i. The developer must disclose whether any hazardous materials were previously contained on the site; and
ii. If hazardous materials were previously remediated, the developer must provide evidence that the cleanup was performed in accordance with applicable law. c. The property cannot have been improved with any residential use for at least five years prior to the submission of a land dedication proposal.
d. Payment in full of all property taxes and special taxes must have been made when the proposal is submitted, and again prior to conveyance of the property to the City.
3. The following Inclusionary Housing obligations should be applied:
a. The requirement should be set at 20% of the of units in the project that triggered the Inclusionary Housing obligation; and
b. The income and affordability standards should be set at the very low income level.
4. The property must embody the following characteristics:
a. The property must be located within an Overlay Zone and within one mile of the project that is subject to the Inclusionary Housing obligation. b. The land dedication site must meet the following conditions:
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 369
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 14
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
i. The site’s General Plan and zoning standards must allow for a residential use at a density sufficient to allow for the requisite number of Inclusionary Units to be developed.
ii. The site must be suitable in terms of size, configuration, and physical characteristics to allow for the requisite number of Inclusionary Units to be developed on a cost efficient basis.
c. The property must be fully served by the necessary infrastructure prior to conveyance to the City.
5. KMA recommends that the City only re-convey dedicated properties to developers with experience developing affordable apartment projects targeted to very low income households.
To assist the City in evaluating land dedication proposals, the prospective developer should be required to submit the following documents:
a. A conceptual site plan and narrative description of a project that could be developed on the property.
b. A identification of the income and affordability restrictions proposed to be imposed. c. A pro forma analysis that quantifies any financial gap associated with the identified development scope, and describes how this financial gap will be filled. d. If a Section 65915 density bonus will be required, the terms of the requested density bonus; incentives and concessions; and development standards waivers must be identified.
Prior to submitting a proposal to the City Council for consideration, the City staff should independently evaluate the information submitted by the developer. Based on that review, the City should determine whether the proposal meets the defined threshold standards.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 370
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 15
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
IV. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the implementation process for the Inclusionary Housing program KMA recommends that the City take the following actions:
A. Marketing Requirements
The City wishes to focus the marketing effort in a manner that focuses on households that live and/or work in Chino. To that end, the Inclusionary Housing regulations will require developers to prominently advertise the Inclusionary Units in local publications. In addition, information pertaining to Inclusionary Units that are being developed and marketed should be placed on the City’s website.
B. Inclusionary Housing Guidelines
The following Manuals that detail the Inclusionary Housing Policies and Procedures should be created:
1. Apartment Development; and
2. Ownership Housing Development: Developer Requirements.
C. Inclusionary Housing Program Updates
The Inclusionary Housing program should be updated at regular intervals:
1. The entire program should be re-evaluated at least every five years.
2. To allow in-lieu fees to keep pace with changes in the market place during the intervening periods, the in-lieu fees should continue to be adjusted each year based on the percentage change in new home prices in San Bernardino County as published annually by the Real Estate Research Council (RERC).
D. Staffing Plan
A staffing and administrative plan should be created for managing the development process and the ongoing monitoring of the Inclusionary Units once they are built.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 371
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 16
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
V. CASE STUDIES
The following sections of this report describe case studies for a hypothetical apartment project and a hypothetical ownership housing project. The case studies identify each of the recommended options for fulfilling the Inclusionary Housing requirements.
It is important to note that these case studies are based on the policy recommendations provided in this report. If the City ultimately chooses to apply different requirements, these case studies will need to be modified accordingly.
A. Apartment Project
The development scope used in the apartment project case study can be described as follows:
1. The market rate project includes 100 units.
2. The development site consists of 3.8 acres, which represents a density of 26 units per acre.
The unit mix is presented in the following table:
Unit Mix - Hypothetical Apartment Project
Number of
Bedrooms
Number of
Units
Percentage of
Total
Leasable
Square Feet
1 35 35% 800
2 50 50% 1,300
3 15 15% 1,650
Total 100 100% 119,500
ON-SITE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE APARTMENT UNITS
A developer may select the on-site production option by right. The requirements associated with this alternative are:
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 372
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 17
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
1. An apartment development at 26 units per acre is subject to a 9% Inclusionary Housing requirement. This equates to a nine unit Inclusionary Housing requirement for a 100 unit project.
2. The income and affordability restrictions are set at the low income level.
3. To match the distribution of the bedroom types included in the market rate apartment project, the Inclusionary Units must be provided in the following mix:
Affordable Housing Unit Mix
On-Site Fulfillment of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement Apartment Project
Number of
Bedrooms
Number of
Units
Percentage of
Total
1 3 33%
2 5 56%
3 1 11%
Total 9 100%
4. The Inclusionary Units must be dispersed throughout the market rate project and developed concurrently with the market rate project.
OFF-SITE PROJECTION OF AFFORDABLE APARTMENT UNITS
A developer may select the off-site production option by right. However, the City Council has approval right’s over the development site’s location. The requirements imposed by this alternative are:
1. The site must be located within an Overlay Zone and within one mile of the market rate project that is subject to the Inclusionary Housing obligations.
2. A 20% Inclusionary Housing requirement is imposed on the off-site production of the Inclusionary Units. This equates to a 20 unit requirement.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 373
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 18
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
3. The income and affordability restrictions are set at the very low income level.
4. The off-site affordable apartment units must be constructed concurrently with the market rate apartment project.
IN-LIEU FEE PAYMENT
Under the recommended structure, a 100 unit apartment project would not be allowed to pay a fee to fulfill the Inclusionary Housing obligation. However, if the developer can prove an extreme financial hardship, the City Council has the discretion to approve the payment of an in lieu fee.
Based on the in-lieu fee schedule being recommended by KMA, the hypothetical apartment project would generate the following in-lieu fee payment obligation:
1. The total leasable area of the 100 unit market rate project is 119,500 square feet.
2. The in-lieu fee for projects that include 20+ units is $22.60 per square foot of leasable area.
3. The resulting total in-lieu fee is $2.7 million, or $27,000 per unit in the market rate project.
LAND DEDICATION
The use of the land dedication option should be subject to City Council approval. Proposals must meet all the following requirements in order to be presented to the City Council for consideration:
1. The site must be located within an Overlay Zone and within one mile of the market rate project that is subject to the Inclusionary Housing obligations.
2. The Inclusionary Housing obligation is set at 20% of the units being constructed in the market rate project. This equates to 20 units for the hypothetical 100 unit project.
3. The income and affordability standard is set at the very low income level.
4. At an assumed allowable density of 30 units per acre, the dedicated site must include at least 29,040 square feet (.67 acres) of land area.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 374
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 19
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
5. The developer must submit a conceptual plan and a pro forma analysis to demonstrate that an apartment project that includes 20 very low income units will be feasible with no financial contribution from the City.
B. Ownership Housing Project
The development scope used in the ownership housing project case study can be described as follows:
1. The market rate project consists of 90 townhome units.
2. The development site consists of five acres, which represents a density of 18 units per acre.
The unit mix is presented in the following table:
Unit Mix - Hypothetical Ownership Housing Project
Townhome Development
Number of
Bedrooms
Number of
Units
Percentage of
Total
Saleable
Square Feet
3 54 60% 1,700
4 36 40% 2,100
Total 90 100% 167,400
ON-SITE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP HOUSING UNITS A developer may select the on-site production option by right. The requirements associated with this alternative are:
1. A 3% Inclusionary Housing requirement is imposed. This results in a requirement to include three affordable units within the 90 unit project.
2. The income and affordability restrictions are set at the moderate income level.
3. To match the distribution of the bedroom types included in the market rate townhome project, the Inclusionary Units must be provided in the following mix:
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 375
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 20
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
Affordable Housing Unit Mix
On-Site Fulfillment of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement Ownership Housing Project
Townhome Development
Number of
Bedrooms
Number of
Units
Percentage of
Total
3 2 67%
4 1 33%
Total 3 100%
4. The Inclusionary Units must be dispersed throughout the market rate project and developed concurrently with the market rate project.
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION OR PARCELIZATION OF THE OWNERSHIP HOUSING PROJECT SITE A developer may select the off-site production or parcelization option by right. However, the City Council has the following approval rights:
1. For the off-site production option: Approval right’s over the development site’s location.
2. For the parcelization option: Approval rights over the parcel size and the location within the original development site.
The fulfillment requirements imposed by both options are:
1. The Inclusionary Housing obligation must be fulfilled with the development of affordable apartment units.
2. The site must be located within an Overlay Zone and within one mile of the market rate project that is subject to the Inclusionary Housing obligations.
3. A 20% Inclusionary Housing requirement is imposed. This equates to an 18 unit requirement.
4. The income and affordability restrictions are set at the very low income level.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 376
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 21
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
5. The affordable apartment units must be constructed concurrently with the market rate ownership housing project.
IN-LIEU FEE PAYMENT
Under the recommended structure, the developer of any ownership housing project would be allowed to pay a fee in lieu of producing any affordable housing units. Based on the in-lieu fee schedule being recommended by KMA, the hypothetical ownership housing project would generate the following in- lieu fee payment obligation:
1. The total saleable area of the 90 unit market rate project is 167,400 square feet.
2. The in-lieu fee for projects that include 20+ units is $8.30 per square foot of saleable area.
3. The resulting total in-lieu fee is $1.39 million, or $15,400 per unit in the market rate project.
LAND DEDICATION
The use of the land dedication option should be subject to City Council approval. Proposals must meet all the following requirements in order to be presented to the City Council for consideration:
1. The Inclusionary Housing obligation must be fulfilled with the development of affordable apartment units.
2. The Inclusionary Housing obligation is set at 20% of the units being constructed in the market rate project. This equates to 18 units for the hypothetical 90 unit project.
3. The income and affordability standard is set at the very low income level.
4. At an assumed allowable density of 30 units per acre, the dedicated site must include at least 26,136 square feet (.6 acres) of land area.
5. The developer must submit a conceptual plan and a pro forma analysis to demonstrate that an apartment project that includes 20 very low income units will be feasible with no financial contribution from the City.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 377
Inclusionary Housing: Policy Recommendations Page 22
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2212019.DB / 11985.022.002 March 15, 2023
VI. SUMMARY
The preceding report presented KMA’s policy recommendations related to creating an Inclusionary Housing program. The recommended affordable housing requirements are based on the results of the Updated Financial Analysis, and on an evaluation of the array of fulfillment options that can be made available to the developers of market rate residential projects.
It should be City’s goal to create an Inclusionary Housing program that balances the interests of property owners and developers against the public benefits associated with increasing the inventory of affordable housing units in the community. To that end, KMA identified supportable Inclusionary Housing production requirements and provided a mix of alternative methods for fulfilling the requirements.
11.13.k
Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay District
Packet Pg. 378
Revenue: Expenditure:
Transfer In: Transfer Out:
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY OF CHINO
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: FRED GALANTE, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL OPIOID
SETTLEMENTS WITH TEVA, ALLERGAN, WALMART, WALGREENS, AND CVS.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider and approve 1) Settlement Agreements and Participation Forms for the City’s participation in the National Opioid Settlement Agreements with Teva, Allergan, Walmart, Wal greens, and CVS; 2) California State -Subdivision Agreements Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds relating to said National Opioid Settlement Agreements; and 3) Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to carry out all nec essary acts such that the City can participate in the National Opioid Settlements, including signing documents and transmittal thereof as necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the National Opioid Settlement Agreements will provide a maximum of approximately $806,518 of funding to the County of San Bernardino to be earmarked for City programs.
CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:
The recommendation detailed above further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Positive City Image
• Superior Customer Service
• Financial Stability
12.14 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 379
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENTS
WITH TEVA, ALLERGAN, WALMART, WALGREENS, AND CVS
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND
Various States, cities, and c ounties, not including the City of Chino, initiated litigation against several parties alleged to be involved in the manufacture and distribution of opioids and, in particular, the impact of such activities upon the national opioid epidemic. The litigatio n culminated into a settlement against several defendants in 2021 (“2021 Settlement Agreements”). The City did not participate in those 2021 Settlement Agreements.
At this time, a new settlement is proposed with different defendants, Teva, Allergan, Walm art, Walgreens, and CVS, which represent additional parties involved as retailers and manufacturers of opioids (“2023 Settling Defendants”). The terms of the current Settlement Agreements, include the requirement that a critical mass of participation is re quired for the settlements to be effective, provide for a broad release of the 2023 Settling Defendants from any further liability relating to opioids, and, for direct or indirect payment of settlement funds to be made to the various local agencies agreein g to participate. Additional information about these settlements can be found here: www.nationalopioidsettelment.com.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The release of the 2023 Settlement Agreements is very broad release covering any activities by the 2023 Settling Defendants relating to opioids. It arguably also includes a release from liability relating to land use matters for facilities that manufactured, distributed, or sold opioids within the City.
The 2023 Settlement Agreements could provide up to approximately $1.8 billion to California.
This amount assumes maximum participation. The more local agencies participate, the more funds will be available to California. Further, the City’s share of this amount is a maximum of approximately $806,518 if all jurisdictions part icipate, which is distributed over a 5 to 15 year period, depending on the settlement agreement. At this time, this amount is merely an estimate of what the City may receive and assumes a best -case scenario where all local agencies participate. The actual amount will not be known until the process has completed. The use of the funds is restricted to opioid remediation (e.g., addiction treatment programs). By default, these funds are allocated to the County, but the City is able to elect to receive a direct distribution; however, use of the funds also requires strict accounting requirements. These requirements only apply to the City if it elects to receive direct distribution and does not apply to the City if the funds go to the County. In terms of enforcemen t, the State enforces the expenditure requirements. Because of this, it is recommended that the funds be allocated to the County.
Approval of Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 would authorize the City to participate in the National Opioid Settlements with the 20 23 Settling Defendants on the terms and conditions of those settlement agreements and, further, approve agreements with the State of California on the distribution of settlement funds, consistent with the 2023 Settlement Agreements. (Attachments 1, 2, and 3).
Approval of Recommendation No. 3 would approve and authorize the City Manager to carry out all necessary acts such that the City can participate in the National Opioid Settlements with Teva, Allergan, Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS, including signing nec essary documents and transmittal thereof as necessary.
12.14 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 380
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENTS
WITH TEVA, ALLERGAN, WALMART, WALGREENS, AND CVS
PAGE 3
Council approval and authorization to execution, submission, and receipt of all required documents must be completed before April 18, 2023.
Attachments:
1. Settlement Participation Form for the City’s participation in the National Opioid Settlements with Teva, Allergan, Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS.
2. 2023 Settlement Agreements with Teva, Allergan, Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS (due to the length of each agreement, these documents are on file with the City Clerk’s office).
3. Proposed California State -Subdivision Agreements Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds in the Teva, Allergan, Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS Settlement Agreements.
4. A Resolution of the City Council of the City Of Chino, California , Approving the Master Settlement Agreements with CVS, Allergan, Teva, Walmart, and Walgreens (Including the Related Participation Agreements); Agreeing to the Terms of the Related State - Subdivision Agreements and Authorizing Entry Into the Related State -Subdivision Allocation Agreements with the Attorney General; and Authorizing the City Manager to Carry Out Further Related Acts.
12.14 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 381
01225.0010/869807.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MASTER SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS WITH CVS, ALLERGAN, TEVA, WALMART, AND
WALGREENS (INCLUDING THE RELATED PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENTS); AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THE RELATED
STATE-SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO
THE RELATED STATE -SUBDIVISION ALLOCATION AGREEMENTS
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO CARRY OUT FURTHER RELATED ACTS
WHEREAS, the United States is facing an ongoing public health crisis of opioid abuse, addiction, overdose, and death, forcing the State of California and California counties and cities to spend billions of dollars each year to address the direct consequences of this crisis; and, WHEREAS, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) being pursued by numerous public entity plaintiffs against the manufacturers and distributors of various opioids based on the allegation that the defendants’ unlawful conduct caused the opioid epidemic; and,
WHEREAS, on or about November 14, 2022, a proposed nationwide tentative settlement was reached between the plaintiffs in the MDL and Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”); and, WHEREAS, on or about November 22, 2022, a proposed nationwide tentative settlement was reached between the plaintiffs in the MDL and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and all of its respective past and present direct or indirect parents, subsidiaries, divis ions, affiliates, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, assigns, including but not limited to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Actavis LLC (f/k/a Actavis Inc.), Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Kadian LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.), Actavis Kadian LLC, Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc. – Utah), Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC, Actavis Totowa LLC, Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc. – Florida), Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Warner Chilcott Company LLC, and Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Anda Inc. (collectively, “Teva”); and,
WHEREAS, on or about November 22, 2022, a proposed nationwide tentative settlement was reached between the plaintiffs in the MDL and Allergan Finance, LLC (f/k/a Actavis, Inc., which in turn was f/k/a Watson Pharmaceutics, Inc.) and Allergan Limited (f/k/a Allergan plc, which, in turn, was f/k/a Actavis plc)(collectively, “Allergan”); and, WHEREAS, on or about December 9, 2022, a proposed nationwide tentative settlement was reached between the plaintiffs in the MDL and CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and all of their past and present direct and indirect parent and subsidiaries (collectively, “CVS”); and,
WHEREAS, on or about December 9, 2022, a proposed nat ionwide tentative settlement was reached between the plaintiffs in the MDL and Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”); and, WHEREAS, shall be referred in this Resolution as “Settling Defendants”; and WHEREAS, as part of the settlements with the Settling Defendants, local subdivisions, including certain cities, that are not plaintiffs in the MDL may participate in the settlements in exchange for a release of the Settling Defendants (“Participating Subdivision”); and,
12.14.a
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 382
01225.0010/869807.1
WHEREAS, copies of the proposed terms of those prop osed nationwide settlements have been set forth in the Master Settlement Agreements with the Settling Defendants; and,
WHEREAS, copies of the Master Settlement Agreements CVS, Teva, Walgreens, Walmart, and Allergan (“Settling Defendants”) have been made available to the City Council with this Resolution (“Master Settlement Agreements”); and,
WHEREAS, the Master Settlement Agreements provide, among other things, for the payment of a certain sum to settling government entities in California including to the State of California and Participating Subdivisions upon occurrence of certain events as defined in the Master Settlement Agreements (“California Opioid Funds”); and, WHEREAS, to become a Participating Subdivision, the City must enter into “Participation Agreements” which allow participation in the Master Settlement Agreements; and, WHEREAS, California local governments in the MDL have engaged in extensive discussions with the State Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) as to how the California Opioid Funds will be allocated, which has resulted in the Proposed California State -Subdivision Agreements Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds (“Allocation Agreements”) from the settlements with the Settling Defendants; and,
WHEREAS, copies of the Allocation Agreements for all of the settlements with the Settling Defendants have been made available to the City Council with this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Allocation Agreements allocate the California Opioid Funds as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doub t, all funds allocated to California from the Master Settlement Agreements shall be combined pursuant to the Allocation Agreements, and 15% of total from each settlement shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”); and, WHEREAS, under the Master Settlement Agreements, certain local subdivisions that did not file a lawsuit a gainst the Settlement Defendants, including the City, may qualify to participate in the settlements and obtain funds from the Abatement Account Fund; and, WHEREAS, the funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund (the 70% allocation) will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation statu s, to become a Participating Subdivision (those above 10,000 in population). The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 to the Allocation Agreements and provided to the City Council with this Resolution. The City’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be a product of the total in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund multiplied by the City’s percentage set forth in Appendix 1 of the Allocation Agreements (the “Local Allocation”); and,
WHEREAS, a Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, unless the city elects to take a direct election of the settlement funds, so long as:
(a) the county is a Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date; and,
12.14.a
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 383
01225.0010/869807.1
WHEREAS, it the intent of this Resolution is to authorize the City to enter into the Master Settlement Agreements with the Settling Defendants by executing the Participation Agreements and to enter into the Allocation Agreements by executing the signature pages to those agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 2. Approval and Authorization . The City Manager is hereby approved and authorized to settle and release the City’s claims against the Settling Defendants in exchange for the consideration set forth in the Master Settlement Agreements, Participation Agreements, Allocation Agreements, and all exhibits thereto.
Section 3. Further Acts. The City Manager is hereby authorized to carry out all necessary acts such that the City can participate in the Master Settlement Ag reements, including, without limitation, execution (as necessary) of the Participation Agreements, Master Settlement Agreements, Allocation Agreements, and all related documents; and the transmittal of thereof as necessary and appropriate.
Section 4. Ratification. All actions heretofore taken by the City Council and other appropriate public officers and agents of the City with respect to the matters contemplated under this Resolution are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall immediately take effect upon passage.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2023
EUNICE ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
12.14.a
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 384
01225.0010/869807.1
State of California )
County of San Bernardino ) ss.
City of Chino )
I, NATALIE GONZAGA, City Clerk of the City of Chino, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of April, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
12.14.a
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 385
Exhibit K
Subdivision and Special District Settlement Participation Form Governmental Entity: Chino city State: CA
Authorized Signatory: /officialname_teva_allergan/
Address 1: /address1_teva_allergan/
Address 2: /address2_teva_allergan/
City, State, Zip: /cit_ta/ /state_ta/ /zi_ta/ Phone: /phone_teva_allergan/
Email: /email_teva_allergan/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Agreement dated November 22, 2022 (“Teva Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Teva Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Teva Settlement, understands that all terms in this Election and Release have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by this Election, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Teva Settlement as provided therein.
2. Following the execution of this Settlement Participation Form, the Governmental Entity shall comply with Section III.B of the Teva Settlement regarding Cessation of Litigation Activities.
3. The Governmental Entity shall, within 14 days of the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, file a request to dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com.
4. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Teva Settlement pertaining to Subdivisions as defined therein.
5. By agreeing to the terms of the Teva Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
6. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Teva Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
7. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Teva Settlement. 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 386
8. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Teva Settlement as provided therein.
9. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Teva Settlement, including but not limited to all provisions of Section V (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Teva Settlement are intended by Released Entitles and the Governmental Entity to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Teva Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim.
10. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District as set forth in the Teva Settlement.
11. In connection with the releases provided for in the Teva Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the Teva Settlement.
12. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Teva Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Election and Release is interpreted differently from the Teva Settlement in any respect, the Teva Settlement controls. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 387
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Election and Release on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature: /signer_1_teva_allergan/
Name: /name_1_teva_allergan/
Title: /title_1_teva_allergan/
Date: /date_1_teva_allergan/
3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 388
EXHIBIT K
Subdivision and Special District Settlement Participation Form Will your subdivision or special district be signing the settlement participation forms for the Allergan and Teva Settlements at this time?
[ ] Yes_ta [ ] No_ta
Governmental Entity: Chino city State: CA
Authorized Signatory: /officialname_teva_allergan/
Address 1: /address1_teva_allergan/
Address 2: /address2_teva_allergan/
City, State, Zip: /cit_ta/ /state_ta/ /zi_ta/ Phone: /phone_teva_allergan/
Email: /email_teva_allergan/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Agreement dated November 22, 2022 (“Allergan Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Allergan Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Allergan Settlement, understands that all terms in this Election and Release have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by this Election, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Allergan Settlement as provided therein.
2. Following the execution of this Settlement Participation Form, the Governmental Entity shall comply with Section III.B of the Allergan Settlement regarding Cessation of Litigation Activities.
3. The Governmental Entity shall, within fourteen (14) days of the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, file a request to dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity authorizes the MDL Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com.
4. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Allergan Settlement pertaining to Subdivisions and Special Districts as defined therein.
5. By agreeing to the terms of the Allergan Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
6. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Allergan Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 389
7. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Allergan Settlement.
8. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Allergan Settlement as provided therein.
9. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Allergan Settlement, including, but not limited to, all provisions of Section V (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, Subdivisions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity whether elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist in bringing, or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Allergan Settlement are intended to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Allergan Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim.
10. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District as set forth in the Allergan Settlement.
11. In connection with the releases provided for in the Allergan Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the Allergan Settlement.
12. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Allergan Settlement, to which the Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Settlement Participation Form is interpreted differently from the Allergan Settlement in any respect, the Allergan Settlement controls.
2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 390
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Settlement Participation Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature: /signer_1_teva_allergan/
Name: /name_1_teva_allergan/
Title: /title_1_teva_allergan/
Date: /date_1_teva_allergan/
3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 391
EXHIBIT K
Subdivision Participation Form
Will your subdivision or special district be signing the settlement participation form for the Walmart Settlement at this time?
[ ] Yes_wm [ ] No_wm
Governmental Entity: Chino city State: CA
Authorized Official: /officialname_walmart/
Address 1: /address1_walmart/
Address 2: /address2_walmart/
City, State, Zip: /cit_wm/ /state_wm/ /zi_wm/ Phone: /phone_walmart/
Email: /email_walmart/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated November 14, 2022 (“Walmart Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Walmart Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Walmart Settlement, understands that all terms in this Election and Release have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by this Election, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Walmart Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.
2. The Governmental Entity shall promptly, and in any event within 14 days of the Effective Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/.
3. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Walmart Settlement pertaining to Subdivisions as defined therein.
4. By agreeing to the terms of the Walmart Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
5. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Walmart Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 392
6. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Walmart Settlement.
7. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Walmart Settlement as provided therein.
8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Walmart Settlement, including but not limited to all provisions of Section X (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Walmart Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Walmart Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim.
9. In connection with the releases provided for in the Walmart Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the Walmart Settlement.
10. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Walmart Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Election and Release is interpreted differently from the Walmart Settlement in any respect, the Walmart Settlement controls.
2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 393
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Election and Release on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature: /signer_1_walmart/
Name: /name_1_walmart/
Title: /title_1_walmart/
Date: /date_1_walmart/
3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 394
EXHIBIT K
Subdivision Participation and Release Form Will your subdivision or special district be signing the settlement participation form for the Walgreens Settlement at this time?
[ ] Yes_wg [ ] No_wg
Governmental Entity: Chino city State: CA
Authorized Signatory: /officialname_walgreens/
Address 1: /address1_ walgreens/
Address 2: /address2_ walgreens/
City, State, Zip: /cit_wg/ /state_wg/ /zi_wg/ Phone: /phone_walgreens/
Email: /email_walgreens/
The governmental entity identified above (“ Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022 (“ Walgreens Settlement ”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Walgreens Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Walgreens Settlement, understands that all terms in this Participation and Release Form have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by executing this Participation and Release Form, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Walgreens Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.
2. The Governmental Entity shall promptly, and in any event no later than 14 days after the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation , MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com.
3. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Walgreens Settlement pertaining to Participating Subdivisions as defined therein.
4. By agreeing to the terms of the Walgreens Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
5. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Walgreens Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 395
6. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Walgreens Settlement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise provided in, the Walgreens Settlement.
7. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Walgreens Settlement as provided therein.
8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Walgreens Settlement, including without limitation all provisions of Section XI (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Walgreens Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Walgreens Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim.
9. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision as set forth in the Walgreens Settlement.
10. In connection with the releases provided for in the Walgreens Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the Walgreens Settlement. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 396
11. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Walgreens Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Participation and Release Form is interpreted differently from the Walgreens Settlement in any respect, the Walgreens Settlement controls.
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation and Release Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature: /signer_1_walgreens/
Name: /name_1_walgreens/
Title: /title_1_walgreens/
Date: /date_1_walgreens/
3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 397
EXHIBIT K
Subdivision Participation and Release Form Will your subdivision or special district be signing the settlement participation form for the CVS Settlement at this time?
[ ] Yes_cv [ ] No_cv
Governmental Entity: Chino city State: CA
Authorized Signatory: /officialname_cvs/
Address 1: /address1_cvs/
Address 2: /address2_cvs/
City, State, Zip: /cit_cv/ /state_cv/ /zi_cv/ Phone: /phone_cvs/
Email: /email_cvs/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022 (“CVS Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the CVS Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the CVS Settlement, understands that all terms in this Participation and Release Form have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by executing this Participation and Release Form, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the CVS Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.
2. The Governmental Entity shall promptly, and in any event no later than 14 days after the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation , MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com.
3. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the CVS Settlement pertaining to Participating Subdivisions as defined therein.
4. By agreeing to the terms of the CVS Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
5. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the CVS Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 398
6. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the CVS Settlement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise provided in, the CVS Settlement.
7. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the CVS Settlement as provided therein.
8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the CVS Settlement, including without limitation all provisions of Section XI (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the CVS Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The CVS Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim.
9. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision as set forth in the CVS Settlement.
10. In connection with the releases provided for in the CVS Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the CVS Settlement.
2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 399
11. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the CVS Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Participation and Release Form is interpreted differently from the CVS Settlement in any respect, the CVS Settlement controls.
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation and Release Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature: /signer_1_cvs/
Name: /name_1_cvs/
Title: /title_1_cvs/
Date: /date_1_cvs/
3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.b
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 400
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Teva Settlement
1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Teva Settlement Agreement, dated as of November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto (the “Teva Settlement Agreement”), including Section VIII and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Teva Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections VI, VII, and VIII of the Teva Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections IX, XIII, or XIV of the Teva Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Teva Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Teva Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.1 Further, pursuant to Sections X.B and X.C of the Teva Settlement Agreement and Sections IX.B and IX.C of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, eligible Subdivisions must participate in both the Teva Settlement Agreement and Allergan Settlement Agreement, or neither.
2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Teva Settlement Agreement. b) Allergan Settlement Agreement means the Allergan Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c) CVS Settlement Agreement means the CVS Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and CVS.
d) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
f) Walgreens Settlement Agreement means the Walgreens Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto.
1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Allergan Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Allergan Settlement Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 401
2 g) Walmart Settlement Agreement means the Walmart Settlement Agreement dated November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, San Leandro Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA Care Health Plan.
i) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. j) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Teva Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Teva Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Teva Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Teva Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Teva Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section VIII(E)(1) of the Teva Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VIII(C) of the Teva Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,2 pursuant to the Teva Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the 2 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 402
3 Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Teva Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).
A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Teva Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Teva
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 403
4 Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Teva Settlement Agreement and this CA Teva Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2. ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Teva Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or (5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth. c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 404
5 d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Teva Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Teva Settlement Agreement and this CA Teva Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Teva Settlement Agreement and this CA Teva Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Teva Settlement Agreement or this CA Teva Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern. c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Teva Settlement Agreement or this CA Teva Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement. e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, 6 investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 405
6 C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Teva Settlement Agreement and this CA Teva Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid- related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Teva Settlement Agreement and Allergan Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the CVS Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement, and Walmart Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Teva Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 406
7 so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Teva Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Teva Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Teva Settlement Agreement and this CA Teva Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 407
8 d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Teva Settlement Agreement and this CA Teva Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section VIII(C) of the Teva Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Teva.
e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Teva Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Teva Settlement Agreement, this CA Teva Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Teva Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. a) Except as provided in the Teva Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 408
9 The undersigned, Chino city, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Teva Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Teva Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Teva Settlement. EXECUTED on /date_1_teva_allergan/.
Signature: /signer_1_teva_allergan/
Name: /name_1_teva_allergan/
Title: /title_1_teva_allergan/
Date: /date_1_teva_allergan/
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 409
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Teva Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change.
Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 410
APPENDIX 1
1 of 15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 411
APPENDIX 1
2 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 412
APPENDIX 1
3 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 413
APPENDIX 1
4 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 414
APPENDIX 1
5 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 415
APPENDIX 1
6 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 416
APPENDIX 1
7 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 417
APPENDIX 1
8 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 418
APPENDIX 1
9 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 419
APPENDIX 1
10 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 420
APPENDIX 1
11 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 421
APPENDIX 1
12 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 422
APPENDIX 1
13 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 423
APPENDIX 1
14 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 424
APPENDIX 1
15 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 425
1 APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31, 2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).
Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first. c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote. d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers, distributors, and chain pharmacies.
b) Claims Procedure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 426
2 i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date. ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt. v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 427
3 vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section VIII.C of the Teva Settlement Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Teva a report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section VIII.C of the Teva Settlement Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section
2.c.v below.
ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment. iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices. vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement, and the Walmart Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement. i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for 4 its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 428
4 final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 429
1 APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Teva Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back- Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Teva Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Teva Settlement Agreement and CA Teva Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Teva Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Teva Settlement. [COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Teva Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back- Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 430
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Allergan Settlement
1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Allergan Settlement Agreement, dated as of November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto (the “Allergan Settlement Agreement”), including Section VIII and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Allergan Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections VI, VII, and VIII of the Allergan Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections XII or XIII of the Allergan Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.1 Further, pursuant to Sections X.B and X.C of the Teva Settlement Agreement and Sections IX.B and IX.C of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, eligible Subdivisions must participate in both the Teva Settlement Agreement and Allergan Settlement Agreement, or neither.2
2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Allergan Settlement Agreement. b) Teva Settlement Agreement means the Teva Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c) CVS Settlement Agreement means the CVS Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and CVS.
d) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Teva Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Teva Settlement Agreement.
2 However, if Teva enters bankruptcy prior to the Effective Date, an eligible Subdivision can choose to only join the Allergan Settlement Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 431
2 f) Walgreens Settlement Agreement means the Walgreens Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto.
g) Walmart Settlement Agreement means the Walmart Settlement Agreement dated November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, San Leandro Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA Care Health Plan.
i) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. j) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Allergan Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Allergan Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section VIII(E)(1) of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VIII(C) of the Allergan Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 432
3 The Settlement Fund payments to California,3 pursuant to the Allergan Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).
A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Allergan Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of
3 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 433
4 CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Allergan Settlement Agreement and this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Allergan Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 434
5 c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list. d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Allergan Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Allergan Settlement Agreement and this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Allergan Settlement Agreement and this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Allergan Settlement Agreement or this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern.
c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 435
6 enforce the requirements of the Allergan Settlement Agreement or this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement.
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.
C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Allergan Settlement Agreement and this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 436
7 contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Teva Settlement Agreement and Allergan Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the CVS Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement, and Walmart Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Allergan Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Allergan Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement.
Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Allergan Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Allergan Settlement Agreement and this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 437
8 c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Allergan Settlement Agreement and this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section VIII(C) of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Allergan. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Allergan Settlement Agreement, this CA Allergan Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Allergan Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Allergan Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 438
9 The undersigned, Chino city, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Allergan Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Allergan Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Allergan Settlement. EXECUTED on /date_1_teva_allergan/.
Signature: /signer_1_teva_allergan/
Name: /name_1_teva_allergan/
Title: /title_1_teva_allergan/
Date: /date_1_teva_allergan/
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 439
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Allergan Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one- hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 440
APPENDIX 1
1 of 15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 441
APPENDIX 1
2 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 442
APPENDIX 1
3 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 443
APPENDIX 1
4 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 444
APPENDIX 1
5 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 445
APPENDIX 1
6 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 446
APPENDIX 1
7 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 447
APPENDIX 1
8 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 448
APPENDIX 1
9 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 449
APPENDIX 1
10 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 450
APPENDIX 1
11 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 451
APPENDIX 1
12 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 452
APPENDIX 1
13 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 453
APPENDIX 1
14 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 454
APPENDIX 1
15 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 455
1 APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31, 2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).
Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first. c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote. d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers, distributors, and chain pharmacies.
b) Claims Procedure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 456
2 i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date. ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt. v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 457
3 vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section VIII.C of the Allergan Settlement Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Allergan a report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section VIII.C of the Allergan Settlement Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section 2.c.v below. ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment. iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices. vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement, and the Walmart Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement. i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 458
4 of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 459
1 APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Allergan Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back- Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Allergan Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Allergan Settlement Agreement and CA Allergan Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Allergan Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Allergan Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Allergan Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back- Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 460
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Walgreens Settlement
1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, dated as of December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto (the “Walgreens Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Section IX of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.
2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Walgreens Settlement Agreement.
b) Allergan Settlement Agreement means the Allergan Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c) CVS Settlement Agreement means the CVS Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and CVS.
d) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
f) Teva Settlement Agreement means the Teva Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
g) Walmart Settlement Agreement means the Walmart Settlement Agreement dated November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, San Leandro Unified School District, DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 461
2 Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA Care Health Plan. i) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. j) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Walgreen Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Walgreens Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Walgreens Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,1 pursuant to the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”). 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 462
3 A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Walgreens Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 463
4 e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Walgreens Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or (5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth. c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 464
5 ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Walgreens Settlement Agreement or this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern.
c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement or this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement.
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 465
6 C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, and Walmart Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(Y), of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Walgreens Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement.
Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Walgreens Settlement Agreement. Further, DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 466
7 private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Walgreens.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 467
8 e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, this CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 468
9 The undersigned, Chino city, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Walgreens Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Walgreens Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Walgreens Settlement. EXECUTED on /date_1_walgreens/.
Signature: /signer_1_teva_allergan/
Name: /name_1_teva_allergan/
Title: /title_1_teva_allergan/
Date: /date_1_walgreens/
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 469
APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Walgreens Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one- hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 470
APPENDIX 1
1 of 15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 471
APPENDIX 1
2 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 472
APPENDIX 1
3 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 473
APPENDIX 1
4 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 474
APPENDIX 1
5 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 475
APPENDIX 1
6 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 476
APPENDIX 1
7 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 477
APPENDIX 1
8 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 478
APPENDIX 1
9 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 479
APPENDIX 1
10 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 480
APPENDIX 1
11 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 481
APPENDIX 1
12 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 482
APPENDIX 1
13 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 483
APPENDIX 1
14 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 484
APPENDIX 1
15 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 485
1 6
APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31, 2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).
Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first.
c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote. d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers, distributors, and chain pharmacies.
b) Claims Procedure.
i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 486
1 7
Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date.
ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt.
v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 487
1 8
reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment. vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section V(B)(2) of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Walgreens a report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section
2.c.v below.
ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment. iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices. vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, and the Walmart Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 488
1 9
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement. i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 489
1 APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Walgreens Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back- Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement and CA Walgreens Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Walgreens Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Walgreens Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Walgreens Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back- Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 490
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Walmart Settlement
1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Walmart Settlement Agreement, dated as of November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto (the “Walmart Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Walmart Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Walmart Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections VIII or IX of the Walmart Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be a Participating Subdivision.
2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Walmart Settlement Agreement. b) Allergan Settlement Agreement means the Allergan Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c) CVS Settlement Agreement means the CVS Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and CVS.
d) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
f) Teva Settlement Agreement means the Teva Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
g) Walgreens Settlement Agreement means the Walgreens Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, San Leandro Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA Care Health Plan.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 491
2 i) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. j) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Walmart Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Walmart Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Walmart Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,1 pursuant to the Walmart Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”). 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 492
3 A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Walmart Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 493
4 e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Walmart Settlement Agreement and this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Walmart Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or (5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth. c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Walmart Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 494
5 Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Walmart Settlement Agreement and this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Walmart Settlement Agreement and this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Walmart Settlement Agreement or this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern.
c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Walmart Settlement Agreement or this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement.
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 495
6 C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Walmart Settlement Agreement and this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid- related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Walmart Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the Allergan Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, Teva Settlement Agreement, and Walgreens Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(W), of the Walmart Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Walmart Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement.
Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 496
7 counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Walmart Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Walmart Settlement Agreement and this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Walmart Settlement Agreement and this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Walmart.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 497
8 e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Walmart Settlement Agreement, this CA Walmart Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Walmart Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Walmart Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 498
9 The undersigned, Chino city, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Walmart Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Walmart Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Walmart Settlement. EXECUTED on /date_1_walmart/.
Signature: /signer_1_teva_allergan/
Name: /name_1_teva_allergan/
Title: /title_1_teva_allergan/
Date: /date_1_walmart/
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 499
APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Walmart Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one- hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 500
APPENDIX 1
1 of 15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 501
APPENDIX 1
2 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 502
APPENDIX 1
3 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 503
APPENDIX 1
4 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 504
APPENDIX 1
5 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 505
APPENDIX 1
6 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 506
APPENDIX 1
7 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 507
APPENDIX 1
8 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 508
APPENDIX 1
9 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 509
APPENDIX 1
10 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 510
APPENDIX 1
11 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 511
APPENDIX 1
12 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 512
APPENDIX 1
13 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 513
APPENDIX 1
14 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 514
APPENDIX 1
15 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 515
1 6
APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31, 2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).
Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first. c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote. d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers, distributors, and chain pharmacies.
b) Claims Procedure.
i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 516
1 7
part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date.
ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt.
v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 517
1 8
reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment. vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section V(B)(2) of the Walmart Settlement Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Walmart a report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Walmart Settlement Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section
2.c.v below.
ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment. iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices. vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, and the Walgreens Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 518
1 9
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement. i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 519
1 APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Walmart Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back- Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Walmart Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Walmart Settlement Agreement and CA Walmart Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Walmart Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Walmart Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Walmart Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back- Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 520
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – CVS Settlement
1. Introduction
Pursuant to the CVS Settlement Agreement, dated as of December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and CVS (the “CVS Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA CVS Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the CVS Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections IX or X of the CVS Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the CVS Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA CVS Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.
2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the CVS Settlement Agreement. b) Allergan Settlement Agreement means the Allergan Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
d) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e) Teva Settlement Agreement means the Teva Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
f) Walgreens Settlement Agreement means the Walgreens Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto.
g) Walmart Settlement Agreement means the Walmart Settlement Agreement dated November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, San Leandro Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA Care Health Plan.
i) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 521
2 Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. j) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the CVS Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the CVS Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA CVS Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA CVS Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the CVS Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section V(E)(1) of the CVS Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the CVS Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,1 pursuant to the CVS Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA CVS Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).
1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 522
3 A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the CVS Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA CVS Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 523
4 e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the CVS Settlement Agreement and this CA CVS Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the CVS Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or (5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth. c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the CVS Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 524
5 ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the CVS Settlement Agreement and this CA CVS Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the CVS Settlement Agreement and this CA CVS Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the CVS Settlement Agreement or this CA CVS Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern. c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the CVS Settlement Agreement or this CA CVS Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement. e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 525
6 C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the CVS Settlement Agreement and this CA CVS Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid- related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the CVS Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement, and Walmart Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(Y), of the CVS Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the CVS Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 526
7 representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the CVS Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the CVS Settlement Agreement and this CA CVS Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the CVS Settlement Agreement and this CA CVS Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the CVS Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and CVS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 527
8 e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA CVS Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the CVS Settlement Agreement, this CA CVS Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA CVS Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the CVS Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 528
9 The undersigned, Chino city, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – CVS Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the CVS Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – CVS Settlement. EXECUTED on /date_1_cvs/.
Signature: /signer_1_teva_allergan/
Name: /name_1_teva_allergan/
Title: /title_1_teva_allergan/
Date: /date_1_cvs/
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 529
APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—CVS Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change.
Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 530
APPENDIX 1
1 of 15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 531
APPENDIX 1
2 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 532
APPENDIX 1
3 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 533
APPENDIX 1
4 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 534
APPENDIX 1
5 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 535
APPENDIX 1
6 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 536
APPENDIX 1
7 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 537
APPENDIX 1
8 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 538
APPENDIX 1
9 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 539
APPENDIX 1
10 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 540
APPENDIX 1
11 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 541
APPENDIX 1
12 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 542
APPENDIX 1
13 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 543
APPENDIX 1
14 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 544
APPENDIX 1
15 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 545
1 6
APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31, 2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).
Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first.
c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote. d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers, distributors, and chain pharmacies.
b) Claims Procedure.
i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 546
1 7
Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date. ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt.
v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 547
1 8
reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment. vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section V(B)(2) of the CVS Settlement Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and CVS a report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the CVS Settlement Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section
2.c.v below.
ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment. iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices. vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the CVS Settlement Agreement, Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement, and the Walmart Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 548
1 9
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement. i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 549
1 APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the CVS Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back- Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the CVS Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the CVS Settlement Agreement and CA CVS Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the CVS Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the CVS Settlement. [COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the CVS Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back- Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14D3C0A6-DCCB-4CD9-A9D2-E1EF43692A72
12.14.c
National Opioid Settlement Participation
Packet Pg. 550
Revenue: Expenditure:
Transfer In: Transfer Out:
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY OF CHINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: AMER JAKHER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: TRASH AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2023-022 setting the time and place for the public hearings to consider majority protest proceedings on proposed increases to the rates, fees, and charges for sanitary sewer, refuse and recycling services.
FISCAL IMPACT
Implementation of the proposed rates will provide for the long-term stability and physical integrity of the utility funds.
CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:
The recommendation detailed above further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Financial Stability
• Responsible Long-Range Planning
• Public Service Excellence through Internal and External Partnerships
12.15 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 551
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
SUBJECT: TRASH AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND
The City’s utility rates for water, sewer, refuse and recycling were last updated in 2018 when a five-year rate schedule was approved by the City Council. This five -year rate schedule expires on June 30, 2023. At this time, the C ity is proposing to establish a new five -year rate schedule to become effective July 1, 2023. This rate schedule will include the City’s refuse and recycling rates as well as the Sewage Treatment rates established and set by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The Sewage Treatment rate is collected by the City of Chino and passed through to IEUA. Rates for City water and sewer are under review and will be brought before the City Council at a later date.
Staff has reviewed the proposed rates for refuse and recycling services to assess the adequacy of the revenues to maintain the physical integrity of these systems and to comply with all required health standards and statutory requirements.
To implement these rate adjustments, the City is required to meet specific noticing requirements under the provisions of Proposition 218. In conjunction with the City Attorney, staff recommends a Public Hearing be established for the City’s refuse and recycling service rates, as well as, IEUA’s Sewage Treatment rates.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Waste Management Refuse and Recycling Charge
The City of Chino contracts with Waste Management, Inc. (WM) for refuse and recycling services. As allowed under the current contract, WM submitted its Annual Rate Adjustment Request for F iscal Year 2023. The CPI applied to the Solid Waste percentage is 4%, effective July 1, 2023 in accordance with our current franchise agreement. In addition to the annual rate adjustment for all service components and ancillary fees, the cost for residenti al organics collection is also included in the proposed rate adjustment to include the S enate Bill (SB) 1383 activity of mandatory food collection for all residential customers pursuant to SB 1383.
SB 1383 is the most significant change to solid waste han dling regulations in thirty years. The City has come under increasing pressure from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to ramp up its organics recycling programs to comply with State laws (e.g., AB 1826 and SB 1383). This new law took effect on January 1, 2022, and requires jurisdictions to:
1) Amend their municipal codes to enforce the requirement that essentially all waste generators recycle their organics, including dry organics (cardboard, paper, etc.). 2) Ensure that their waste haulers provide organics collection service. 3) Estimate the amount of organic waste and recoverable edible food generated within their boundaries and provide that information to their county for facility planning purposes.
4) Enhance existing edible food recovery programs to reduce the amount of recoverable edible food sent to landfill.
5) Ensure that all newly constructed buildings have readily accessible space for recycling.
6) Develop inspection and compliance review programs to ensure that waste generators fulfill the requirements of SB 1383 and the jurisdiction’s municipal code. 7) Conduct periodic education and outreach to all waste generators, and specifically, generators of edible recoverable food.
12.15 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 552
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
SUBJECT: TRASH AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE
PAGE 3
8) Ensure that the City’s hauler performs annual route inspections to minimize contamination.
9) Procure a minimum quantity of recovered organic waste products.
Therefore, the increase currently being proposed is the compounded rate of 4% CPI and the costs associated with SB 1383 program implementation for single family residential accounts.
There will be an increase of $6.37 per month for current three-cart residential customers. This is due to estimated landfill disposal costs, the CPI increase, estimated org anics disposal tons and the City actively pursuing funding opportunities to further offset some of the costs associated with implementing the organics collection program.
The total rate for three cart single -family residential customers will be $35.55 (s enior rate and low volume generator rate $31.20).
IEUA Sewage Treatment Rates
Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) establishes its own rate to cover the cost of providing sewage treatment services for the greater Inland Empire area under its jurisdiction. That rate is then passed through to its member agencies, including Chino. The rates being proposed are as follows:
CONCLUSION
Upon approval of the proposed rate adjustments, staff will begin the steps necessary to comply with the provisions of Propos ition 218. In order to inform the ratepayers of the proposed rate adjustments, staff will mail to all ratepayers a Notice of Public Hearing for, the City’s refuse and recycling rates, and IEUA’s Sewage Treatment rates, stating the proposed rates, and the d ate, time, and place of the public hearing. It is staff’s recommendation the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-022, setting the time and place for the public hearings to consider majority protest proceedings on the proposed increases to the rates, fee s, and charges for the City’s refuse and recycling rates and IEUA’s Sewage Treatment rates.
Attachments: Resolutions
12.15 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 553
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO,
CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO MAIL OUT A NOTICE OF
MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PROPOSITION 218 FOR THE PROPOSED INCREASES TO THE
REFUSE, RECYCLING AND SANITARY SEWER RATES, FEES
AND CHARGES AND SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING THEREON
The City Council of the City of Chino (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council has by previous Resolution set rates, fees and charges for water and sanitary sewer services.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 6 OF ARTICLE XIIID OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 Calling a majority protest proceeding: Pursuant to Proposition 218 (Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution), a notice of a public hearing is hereby directed to be called to consider the majority protest proceedings on the proposed increases to the rates, fees and charges for water and sanitary sewer services.
Section 2 Description of majority protest proceeding: The majority proceeding on the proposition of increasing rates, fees and charges for refuse, recycling and sanitary sewer services pursuant to Section 6, of Article XIII D of the California Constitution consists of a mailed notice, distributed to the ratepayers of record within the City’s latest ratepayer database. Each ratepayer has the right to submit written protest against the proposed rates, fees and charges and may do so by mail or in person to the City Clerk no later than the conclusion of the Public Hearing on June 6, 2023. At the Public Hearing, pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, the City shall consider all protests against the proposed rates, fees and charges. If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels for the increase to the applicable rates, fees and charges, the City shall not impose said increase.
Section 3 Notice: The City shall give notice of the time and place of the Public Hearing to all ratepayers within the City by mailing to each ratepayer a Notice of Public Hearing identifying the time and place of the hearing along with the proposed rates, and by posting a copy of this Resolution on the official bulletin board customarily used by the City Council for the posting of notices. Written protests must be received prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing, at which time they will be considered. At the Public Hearing, all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard.
Section 4 Notice of Public Hearing: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing on these matters will be held by the City Council on June 6, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as feasible at Chino City Hall, 13220 Central Ave., Chino, California, 91710
12.15.a
Trash and Sewer Rate Structure
Packet Pg. 554
Section 5 The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of such hearing as provided by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chino at a regular meeting held on the 4TH day of April 2023.
______________________________________
EUNICE M. ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) SS
CITY OF CHINO )
I, NATALIE GONZAGA, City Clerk of the City of Chino, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chino, held on the 4TH day of April, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________
NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
12.15.a
Trash and Sewer Rate Structure
Packet Pg. 555
Revenue: Expenditure:
Transfer In: Transfer Out:
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY OF CHINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: AMER JAKHER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the City of Chino Local Roadway Safety Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
This action does not have a fiscal impact, the Local Roadway Safety Plan is a planning document to guide future projects.
CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:
The recommendation detailed above further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Responsible Long-Range Planning
• Public Service Excellence through Internal and External Partnerships
12.16 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 556
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2021, the Chino City Council established Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project N7210 - Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) including the accep tance of $72,000 in State grant funds for the creation of the LRSP. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Riverside, CA, received the Professional Services Agreement to create the LRSP with an amount not -to- exceed $80,000, including $8,000 in matching funds fr om the City’s transportation funding through Measure I.
The LRSP is a planning document now required by the State when applying for future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. The LRSP reviews historical collision data to identify locations w here collisions tend to occur. The LRSP analyzes collision patterns and suggests potential countermeasures that are determined to be effective in reducing various vehicle collision types.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The LRSP is intended to be a living document updated periodically. The requirements of the grant funding also included public feedback on the document's creation. The LRSP was presented and reviewed during several public meetings, including Preserve Office Hours, Traffic Advisory Committee meetings, the Pla nning Commission on May 16, 2022, and was presented to the City Council on June 21, 2022. At each meeting, input was solicited from the public to be considered and included in the final draft document.
The final draft of the LRSP is now ready to be adopte d by the City Council. Adopting will formally approve the document allowing its use as a planning document for future traffic safety improvement grant applications. In the years to come, as projects reduce collisions and as other areas of concern become of interest, the LRSP will be updated with the latest data and reanalyzed to ensure future safety project priorities are identified to meet the goals of the program in reducing injury and fatal collisions on public roadways.
Attachment: LRSP
12.16 NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 557
CHINO LRSP 2023
City of Chino
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
March 2023
FINAL - Revised
Prepared By:
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 558
CHINO LRSP 2023
Executive Summary
The City of Chino has created a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which identifies a framework to identify, analyze, and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. The LRSP was developed in response to local issues and needs. Through the analysis, this report has identified emphasis areas to inform and further guide safety evaluation and planning for the City’s transportation network. The LRSP also analyzes collision data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of collision history on the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to: 1) identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2) improve safety at specific high-collision locations, and 3) develop safety measures using the 5E’s of transportation safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
Chino has been taking steps to enhance traffic safety throughout the City but can take additional steps in improving roadway safety citywide. This is demonstrated in its California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) rankings which identify the City as belonging to the 30th percentile for safety compared to peer cities in most categories, with the City performing better than 30% of its peer cities. The City is continuing these safety efforts through this plan by identifying areas of emphasis and opportunities for system improvement that can be implemented to enhance safety. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of collision data (January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020) and recent roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of concern.
During the LRSP development process, the City has drafted a vision for traffic safety and outlined the goals that will help mark plan success. The vision is to enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury related collisions. The goals were identified as:
Identify areas with a high risk for collisions.
Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process. Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term implementation. Define safety projects for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other program funding consideration.
Chino’s collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations that have more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users. The figure below shows the results of collision analysis, including the number of crashes that occurred at each intersection and along each roadway segment in the City.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 559
CHINO LRSP 2023
Number of Collisions at Intersections and along Roadways in Chino (2016-2020)
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 560
CHINO LRSP 2023
Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. Where these areas aligned, or major challenges were observed, the following emphasis areas were developed:
1. Commercial Vehicles
2. Aggressive Driving
3. Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians and Bicyclists)
4. Intersection Improvements
5. Impaired Driving
The LRSP identified countermeasures for both infrastructure and non- infrastructure improvements. The report then applies Crash Modification Factors (CMFs), which are used to estimate the safety effects of safety improvements to compare and prioritize the improvements. This provides a planning level cost/benefit estimate that the City can use to prioritize improvements.
Site-specific opportunities for improvement were identified for the following 16 case study locations. The case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection designs throughout the City.
1. Segment: Riverside Drive (4th St to Telephone Ave)
2. Segment: Ramona Avenue (Walnut St to Riverside Dr)
3. Segment: Philadelphia Street (Telephone Ave to Central Ave)
4. Segment: Central Ave (Francis Ave to Philadelphia St)
5. Segment: Pipeline Ave (Edison Ave to Eucalyptus Ave)
6. Segment: Roswell Avenue (Schaefer Ave to Grand Ave)
7. Segment: Mountain Avenue (EB SR-60 Ramp to Walnut Ave)
8. Signalized Intersection: Central Ave & Riverside Dr
9. Signalized Intersection: Pipeline Ave & Edison Ave
10. Unsignalized Intersection: Central Ave & Jefferson Ave
11. Unsignalized Intersection: East End Ave & Schaefer Ave The report also identifies opportunities that can be implemented systemically throughout the City. These opportunities were assembled into the “countermeasure toolbox” shown below and include both engineering-based and non-engineering countermeasures.
Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 561
CHINO LRSP 2023
Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox (Engineering Opportunities) LRSM/C
MF ID Potential Countermeasures
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
NS03 Install signals 30% $270,000 per
intersection
NS05 Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) 35% $750,000 per
intersection
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) 25% $22,000 per intersection
NS09 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) 30% $20,000 per beacon NS14 Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) 25% $30,000 per approach NS15 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) 50% $45,000 per structure NS17 Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) 20% $55,000 per location R01 Add segment lighting 35% $50,000 per mile
R04 Install Guardrail 25% $50,000 per location
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 30% $16,000 per sign R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines 15% $60,000 per linear mile R32PB Install bike lanes 35% $45,000 per mile
R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes 45% $250,000 per mile S02 Improve signal hardware; lenses, back plate with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 15% $24,000 per intersection
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) 15% $8,000 per
intersection
S04 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches 40% $34,000 per
intersection
S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through intersection) 10% $7,667 per
intersection
S18PB Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) 25% $50,000 per intersection
S18PB Install pedestrian crossing/crosswalk (S.I.) 25% $50,000 per intersection
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $7,667 per
intersection
Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures:
The identified non-engineering countermeasures below were derived from the collision analysis and build on the actions the City is undertaking. These relate to the additional Es of Traffic Safety outside of Engineering. This includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services and Emerging Technologies.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 562
CHINO LRSP 2023
Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox (Non-Engineering Opportunities)
PROPOSED
COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF
COUNTERMEASURE
ENFORCEMENT
Police traffic services to
enhance enforcement and
compliance with impaired
driving and other traffic laws
Local law enforcement
Selective enforcement
which includes DUI
check points and
monitor hot spot
locations. Grant funding
OTS California Office of
Traffic Safety
Safe routes to school for a
safe and accessible commute
to walk/bike to school for
students and parents.
SCAG, local law enforcement, local school
districts
Active Transportation
Programs (ATP),
educational programs,
SRTS Action Plans
EDUCATION
Educational programs for all
ages to enhance their skills
on traffic regulations and
behavior impacts
Local school districts, Local law
enforcement, CHP, Office of Traffic Safety
Interactive programs at
local schools and
involvement from
parents, teachers, and
community to mentor
traffic safety, OTS
California Office of
Traffic Safety.
Safety campaigns to raise
awareness and eliminate
traffic fatalities and injuries
(aggressive driving, distracted
driving, impaired driving,
ped/bike safety)
Local law enforcement, SCAG
Series of campaigns on
multiple platforms with
efforts to improve
behaviors and safety
on the roads, OTS
California Office of
Traffic Safety.
Safety programs targeted to
reduce bike and pedestrians’
collisions
SCAG, local school districts, local law
enforcement
SCAG Kit of Parts,
testing temporary
safety improvements
and receive feedback
from participants
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Traffic Management
Plans/Temporary Traffic
Control to move motorist
through work zone effectively
and safety.
Local law enforcement, Caltrans, and fire
department
Timely project-related
information through
multiple platforms and
scheduled passages
through roadway
construction zones,
Caltrans
Involvement of emergency
services as actives roles in
projects and
interdepartmental
communication among city
and emergency services.
Local law enforcement, public health
agencies, and fire departments
Incorporate emergency
services agencies as
stakeholders in
projects.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 563
CHINO LRSP 2023
PROPOSED
COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF
COUNTERMEASURE
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
Emergence of new
technology to ensure safety,
and accessibility
City Public Works, City Engineering
Department, Caltrans
Using data as benefit
for digital maps, safety
analysis, signals, and
micro-mobility
Implementing new and best
possible countermeasures for
safety improvement for
motorist, bicyclist, and
pedestrians
City Public Works, City Engineering
Department, Caltrans
Utilization of advanced
technology to improve
safety
An evaluation and implementation plan were created that identifies actionable items that will help the City achieve the goals and vision set out in this report. This section laid out next steps for the City to continue to capitalize on the analysis and information provided in this report.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 564
CHINO LRSP 2023
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
VISION AND GOALS 2
PROCESS 3
3.1 Guiding Manuals 3
3.2 Analysis Techniques 5
SAFETY PARTNERS 9
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1 9
4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #2 9
4.3 Public Meeting Regarding East End Ave/Schaefer Ave Intersection 9 EXISTING EFFORTS 9
DATA SUMMARY 10
6.1 Roadway Network 10
6.2 Intersections 10
6.3 Count Data 10
6.4 Collision Data 10
CRASH SAFETY TRENDS 14
7.1 All Crashes 14
7.2 Fatalities 14
7.3 Injury Levels 15
7.4 Cause of Collisions 16
7.5 Vulnerable Users 17
7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles 19
7.7 Initial Findings 19
7.8 Statewide Comparison 25
EMPHASIS AREAS 25
OPPORTUNITIES 28
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements 28
9.2 Non-Infrastructure Improvements 29
9.3 General Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox 32
EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION 37
10.1 Evaluation 37
10.2 Implementation 37
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 565
CHINO LRSP 2023
10.3 Funding 38
10.4 Next Steps 40
`
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 2 – Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion ........................ 8 Figure 3: Functional Classification (2016-2020) ........................................................................11 Figure 4: Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2016-2020) ..........................................................12 Figure 5: Density of all Crashes at Intersections and Segments (2016-2020) ...........................13 Figure 6: Collision Type by Year (2016-2020) ...........................................................................14 Figure 7: Collisions by Injury Levels (2016-2020) ......................................................................15 Figure 8: Cause of Crashes (2016-2020) ..................................................................................16 Figure 9: : Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions (2016-2020) ............................................................18
Table of Tables
Table 1: Fatal Cras hes Categorized by Modes Involved (2016-2020) ......................................14 Table 2: Analysis Rankings – Intersections ...............................................................................20 Table 3: Analysis Rankings - Segments ....................................................................................22 Table 4: Comparison of Statewide and Chino Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes ...........................25 Table 5: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Chino ...........................29 Table 6: Citywide Safety Project Opportunities (Countermeasure Toolbox) ..............................33 Table 7: Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures ...................................................35
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 566
CHINO LRSP 2023
1 Introduction
Chino is a community in San Bernardino County known for its diversity of attractions and growing population. Chino’s top employment sectors are contributed to construction, warehousing, manufacturing, transportation, and retail. The current population is around 103,416 residents with a median age of 37 years old. With a mixture of recreational, educational, and cultural sites the City has numerous traffic safety needs.
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to focus and guide further safety enhancement to the City’s transportation network. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network provided the opportunity to: 1) identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2) improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and 3) develop safety measures using the five E’s of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies to encourage safer driver behavior and reduced collision severities.
The process and analysis performed for the City’s LRSP is described in this document. The plan includes a vision and associated goals for safety, crash history analysis, and specific emphasis areas that represent the most challenge for safety in the City. The plan provides a foundation for decision making and prioritization for safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety for all modes.
Chino has been successful at taking steps to enhance safety for all modes throughout the City.
This is supported by their California Office of Traffic Safety rankings identifying it amongst the top 30% tier for safety as compared to peer cities in most categories. The City is continuing these safety efforts through this plan by identifying areas of emphasis and opportunities for system improvement that can be implemented to enhance safety. This LRSP analyzes the most recent 5-year period of available crash data (January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2020) and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of elevated collision activity.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
Develop lasting partnerships
Support for grant/funding applications, and
Help prioritize investments in traffic safety.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 567
CHINO LRSP 2023
2 Vision and Goals
The Chino LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort is intended to use historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.
LRSPs have been effective across the country as part of the effort to reduce fatal and severe- injury crashes because they provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. Consistent with these findings, the following Vision, Goals, and Objectives have been established for this project.
VISION: To enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes.
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for collision.
Objectives:
Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists).
Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.
Objectives:
Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for collisions based on present characteristics closely associated with severe collisions. Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon.
Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.
Objectives:
Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied citywide.
Goal #4: Define safety projects for future HSIP and other program funding consideration.
Objectives:
Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth-coming cycles to apply for funding.
Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP funding consideration. Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 568
CHINO LRSP 2023
3 Process
Providing safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for residents and visitors is a primary goal for the City and its safety partners. The City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community through the development of the LRSP and its implementation.
Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level.
FHWA encourages:
The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP.
Review crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern. Establish goals, priorities, and countermeasures to identify opportunities for improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively.
Caltrans guidance includes:
Establish leadership
Analyze the safety data
Determine emphasis areas
Identify strategies
Prioritize and incorporate strategies
Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and resulting emphasis areas. The identification of opportunities to enhance safety presented in this LRSP are connected to the five E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its process.
3.1 Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Chino at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements will be identified. Using historic crash data, crash risk factors for the entire network were documented. The outcomes will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes with active transportation users.
This process uses the latest National and State best practices for statistical roadway analysis described as follows.
3.1.1 Local Roads Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) purpose is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 569
CHINO LRSP 2023
4 and analyzing safety issues, while preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.1 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.” To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that considers both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).
These factors are the peer reviewed product of before and after research that quantifies the expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply CMFs appropriately.
3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
“The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations.”2 This four-part manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.
Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the Network Screening process. The Network Screening Process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network and identify/rank locations that (based on the implementation of a countermeasure) are most likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:3
1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.
1 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx
3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 570
CHINO LRSP 2023
5 2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.
3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.
4. Select Screening Method: There are three principle screening methods (ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall crash histories. In addition to identifying the total number of crashes, this study uses a method referred to as Critical Crash Rate to analyze the data.
3.2 Analysis Techniques
3.2.1 Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
Number of Crashes
Critical Crash Rate (HSM Ch. 4)
Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4) Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this study, intersections were grouped by their control type (Signalized, Unsignalized, Roundabout) and segments by their roadway category (Arterial, Collector, Minor Collector, Local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each sub- population. The population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are seen.
The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type factors were 1) crash injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only), 2) crash type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other), 3) environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and 4) driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, distracted driving). With these additional factors, the locations were further analyzed.
From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area of the City of Chino to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 571
CHINO LRSP 2023
6 toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the City. Ten locations will ultimately be selected for mitigation analysis.
3.2.2 Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis
Reviewing the number of collisions at a location is a good way to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level but does not give a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment daily. The Highway Safety Manual describes the Critical Crash Rate method, which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.
The Critical Crash Rate compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at a particular location based on facility type and volume using a locally calculated average crash rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed. Based on traffic volumes and a weighted citywide crash rate for each facility type, a critical crash rate threshold is established at the 95% confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that are unlikely to be random. The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities. A negative CCR differential value indicates that there are less collisions than expected for a location while a positive CCR differential value means there are more collisions than expected.
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Data Needs
CCR can be calculated using:
Daily entering volume for intersections, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for roadway segments,
Intersection control types to separate them into like populations, Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations, Collision records in GIS or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 572
CHINO LRSP 2023
7 Strengths
Reduces low volume exaggeration
Considers variance
Establishes comparison threshold
3.2.3 CCR Methodology
The Process of analyzing the CCR and comparing locations (separately by intersections and segments) is a multi-step process. The following is a high-level description of the process undertaken to develop the initial ranking of locations.
The first step in the process was to establish a citywide crash rate for each facility population.
These populations are broken into two categories with sub-categories:
Intersection:
o Signalized
o Unsignalized
Roadway Classification:
o Major Arterial
o Primary Arterial
o Secondary Arterial
o Collector Arterial
o Local
The individual crash rate for each location was then calculated based on the associated traffic volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. The next step was to establish a Significance Threshold. This Threshold was used to determine what level of exceedance (how much the crash rate exceeded the critical crash rate) a location must have based on traffic volume to provide a high level of confidence that the collision occurring at the location is not random. For this study, a confidence level of 95% was used. The local crash rates were then compared to Significance Threshold to see if each location exceeded the expected CCR and if so, by how much. After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked by their categories according to that level of exceedance.
3.2.4 Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion The Highway Safety Manual describes the methodology for determining the probability that crash type is greater than an identified threshold proportion. This helps to identify locations where a crash type is more likely to occur.
Data Needs
The probability of a specific crash type can be determined using collisions records with location data, and classifications of the locations (intersections or segments) studied.
Strengths
Can be used as a diagnostic tool
Considers variance in data
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 573
CHINO LRSP 2023
8 Not affected by selection bias
The HSM methodology first determines the frequency of a specific collision type at an individual location, then determines the observed proportion of that collision type relative to all collision types at that location. A threshold proportion is then determined for the specific collision type; HSM suggests utilizing the proportion of the collision type observed in the entire reference population (e.g. throughout the entire City of Chino).
These proportions are then utilized to determine the probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that crash type.
Figure 2 – Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion
Source: Highway Safety Manual
3.2.5 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs). This figure is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This figure allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4).
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 574
CHINO LRSP 2023
9 Safety Partners
As part of the LRSP, local stakeholders were included in the process to ensure that a diverse set of local perspectives were consistently involved in this planning effort. In addition to the Project Team which included City Staff from the Public Works Department, a stakeholder group was organized. This group consisted of the City’s Traffic Advisory Council (TAC), which includes members from the Chino Police Department, local school districts, and City Public Works.
These leaders in the City were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas. The summary of the stakeholder meetings are outlined below.
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1
The first stakeholder meeting was conducted in person at the monthly TAC meeting on January 13, 2022. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study. In addition to the overview, Stakeholders were shown potential emphasis areas.
4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #2
At the monthly TAC meeting on February 16, 2022, the stakeholder group were introduced to 12 site locations. During this meeting collision diagrams were provided to the stakeholders which listed observations and potential countermeasures.
Stakeholders were asked for their opinions and were encouraged to discuss the locations for additional insight to include in the LRSP.
4.3 Public Meeting Regarding East End Ave/Schaefer Ave
Intersection
A Traffic Advisory Council meeting was made open to the public on March 16th, 2022. At this meeting City staff and members of the public discussed safety issues at East End Avenue and Schaefer Ave, as well as any potential countermeasures that can be implemented at this location. The feedback and countermeasures identified are included in this report. Kimley-Horn staff was not present at this meeting.
Existing Efforts
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City of Chino were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. Information reviewed included the following:
City of Chino General Plan (2025 – Chino): A long-range plan that outlines City’s transportation network, including functional classification, existing volumes/LOS for roadways.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 575
CHINO LRSP 2023
10 City of Chino Policy on Accessible Pedestrian Facilities (2019 – Chino): A strategic plan that outlines City’s policy on providing Accessible Pedestrian Facilities with a focus on universal design for pedestrian facilities.
City of Chino Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2016– Chino): A plan that outlines existing and planned active transportation facilities.
City of Chino Climate Action Plan (2020-2030 – Chino): A strategic plan that establishes goals and policies to manage the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.
Data Summary
As a data driven process, utilizing the most recent and accurate data is crucial. The following section describes the data inputs used for the analysis process of this LRSP.
6.1 Roadway Network
The Caltrans California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Functional Classifications were then imported from the City’s General Plan. Traffic volumes and signal locations were provided by the City and were included in the analysis network. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be evaluated against similar facilities. Figure 3 illustrates Chino’s roadway network and illustrates Chino’s intersections as classified for this study.
6.2 Intersections
The collision analysis requires each intersection be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. The safety analysis compares intersection safety performance to locations with similar control types. Figure 3 shows the locations of signalized intersections within the City.
6.3 Count Data
Vehicular count data is used as part of the analysis process to evaluate the impact of traffic and understand the natural hierarchy of the roadway network. Count data utilized for this project was pulled from the 2021 Engineering and Traffic Survey. For locations without volume or count data, a reasonable assumption was made based upon available roadways with similar classifications.
The traffic volume information allowed the team to assess locations for risk to a given roadway user as well as reviewing locations with the highest number of collisions
6.4 Collision Data
Collision data was collected from Crossroads Software for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the City.
Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the following collision trends and patterns.
The locations of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 4, and the number of collisions per intersections and roadway segments are shown in Figure 5.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 576
CHINO LRSP 2023
11 Figure 3: Functional Classification (2016-2020)
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 577
CHINO LRSP 2023
12 Figure 4: Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2016-2020)
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 578
CHINO LRSP 2023
13 Figure 5: Density of all Crashes at Intersections and Segments (2016-2020)
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 579
CHINO LRSP 2023
14 Crash Safety Trends
The following section breaks down the collision data by a variety of factors and user types. This information will be used to highlight areas of concern for the City.
7.1 All Crashes
This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on City streets. New data is added to the system in an ongoing basis which means that each time the City updates the analysis, a full 5-year draw from the database, rather than just adding records from the last query should be standard practice. Data used for this report were extracted from Crossroads Software analytics on November 11, 2021 and was current as of that date. Collision data from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 4,505 collisions recorded within Chino During this time, the most common occurring collision types were Broadsides (31%) and Rear- ends (30%). The total number of collisions varied throughout the study period, with a peak in 2018 and a considerable drop in 2020.
7.2 Fatalities
During the study period, 29 fatal collisions and 69 severe injury collisions occurred during the study period, as seen in Figure 4. Table 1 outlines the fatal and severe injury collisions categorized by modes involved.
0200400600800100012002016 2017 2018 2019 2020No. of CollisionsStudy YearsBroadsideRear-EndSideswipeHit ObjectHead-OnVehicle - PedestrianOtherOverturnedNot Stated Figure 6: Collision Type by Year (2016-2020)
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 580
CHINO LRSP 2023
15 Table 1: Fatal Crashes Categorized by Modes Involved (2016-2020) Involved With # of Fatal
Collisions
# of Severe Injury
Collisions
Other Motor Vehicle 7 40
Pedestrian 8 11
Fixed Object 9 10
Bicycle 3 3
Parked Motor Vehicle - 2
Other - 3
7.3 Injury Levels
63% of the collisions reported during the time-period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 1.9% of all collisions.
Figure 7: Collisions by Injury Levels (2016-2020)
63%22%12%1.5%0.6%Property Damage OnlyComplaint of PainOther Visible InjurySevere InjuryFatal
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 581
CHINO LRSP 2023
16 7.4 Cause of Collisions
The highest recorded cause of collisions in Chino during the study period is Unsafe Speed at
27.5%, followed by Improper Turning at 19.1% and Auto Right-of-Way Violation at 17.9%.
Issues with Drivers Ignoring Traffic Signals and Signs also had a substantial impact on the City, comprising 8.7% of the collisions.
27.46%19.11%17.98%8.75%7.90%3.75%3.15%2.86%1.42%1.35%1.22%1.20%1.02%0.75%0.69%0.64%0.58%0.09%0.04%0.02% Unsafe SpeedImproper TurningAuto R/W ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsDriving Under InfluenceUnknownUnsafe Starting or BackingUnsafe Lane ChangeFollowing Too CloselyImproper PassingWrong Side of RoadOtherOther Than Driver or PedOther Improper DrivingPedestrian ViolationPed R/W ViolationOther Hazardous MovementOther EquipmentHazardous ParkingImpeding Traffic Figure 8: Cause of Crashes (2016-2020)
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 582
CHINO LRSP 2023
17 7.5 Vulnerable Users
7.5.1 Pedestrians
88 pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in 8 fatal collisions, 11 severe injuries, and 67 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 9 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period.
7.5.2 Bicycle
During the study period, 89 collisions involving bicycles were reported. Of these, 3 were fatal, and 3 resulted in severe injuries. Figure 9 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 583
CHINO LRSP 2023
18 Figure 9: : Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions (2016-2020)
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 584
CHINO LRSP 2023
19 7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles
7.6.1 Other Significant Trends
31% of collisions occurred at night or during the dusk/dawn hours. Drivers aged 16-20 were at fault in 12.2% of all collisions. Drivers aged 65+ were at fault in 6.5% of all collisions
7.7 Initial Findings
Through the initial crash and network screening analysis, an initial ranking of locations of interest was developed. The intersections and roadway segments by sub-population are identified in Table 2 and Table 3. Locations were only considered if they had three or more crashes to be statistically relevant.
12.16.a
Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Packet Pg. 585
CHINO LRSP 2023
20 Table 2: Analysis Rankings – Intersections (Top 10 Locations Per Type)
Intersection Crashes Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet Signalized Intersections
Central Ave. & Riverside Dr 57 2.10 449 0 2 3 7 45 12 13 16 10 10 0 2 3 1 13 0 2 11 3 Central Ave. & Philadelphia St 55 5.70 190 0 0 4 19 32 12 14 22 2 2 0 0 3 2 16 0 3 21 3 Euclid Ave. (SR-83) & Kimball Ave. 47 0.05 141 0 0 5 9 33 7 9 27 1 1 2 0 0 0 25 0 0 12 2 Ramona Ave. & Riverside Dr. 47 0.22 370 0 1 8 16 22 19 8 8 0 0 0 1 1 5 12 0 0 11 3 Ramona Ave. & Schaefer Ave. 46 0.23 353 0 1 8 13 24 26 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 16 1 Central Ave. & Walnut Ave 41 4.03 126 0 0 3 11 27 7 6 24 2 2 1 0 1 1 20 0 3 14 6 Benson Ave. & Riverside Dr. 37 0.31 315 0 1 6 11 19 18 6 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 0 2 12 1 Central Ave. & Columbus Ave. 35 0.36 269 0 1 2 10 22 15 7 10 1 1 0 0 1 2 7 0 2 6 0 Monte Vista Ave. & Edison Ave. 35 0.15 482 1 1 6 12 15 20 2 5 2 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 1 5 2 Pipeline Ave. & Edison Ave 34 1.54 113 0 0 5 6 23 12 10 5 3 3 1 0 1 2 4 0 3 11 3 Unsignalized Intersections
Monte Vista Ave. & Walnut Ave. 26 0.52 66 0 0 2 4 20 11 3 4 5 5 0 1 1 0 5 0 3 10 1 Monte Vista Ave. & Chino Ave. 17 0.29 61 0 0 3 3 11 11 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 2 Central Ave. & G St 15 0.37 228 0 1 4 2 8 7 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 Central Ave. & Jefferson Ave 14 0.19 53 0 0 3 2 9 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 5th St & Chino Ave. 12 0.81 37 0 0 1 3 8 10 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 Twelfth St. & Riverside Dr. 12 0.45 22 0 0 0 2 10 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Central Ave. & Mt Vernon Ave 12 0.13 17 0 0 0 1 11 5 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 Fern Ave. & Bickmore Ave. 10 0.93 35 0 0 0 5 5 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3