Agenda packet, regular meeting — Moreno Valley City Council, January 4, 2022 (part 1 of 5)

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

January 4, 2022

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
-1-

City Council Study Sessions
Second Tuesday of each month – 6:00 p.m.

City Council Meetings
Special Presentations – 5:30 P.M.

First & Third Tuesday of each month – 6:00 p.m.

City Council Closed Sessions
Will be scheduled as needed at 4:30 p.m.

City Hall Council Chamber – 14177 Frederick Street

Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who re quires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the ADA Coordinator, at 951.413.3120 at least 72 hours before the meeting. The 72-hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor

Ulises Cabrera, Council Member David Marquez, Council Member

Edward A. Delgado, Council Member
..
-2-

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
January 4, 2022

CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 PM

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of the Holiday Home Lighting Display Contest Winner for Most Spirited

2. Recognition of the Holiday Home Lighting Display Contest Winner For The Clark Griswold Award

3. Recognition of the Holiday Home Lighting Display Contest Winner for Best Theme
.
-3-
.AGENDA

JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

*THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVES A SEPARATE STIPEND FOR CSD
MEETINGS*

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
JANUARY 4, 2022

CALL TO ORDER

Joint Meeting of th e City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority and the Board of Library Trustees - actions taken at the Joint Meeting are those of the Agency indicated on each Agenda item.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION
Pastor Dave Carlson, Moreno Christian Assembly

ROLL CALL

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A NY SUBJECT ON THE AG ENDA AND NOT ON THE

AGENDA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Those wishing to speak should complete and s ubmit a BLUE speaker slip to the Sergeant-at-Arms. There is a three -minute time limit per person. All remarks and questions shall be addressed to the presiding officer or to the City Council.

JOINT CONSENT CALENDARS (SECTIONS A-E)
All items listed under the Consent Calendars, Sections A, B, C, D, and E are considered to be routine and non -controversial, and may be enacted by one motion unless a member of the City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopmen t Agency, Housing Authority or the Board of Library Trustees requests that an item be removed for separate action. The motion to adopt the Consent Calendars is deemed to be a separate motion by each Agency and shall be so recorded by the City Clerk. Item s withdrawn for report or discussion will be heard after public hearing items.
-4-
A. CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL
A.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

A.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING - NOV 18, 2021 4:00 PM Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.3. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED S ESSION) - NOV 18, 2021 5:00 PM
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.4. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - DEC 7, 2021 6:00 PM Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -XX, AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEME NTS
WITH MCKESSON CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.,

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO -MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND JANSSEN PHARMACEUITCA, INC.,

AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE MOU ALLOCATING SET TLEMENT

PROCEEDS, AND AUTHORIZE ENTRY INTO THE MOU WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL (Report of: City Attorney)
Recommendation:

That the City Council consider and adopt Resolution No. 2022 -XX (Attachment A), authorizing participation in National Opioid Settlemen t and authorizing the City Manager to execute related participation agreements.

A.6. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(c)(3), the Interim City Attorney will orally report a summary of the Council’s recommendations after Closed Session before final action is taken on this item. (Report of: City Attorney)
Recommendation:

That the City Council approve the negotiated changes to the City Manager/Executive Director’s Employment Agreement.

-5-
A.7. APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO POLICE MOTORCYCLES
(Report of: Police Department)
Recommendations:

1. Authorize the purchase of two 2022 BMW R 1250 RT -P police motorcycles and related emergency equipment totaling $62,760.

2. Authorize the transfer of $62,385 from the Equipment Replacement Fund 7510 to General Fund 1010, to add to the budgeted amount of $375 in General Fund Account 1010 -60-67-40210-660322, totaling $62,760 to use for the purchase of two 2022 BMW R 1250 RT-P police motorcycles and related emergency equipment.

A.8. VEHICLE DONATION TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT (Report of: Fire Department)
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2021 -XX acknowledging the 2003 KME 100’ Aerial Ladder Fire Truck, Asset No. 400180 with Vehicle Id entification Number 1K9AF422883N058613 is surplus property and has been donated to Riverside County Fire Department, which was planned as part of the new Ladder Truck purchase this year.

A.9. COVID-19 PANDEMIC RESOLUTIONS EXTENDING THE LOCAL STATE OF EMERGENCY AND CERTAIN EMERGENCY MEASURES (RESO. NO.
2022-__) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendations:

That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -XX Extending the Local State of Emergency and Certain Emergency Measures related to t he Local, State and National Declarations of a State of Emergency related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

A.10. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 983, AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 6.03 (M ANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

Conduct the second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 983.

-6-
A.11. RECEIVE THE ANNUAL AB1600 COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 (Report of: Financial & Management Services) Recommendations:

1. Receive and file the Annual AB 1600 Compliance Report for FY 2020 - 21 in compliance with California Government Code sections 66006 and 66001.

2. Approve the finding that staff has demon strated a continuing need to hold unexpended Development Impact Fees.

A.12. ACCEPT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDS (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendations:

1. Authorize the City Manager or des ignee to enter into, execute, and deliver American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) award and compliance documents.

2. Designate the City Manager or designee as authorized signatory to execute ARPA documents on behalf of the City of Moreno Valley.

3. Accept the U.S. Treasury Direct Allocation of ARPA funds in the amount of $48,481,233.

4. Accept staff recommendation for allocation of ARPA funds.

5. Authorize a budget amendment as set forth in the fiscal impact section.

6. Adopt Resolution NO. 2022-XX.

A.13. PAYMENT REGIS TER - OCTOBER 2021 (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

1. Receive and file the Payment Register.

A.14. COLLEGE PROMISE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Report of:

Economic Development)
Recommendation:

1. Approve the Memorandum of Under standing (MOU) between the City of Moreno Valley (City) and the Riverside Community College District -7-
Foundation acting on behalf of Moreno Valley College (College) allowing for the allocation of $100,000 to support the College Promise Initiative for two academic years.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the MOU and all necessary documents with the College.

A.15. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC STREET
CONSTRUCTION (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendation:

1. Approve Resolution No. 2022 -XX, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement with HF Logistics SKX -T2, LLC (Developer) for Construction o f a Roundabout Located at the Intersection of Redlands Boulevard and Eucalyptus Avenue.

A.16. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -XX, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE 2022 WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MORENO
VALLEY UTILITY (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, to adopt the Annual Wildfire Mitigation Plan.

A.17. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH INVOICE CLO UD, INC. FOR

CUSTOMER PAYMENT PROCESSING SERVICES FOR MORENO VALLEY
UTILITY (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendations:

1. Approve an Agreement with Invoice Cloud, Inc. for customer payment processing services for Moreno Valley Utility, funded by MVU Professional Services (Fund 6010); and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney.

-8-
A.18. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT
SERVICES AGREEMENTS TO TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, INC. AND HR GREEN PACIFIC, INC. FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SERVICES (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendations:

1. Approve the A greements for Transportation Planning Services with Transtech Engineers, Inc. and HR Green Pacific, Inc., funded by the fee collected from the development plan review ( Fund 1010); and

2. Authorize t he City Manager to execute the A greements with Transtech Engineers, Inc. and HR Green Pacific, Inc., which include executing subsequent Amendments or Extensions to the
Agreements, and the authority to authorize as sociated purchase orders in accordance with the terms of the Agreements, subject to the approval of the City Attorney; and

3. Authorize Purchase Order with Transtech Engineers, Inc. for a not-to- exceed amount of $150,000 using existing funds already approved in the Public Works Operating Budget; and

4. Authorize Purchase Order with HR Green Pacific, Inc. for a not -to- exceed amount of $100,000 using existing funds already approved in the Public Works Operating Budget.

A.19. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTI ON CONTRACT TO

CHRISP COMPANY FOR THE SIGNING AND STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS ON IRONWOOD AVENUE AND ON KITCHING STREET, PROJECT NOS. 808 0019 AND 808 0020 (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendations:

1. Award a construction contract to Chrisp Company to provide signing and striping as well as traffic control services, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with Chrisp Company in the amount of $103,344.75 ($89,865.00 bid amount plus a 15% contingency) funded by HSIP grant (Fund 2301); and

2. Authorize the issuance of a Purchase Order to Chri sp Company, the amount of $103,344.75 ($89,865.00 bid amount plus a 15% contingency) when the Agreement has been signed by all parties for the signing and striping improvements on Ironwood Ave. and Kitching St.; and

3. Authorize the Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute any subsequent change orders to the contract, but not exceeding the total contingency of $13,479.75, subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
-9-
A.20. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR THE CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION (CalVIP) GRANT PROGRAM (Report of: City Manager)
Recommendation:

1. Authorize City Manager, City Attorney and Chief Financial Officer to draft and submit a letter of intent to ap ply for the California Violence intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant Program.

2. Authorize City Manager, City Attorney and Chief Financial Officer to seek a Community -Based Organization (CBO) partner(s) to assist the City in qualifying for the grant an d negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with CBO for Council approval no later than February 1, 2022.

A.21. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR THE CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION (CalVIP) GRANT PROGRAM (Report of: City Manager)
Recommendation:

1. Authorize City Manager, City Attorney and Chief Financial Officer to draft and submit a letter of intent to apply for the California Violence intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant Program.

2. Authorize City Manager, City A ttorney and Chief Financial Officer to seek a Community -Based Organization (CBO) partner(s) to assist the City in qualifying for the grant and negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with CBO for Council approval no later than February 1, 2022.

A.22. 2022 CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION, BOARD, AND INTER -AGENCY APPOINTMENTS (Report of: City Clerk)
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Ratify the appointments to the various committees and regional bodies as noted on the 2022 Council Committee Participation List – terms end December 31, 2022.

B. CONSENT CALENDAR-COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
B.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.
-10-
B.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 4:00 PM (See A.2)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

B.3. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION) OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

B.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

B.5. AUTHORIZE RENEWAL APPLICATION AND ACCEPT FUNDING FOR

AFTER SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SAFETY (ASES) GRANT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022/23 THR OUGH 2024/25 (Report of: Parks & Community Services)
Recommendation:

1. Authorize the City Manager to submit a renewal application and accept funding for After School Education and Safety (ASES) Grant funds for fiscal years 2022/23 through 2024/25.

B.6. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. CSD 56, AN

ORDINANCE OF THE MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES

DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY DESIGNATING THE

FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA FOR ITS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 2021 -01 (PARKS MAINTENANCE) AN D TAKING CERTAIN RELATED ACTIONS (Report of: Financial & Management Services) Recommendation:

Conduct the second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. CSD 56.

B.7. AUTHORIZE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 CONTINUED FUNDING APPLICATION

FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND ACCEPT FUNDING TO
OPERATE CHILD CARE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 -23 AND

ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNING BOARD (Report of: Parks & Community Services)
Recommendations:

1. Authorize the submission of a Continued Funding Application for Child Care Development Program Funds from the California Department of Social Services for fiscal year 2022-23; and

-11-

2. Upon approval of the Continued Funding Application, authorize acceptance of child development program funds in the approved amount and any subsequent amendments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 - 23 from the California Department of Social Services for the purpose of providing school age child care and development services and authorize the Chief Financial Officer ( CFO) to make minor modifications to the budget, based on the final contract amount (which could me more or less than estimated); and

3. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2022 -___. A resolution of the Moreno Valley Community Serv ices District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, certifying approval of the governing board to enter into this transaction with the California Department of Social Services for providing child care and development services and to authorize designated personnel to sign contract documents for FY 2022-23.

C. CONSENT CALENDAR - HOUSING AUTHORITY
C.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

C.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 4:00 PM (See A.2)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

C.3. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION) OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

C.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.
-12-
C.5. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS DECLARING HOUSING AUTHORITY

OWNED PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS SURPLUS LAND AND NOT

NECESSARY FOR THE AUTHORITY'S USE AT THIS TIME, FINDING THAT

SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND

TAKING RELATED ACTIONS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 542 21 (Report of:

Financial & Management Services)
Recommendations: That the City Council and Housing Authority:

1. Adopt Resolution HA 2022-___. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, declaring pursuant to California Government Code § 54221 that the real property (APN 482 -161-026) located north of Cottonwood Avenue on the east side of Indian Street is designated as surplus land and not necessary for the Authority’s use at this time, finding that such declaration is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, and taking related actions.

2. Adopt Resolution HA 2022-___. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, declaring pursuant to California Government Code § 54221 that the real property (APN 481 -270-058) located on Eucalyptus Avenue east of Heacock Street is designated as surplus land and not necessary for the Authority’s use at this time, finding that such declaration is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, and taking related actions.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR - BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
D.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

D.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 4:00 PM (See A.2)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

D.3. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION) OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

-13-
D.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
E.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

E.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 4:00 PM (See A.2)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

E.3. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION) OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

E.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Questions or comments from the public on a Public Hearing matter are limited to five minutes per individual and must pertain to the subject under consideration.

Those wishing to speak should complete and submit a GOLDENROD speaker slip to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

F.1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM MAIL BALLOT PROCEEDING (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public testimony for the mail ballot proceeding for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Common Interest, Commercial, Industrial, and Quasi-Public Use Regulatory Rate to be applied to the property tax bill of the parcel identified herein ( Judith Flores, located at 24095 Sunnymead Blvd).

2. Direct the City Clerk to open and count the returned NPDES ballot;

-14-

3. Verify and accept the results of the mail ballot proceeding as maintained by the City Clerk on the Official Tally Sheet and if approved, set the rate and impose the applicable NPDES Regulatory Rate on the Assessor’s Parcel Number as mentioned;

4. Receive and file the Official Tally Sheet with the City Clerk’s office.

F.2. INTRODUCE AND CONDUCT THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIO US SECTIONS OF TITLE 9 PLANNING AND ZONING INCLUDING CHAPTER 9.02 PERMITS AND APPROVALS, CHAPTER 9.03 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 9.05 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 9.07 SPECIAL DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 9.08 GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 9.09 SPECIFI C USE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 9.11 PARKING, PEDESTRIAN AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, CHAPTER 9.14 LAND DIVISIONS,
CHAPTER 9.15 DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 9.16 DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND CHAPTER 9.17 LANDSCAPE AND WATER EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS (Report of: Community Development)
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. XXX amending Sections 9.02.200, 9.02.230, 9.03.040, 9.03.050, 9.05.040,

9.07.080, 9.08.150, 9.08.260, 9.08.270, 9.08.280, 9.09.130, 9.11.040,

9.14.050, 9.15.030, 9.16.150, and 9.17.040 to Title 9 of the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code to provide updates that comply with State requirements related to housing and housing production, streamline Code requirements to provide flexibility and clar ity regarding existing requirements, and to streamline certain processes, and provide for other minor clarifications and clean-up items; and

2. Schedule the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. XXX for the next regular Council meeting.

G. GENERAL BUSINESS - NONE
H. ITEMS REMOVED FROM C ONSENT CALENDARS FOR DISCUSSION OR

SEPARATE ACTION
I. REPORTS
I.1. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action) March Joint Powers Commission (JPC)
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
-15-
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) School District/City Joint Task Force
I.2. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action)

CLOSING COMMENTS AND /OR REPORTS OF THE C ITY COUNCIL, COMMUNI TY

SERVICES DISTRICT, C ITY AS SUCCESSOR AGE NCY FOR THE COMMUNIT Y

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY , HOUSING AUT HORITY, PUBLIC FINAN CING AUTHORITY, AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES.

ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC INSPECTION
The contents of the agenda packet are available for public inspection on the City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during normal business hours.

Any written information related to an open session agenda item that is known by the City to have been distributed to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to this meeting will be made avail able for public inspection on the City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during normal business hours.
..

CERTIFICATION
I, Pat Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, certify tha t 72 hours prior to this Regular Meeting, the City Council Agenda was posted on the City’s website at: www.moval.org and in the following three public places pursuant to City of Moreno Valley Resolution No. 2007-40:

City Hall, City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street

Moreno Valley Senior/Community Center
25075 Fir Avenue

Moreno Valley Library
25480 Alessandro Boulevard

Pat Jacquez-Nares, MPA, CMC & CERA
City Clerk
Date Posted: December 30, 2021
ID#5652 Page 1
TO:

FROM: Pat Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: RECOGNITION OF THE H OLIDAY HOME LIGHTING

DISPLAY CONTEST WINNER FOR MOST SPIRITED

RECOMMENDED ACTION

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS
1 Packet Pg. 16
ID#5654 Page 1
TO:

FROM: Pat Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: RECOGNITION OF THE H OLIDAY HOME LIGHTING

DISPLAY CONTEST WINN ER FOR THE CLARK

GRISWOLD AWARD

RECOMMENDED ACTION

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS
2 Packet Pg. 17
ID#5656 Page 1
TO:

FROM: Pat Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: RECOGNITION OF THE H OLIDAY HOME LIGHTING

DISPLAY CONTEST WINNER FOR BEST THEME

RECOMMENDED ACTION

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS
3 Packet Pg. 18

-1-

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

SPECIAL MEETING – 4:00 PM

November 18, 2021

CALL TO ORDER

The Joint Meeting of the City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City o f Moreno Valley, Moreno Valley Housing Authority, Moreno Valley Public Financing Authority and the Board of Library Trustees was called to order at 4:04 p.m. by Mayor Gutierrez in the Council Chamber located at 14177 Frederick Street.

Mayor Gutierrez anno unced that the City Council receives a separate stipend for CSD meetings.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Gutierrez.

ROLL CALL

Council: Edward A. Delgado
Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
David Marquez
Ulises Cabrera
D. LaDonna Jempson
Council Member
Mayor
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member

INTRODUCTIONS

Staff: Pat Jacquez-Nares City Clerk
Steven Quintanilla Interim City Attorney
Mike Lee City Manager
Brian Mohan Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial
Officer/City Treasurer
Ben Kim Assistant City Manager Development
Services
A.2
Packet Pg. 19
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -2-
Manuel Mancha Community Development Director
Michael Lloyd Public Works Director/City Engineer
Jeremy Bubnick Parks & Community Services Director
Sam Morovich Lt. Administration/Division Commander
Jesse Park Fire Chief

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA ONLY

Roy Bleckert

1. Urged the City Council to rescind the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

2. Requested the District 1 vacancy be filled with an election in April of 2022, in conjunction with the School Board election.

3. Indicated that the City Council's actions were motivated by political power.

4. Suggested that the recent issues were perpetuating a poor image of Moreno Valley.

5. Asked for the evaluation of Interim City Attorney Quintanilla to be heard openly.

6. Called on Council Members Cabrera and Marquez to name the people they refer to in their comments.

Donovan Saadiq

1. Commended staff for their hard work.

2. Reported that the District Attorney determined C ouncil Member Jempson's appointment was a Brown Act violation.

3. Criticized Council Member Jempson.

4. Thanked Mayor Gutierrez for staying out of the issue.

5. Questioned Council Member Jempson's motives for wanting the District 1 seat.

Ms. Lopez

1. Congratulated Council Member Elect Delgado.

2. Urged Council Members Cabrera and Marquez to do the right thing.

Margie Yumul

1. Congratulated Council Member Elect Delgado.

2. Opposed the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

3. Criticized Council Member Cabrera.

4. Read a portion of an article from the California City News.

5. Called for a special election for District 1.

Tom Thornsley

1. Congratulated Council Member Elect Delgado.

2. Expressed disappointment of the turnout for the District 2 election and Me asure G was so low.

3. Urged the City Council to remedy the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

4. Questioned why the agenda didn't include options for filling the District 1 seat, expressed his expectation that it would be included on the next agenda.

5. Faulted City Clerk Jacquez -Nares, and Interim City Attorney Quintanilla for not ending the meeting on October 19th, due to a lack of quorum.

6. Recalled the appointment of Mayor Gutierrez in 2013.

A.2
Packet Pg. 20
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -3-

7. Persuaded the City Council to avoid the cost of a sec ond election by appointing someone to District 1.

Bob Palomarez

1. Accused Council Member Cabrera of lying.

2. Alleged Council Member Jempson committed a crime.

Elena Santa Cruz

1. Criticized Council Member Jempson.

2. Noted that the District Attorney se nt a letter to the City regarding the illegal appointment of Council Member Jempson.

3. Condemned Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

4. Alleged that it is illegal for a Council Member to serve without compensation.

5. Questioned whether District 1 discretionary funds had been disbursed.

JoAnn Stephan

1. Congratulated Council Member Elect Delgado.

2. Opposed the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

3. Criticized Council Member Jempson.

4. Urged the City Council to hold an election for District 1.

Tom Jerele, Sr.

1. Congratulated Council Member Elect Delgado.

2. Suggested that no City Council meetings occur until Council Member Elect Delgado is sworn in.

3. Opposed the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

4. Recounted the appointment of Mayor Gutierrez in 2013.

David Zeitz

1. Questioned why the meeting was scheduled at 4:00 p.m.

2. Congratulated Council Member Elect Delgado.

3. Suggested that the three Council Members in office on October 19th vote, to determine the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

4. Recalled the appointment of Mayor Gutierrez in 2013.

5. Urged the City Council to resolve their disagreements and focus on City business.

Lindsay Robinson

1. Welcomed Council Member Elect Delgado.

2. Recounted the appointment of Mayor Gutierrez in 2013.

3. Alleged that the City Council has committed Brown Act violations throughout the years.

4. Opposed the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

5. Claimed the City misled the public when they vouched for the health of Mayor Pro Tem Baca in September.

A.2
Packet Pg. 21
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -4-
Mrs. McIntosh

1. Accused Council Member Cabrera of terrorizing and harassing City staff.

2. Critical of Council Members Marquez, Cabrera, and Jempson.

3. Claimed students wanted to protest in front of Council Member Marquez's home.

4. Disagreed with comments made by Council Member Cabrera.

Russell Shafer

1. Critical of Council Member Cabrera.

2. Disagreed with comments made by Council Member Cabrera.

3. Urged the City Council to rescind the appointment of Council Member Jempson.

Louise Palomarez

1. Critical of Council Members Cabrera, Marquez, and Jempson.

2. Claimed City Clerk Jacquez -Nares filed a harassment suit against Council Member Cabrera.

3. Accused Council Members Cabrera, Marquez, and Jempson of collusion.

4. Disagreed with comments made by Council Member Cabrera.

A. BUSINESS

A.1. CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
CERTIFYING PURSUANT TO SECTION 10262 (B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE, THE RESULTS OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 2021,
SPECIAL ELECTION FOR FILLING THE VACANCY OF THE DISTRICT 2

CITY COUNCIL SEAT, AS DULY PRESENTED TO THE CITY CLERK BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS (Report of: City Clerk)
City Clerk Jacquez-Nares provided the report.

Council Member Cabr era congratulated Council Member Elect Delgado. He moved to adjourn the meeting to immediately after the Closed Session.

Mayor Gutierrez stated that he called the Special Meeting to order and would not yet call the Closed Session Meeting to order until the end of the current meeting.

Council Member Cabrera explained that there was a motion on the floor to adjourn the meeting and asked for a second and a vote.

City Attorney Quintanilla affirmed that Mayor Gutierrez has the duty and the right to call Special Meetings to order and that he can defer calling the next Special Meeting to order in order to finish the current meeting.

Mayor Gutierrez clarified that the certification was a mandamus action and that previous courts had ruled that the results must be accepted.

A.2
Packet Pg. 22
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -5-
Council Member Cabrera remarked that the process was ministerial and expressed his hope that Council Member Elect Delgado would have the opportunity to be sworn in before his family and friends. He indicated his eagerness to work with Council Member Elect Delgado.

Mayor Gutierrez reported that the election results were certified at 12:37 p.m. by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and that Council Member Delgado was already sworn-in.

Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolutio n No. 2021 -71 of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on November 2, 2021, declaring the results and such other matters as provided by law.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor
SECONDER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
Council Member Delgado was administered the oath by City Clerk Jacquez-Nares.

Council Member Delgado took his seat on the dais.

A.2. RESCISSION OF BROWN ACT COMMITMENT - A RESOLUTION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
CURING AND CORRECTING, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 54960, 54960.1 AND 54960.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, THE ALLEGED

BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER, DATED
OCTOBER 22, 2021, RECEIVED FROM CALIFORNIANS AWARE (Report of: City Attorney)
Council Member Jempson recused herself at 4:54 p.m.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla provided the report.

Mayor Gutierrez remarked that as Council Member Delgado was having technical issues, the City Council would take a voice vote for the remaining items.

Mayor Gutierrez asked Interim City Attorney Quintanilla to read the portion of the District Attorney's letter that included a legal analysis.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla read the District Attorney's letter.

Council Member Cabrera asked how many affirmative votes are required for resolutions.

A.2
Packet Pg. 23
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -6-
Interim City Attorney Quintanilla stated three are required.

Council Membe r Cabrera explained the cure and correct is necessary. He mentioned that prior to the meeting he was emailed a copy of the District Attorney's letter. He asserted that if the appointment of Council Member Jempson is rescinded, the City Council should make an appointment to fill the District 1 seat. He asked for confirmation of the term dates of an appointment versus an election.

City Clerk Jacquez -Nares remarked that an appointee would serve until November 2022, while an elected Council Member would be in office until December 2024.

Council Member Cabrera repeated his desire to fill the District 1 vacancy by appointment. He recalled the attempt the City Council made to appoint someone to fill the vacancy left by the untimely passing of Dr. Carla Thornton. He explained that he wasn't allowed to interview the sixteen applicants, which he found to be objectionable. He reiterated his preference for an appointment with required applications and open and public interviews. In an effort to be transparent, he reasoned, a public forum would be ideal. Should there be no consensus, he declared, the vacancy would be filled by a special election. He expressed his concern regarding the absent attachments, mentioned in one of the staff reports, for items A.2 and A.3. As cl arified to him by Interim City Attorney Quintanilla, he explained that the prevailing party in any potential lawsuit would be awarded their attorney fees. He stated the City needs to reposition itself in order to avoid that situation. He questioned why th e meeting was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. and not 6:00 p.m. as a majority of residents commute. He queried what the consequences would be if the City went past the thirty day limit to cure and correct the alleged Brown Act violation.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla explained if the cure and correct is adopted after the 30 day period, the petitioners of the lawsuit will be designated the prevailing party and the City would be liable for their attorney's fees.

Council Member Cabrera asked if attorney fees wo uld include meetings, and correspondence up to the point of the correction.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla responded in the affirmative and included court fees.

Council Member Cabrera remarked that two days prior he requested and received no support for a special meeting to not only take action on the cure and correct, but to also allow for a transparent appointment process. Although, he affirmed his support for the cure and correct, he felt the lack of instruction for filling the vacancy was problematic. He suggested the City wait to adopt the cure and correct until the guarantee of an open appointment is met.

Mayor Gutierrez asked Interim City Attorney Quintanilla what would occur if the City passed the thirty-day deadline.

A.2
Packet Pg. 24
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -7-
Interim City Attorney Quintanilla stated there would be a lawsuit filed against the City and other potential lawsuits filed against individual Council Members. He explained that could include discovery, depositions, subpoenas, hearings, and a trial.

Council Member Marquez concur red with Council Member Cabrera. He reasoned that the person who is appointed to the District 1 vacancy would only serve until November 2022. He stated, “Who cares if it was a Brown Act Violation.” He further opined that regardless of whether or not a Brow n Act violation occurred the best course of action would be an appointment, as it would save the City money. He alleged that various criminal acts have occurred during the six years he served as a Council Member. He accused some of the detractors of having personal agendas.

Council Member Cabrera remarked that the audience interruptions continue and reminded Mayor Gutierrez that he has a duty to ensure decorum and does have the authority to remove people from the Council Chamber.

Mayor Gutierrez stated he was issuing them warnings.

Council Member Delgado explained the appointment left him both embarrassed and more motivated to serve. He acknowledged the difficulty it is to get elected. He expressed the necessity of the cure and correct. He confirmed th at there was currently no remedy for filling the District 1 vacancy, but could be in the future should the City Council deem it necessary. He expressed his desire to see an end to the rhetoric and agreed with a previous speaker who called for the City to return to normal business. He expressed his feeling that the entire City Council agrees on the necessity of the cure and correct.

Interim City Attorney asked City Clerk Jacquez -Nares to read the name of the adopted resolution.

City Clerk Jacquez-Nares read the resolution's title, Approve and adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California curing and correcting pursuant to sections 54960, 54960.1, and 54960.2 of the California Government Code the alleged Brown Act violations described in the letter dated October 22, 2021 received from Californians Aware.

Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Curing and Correcting, pursuant to Sections 54960, 54960.1 and 54960.2 of the California Government Code, the alleged Brown Act violations described in the letter, dated October 22, 2021, received from Californians Aware.

A.2
Packet Pg. 25
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -8-
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
SECONDER: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
A.3. RESCISSION OF BROWN ACT COMMITMENT - A RESOLUTION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
CURING AND CORRECTING, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 54960, 54960.1 AND 54960.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, THE ALLEGED

BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER, DATED
OCTOBER 22, 2021, RECEIVED FROM ROBERT PALOMAREZ (Report of:

City Attorney)
Mayor Gutierrez asked if a vote was nece ssary, as this is identical to item number A.2.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla answered in the affirmative.

Council Member Marquez asked if discussion was necessary.

Mayor Gutierrez remarked it was up to the City Council.

Council Members Marquez, Ca brera, and Delgado agreed no discussion was necessary.

City Clerk Jacquez-Nares read the resolution's title, Approve and adopt resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California curing and correcting pursuant to sections 54960, 54960. 1, and 54960.2 of the California Government Code the alleged Brown Act violations described in the letter dated October 22, 2021 received from Robert Palomarez.

Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of t he City of Moreno Valley, California, Curing and Correcting, pursuant to Sections 54960, 54960.1 and 54960.2 of the California Government Code, the alleged Brown Act violations described in the letter, dated October 22, 2021, received from Robert Palomarez.

A.2
Packet Pg. 26
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -9-
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
SECONDER: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
(ITEMS MAY BE DEFERR ED BY COUNCIL IF TIM E DOES NOT PERMIT FU LL REVIEW.)

Council Member Delgado

1. Expressed gratitude for those that assisted with his campaign.

2. Indicated he wasn't motivated by money or power, but simply a will to serve.

3. Discussed his understanding of the responsibility associated with representing the residents of District 2.

4. Assured residents that his decisions would be educated and thought out versus emotional.

5. Validated the concerns of District 2 residents, which he believed could be addressed, if the City Council worked together.

6. Asked that the current issues be dealt with, while maintaining respect and dignity.

7. Thanked the City Council for their work and sacrifice.

8. Expressed his desire to conduct normal City business.

9. Indicated his wish for the City Council to work collectively.

10. Expressed his excitement to serve.

11. Guaranteed he would treat City staff with respect.

12. Purported to have stayed true to himself his entire professional and personal life.

13. Committed to Lindsay Robinson that he would act with dignity, respect, an d integrity.

14. Charged residents with holding him accountable.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla announced that at the time the resolutions were adopted to cure and correct the action formally removed LaDonna Jempson from the City Council.

Council Memb er Marquez questioned why the City Council was being informed of this after the fact, stating the question was posed to Interim City Attorney Quintanilla prior to the vote in which he advised that the only person who could remove LaDonna Jempson was the Attorney General.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla remarked that issues being discussed are reserved for Closed Session. Furthermore he stated that the outcome of the vote was in the staff report and spelled out in the resolution.

Council Member Cabrera asked if a member of the City Council would have the option to change their vote.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla explained a motion for reconsideration requires somebody from the majority to make that motion and requires three affirmative votes.

A.2
Packet Pg. 27
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -10-
Council Member Cabrera confirmed he and Council Member Marquez were told that the only way to remove a sitting elected official from their seat was through a quo warranto.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla noted that was discussed in Closed Session and cautioned Council Member Cabrera against disclosing those items.

Council Member Cabrera remarked he researched the item himself. He noted there is precedent and expressed his hope that the threat of litigation is finally over.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Gutierrez adjourned the meeting at 5:42 p.m.

Submitted by:

___________________________
Pat Jacquez-Nares, CMC & CERA
City Clerk
Secretary, Moreno Valley Community Services District
Secretary, City as Successor Agency for the Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley
Secretary, Moreno Valley Housing Authority
Secretary, Board of Library Trustees
Secretary, Public Financing Authority

Approved by:

___________________________
Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
President, Moreno Valley Community Services District
Chairperson, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley
Chairperson, Moreno Valley Housing Authority
Chairperson, Board of Library Trustees
Chairperson, Public Financing Authority

A.2
Packet Pg. 28
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL)

-1-

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION) – 5:00 PM

November 18, 2021

CALL TO ORDER

The Closed Session of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, Moreno Valley Community Services District, City as Successo r Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley, Housing Authority, and the Moreno Valley Public Financing Authority was called to order at 5:48 p.m. by Mayor Gutierrez in the Council Chamber located at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, California.

Mayor Gutierrez announced that the City Council receives a separate stipend for CSD meetings.

ROLL CALL

Council: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
David Marquez
Ulises Cabrera
Edward A. Delgado
Mayor
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA

Mayor Gutierrez opened the public comments portion of the meeting for items listed on the agenda only.

Elena Santa Cruz

1. Critical of Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

2. Expressed support for Interim City Attorney Quintanilla.

3. Threatened to recall Council Member Marquez.

Donovan Saadiq

1. Critical of Council Members Marquez and Cabrera.

2. Expressed support for Interim City Attorney Quintanilla.

A.3
Packet Pg. 29
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -2-
Bob Palomarez

1. Accused Council Member Cabrera of having a personal agenda.

2. Expressed support for Interim City Attorney Quintanilla.

3. Critical of Council Member Cabrera.

Mrs. Mcintosh

1. Critical of Council Member Cabrera.

2. Expressed support for Interim City Attorney Quintanilla.

JoAnn Stephan

1. Expressed support for Interim City Attorney Quintanilla.

2. Critical of Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

3. Indicated her belief that a lawsuit would ensue should Interim City Attorney Quintanilla be fired.

4. Praised Council Member Delgado.

Tom Jerele

1. Congratulated Council Member Delgado.

2. Commended Interim City Attorney Quintanilla.

3. Accused Council Members Marquez and Cabrera of committing a power grab.

4. Mentioned the action City Clerk Jacquez-Nares has against the City.

Louise Palomarez

1. Expressed support for Interim City Attorney Quintanilla.

2. Critical of Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

3. Indicated her belief that a lawsuit would ensue should Interim City Attorney Quintanilla be fired.

There being no more members of the public to come forward to speak, he closed the public comments.

CLOSED SESSION

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla announced that the City Council would recess to Closed Session to discuss the items as listed on the agenda.

The Closed Session will be held pursuant to Government Code:

1 Government Code § 54954.5
Public Employee Appointment
Public Employee Title: Interim City Attorney
2 Government Code § 54954.5
Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Public Employee Title: Interim City Attorney
A.3
Packet Pg. 30
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -3-
3 Government Code § 54954.5
Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
Public Employee Title: Interim City Attorney

Mayor Gutierrez recessed the City Council to the City Manager’s Conference Room for their Closed Session at 6:06 p.m.

Mayor Gutierrez reconvened the City Council in the Council Chamber from their Closed Session at 7:09 p.m.

REPORT OF ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY, BY CITY ATTORNEY

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla announced that there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Gutierrez adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

A.3
Packet Pg. 31
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -4-
Submitted by:

Approved by:

A.3
Packet Pg. 32
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 18, 2021 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL)

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY December 7, 2021

-1-

A.4
Packet Pg. 33
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -2-

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM

December 7, 2021

CALL TO ORDER

The Joint Meeting of the City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for th e Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley, Moreno Valley Housing Authority, Moreno Valley Public Financing Authority and the Board of Library Trustees was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Gutierrez in the Council Chamber located at 14177 Frederick Street.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Gutierrez.

INVOCATION

Cheri Roahdes, Bahai' Faith

ROLL CALL

Council: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez Mayor
David Marquez Council Member
Ulises Cabrera Council Member
Edward A. Delgado Council Member

INTRODUCTIONS

Staff: Pat Jacquez-Nares City Clerk
Steven Quintanilla Interim City Attorney
Mike Lee City Manager
Brian Mohan Assistant City Manager, Chief Financial
Officer, City Treasurer
A.4
Packet Pg. 34
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -3-
Ben Kim Assistant City Manager, Development
Services
Manuel Mancha Community Development Director
Michael Lloyd Public Works Director/City Engineer
Jeremy Bubnick Parks & Community Services Director
Sam Morovich Lieutenant Administration/Division
Commander
Jesse Park Fire Chief

Mayor Gutierrez announced staff requested that agenda item number A.14 be pulled from this agenda and placed on a future meeting agenda.

F.1. PAA21-0001 Moreno Valley Trade Center Appeal (Report of: Community Development)
Community Development Director Mancha provided the report.

David Slawson, President of Winchester Associates highlighted the mitigation measures and benefits proposed by the developer.

Mayor Gutierrez thanked the audience for being respectful.

John Grace, Vice Pres ident of Development with Hillwood Properties, discussed the key benefits associated with the project. He introduced two brand new conditions of approval. The first involves limiting the impact of back up gongs or beepers on many of the trucks, while the s econd one concerns the installation of insulation or sound dampening materials on the inside of the screen wall.

Interim City Attorney Quintanilla read the conditions, which are as follow:

1. To reduce noise associated with the use of backup alarms, eith er ambient- sensitive self-adjusting backup alarms or manually adjustable alarms shall be used on all equipment in use on the southern project boundary that requires a backup alarm. Ambient -sensitive self -adjusting backup alarms increase or decrease their v olume based on background noise levels. The alarm self - adjusts to produce a tone that is readily noticeable over ambient noise levels (a minimum increment of 5 decibels is typically readily noticeable). 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, A pplicant shall install sound insulation along the inside of the existing southern screen wall.

John Grace summarized the sustainability efforts presented by the developer.

Mayor Gutierrez thanked the public and John Grace for attending the meeting. Mayor Gutierrez asked about the setback requirement for a project of this size, and if any projects exceed the proposed setback. He also asked if any LEED Silver certified buildings are found within the City, besides the Skechers building.

A.4
Packet Pg. 35
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -4-
Community Development Director Mancha explained the parking area setback requirement of twenty feet. He stated the project more than exceeds the requirement. Community Development Director Mancha affirmed the city had an existing site that was over a hundred fifty feet and was LEED certified the Skechers site.

Mayor Gutierrez asked what the impetus was for the proposed new windows.

John Grace explained the decision was not driven by CEQA, but as an overture to the residents.

Mayor Gutierrez noted the agenda packet included a letter of support from Dr.

Kedziora, Superintendent of Moreno Valley Unified School District.

John Grace stated meeting Dr. Kedziora and establishing a great relationship.

Council Member Marquez remarked his initial assessment of the project was favorable. He noted a previous warehouse project had promised and failed to prevent noise and truck traffic from affecting nearby residences.

John Grace explained mitigation measures are in place to address any noise they are creating. He reiterated the existing ambient noise would be attenuated with the addition of the trees and concrete.

Council Member Marquez asked if a tenant had been secured and how backup alarms would be limited if OSHA required them.

John Grace assured him he had no qualms about acquirin g a tenant once the entitlements have been issued and noted alternatives to backup alarms are allowed for vehicles.

Council Member Marquez clarified whether OSHA requires backup alarms for material handling equipment.

John Grace stated options are avail able, but confessed he wasn't knowledgeable about the backup alarm requirements.

Council Member Marquez explained that his main concern with the project is the noise as he receives frequent complaints from residents who reside near warehouses.

Council Member Delgado requested clarification on the truck routes.

John Grace clarified trucks would traverse South on Redlands.

Council Member Cabrera thanked John Grace and his staff for their presentation. He expressed his concern that trucks would inundate th e A.4
Packet Pg. 36
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -5-
Redlands Boulevard exit and asked how the overflow would be handled.

John Grace emphasized the traffic would come in and stack in the South corner drive aisle as well as on the East side drive aisle, but the intent is to bring most of the traffic off of Eucalyptus.

Council Member Cabrera inquired as to the possible expansion of Redlands Boulevard.

John Grace confirmed two lanes and a median would be improved along the project's frontage.

Council Member Cabrera asked about the width of the landscaping buffer and tree heights.

John Grace emphasized there will be two staggered landscape buffers anywhere from twenty feet to thirty feet wide with trees ranging from fifteen to twenty feet wide, achieving full maturity within five years.

Council Member Cabr era inquired as to their willingness to make additional accommodations regarding the landscaping.

John Grace responded in the affirmative.

Council Member Cabrera explained he conducted research and found trees and shrubs are the best options to hamper s ound. He asked how much noise the landscaping buffers were purported to reduce and whether the fourteen - foot high wall should be increased.

Bill Lawson of Urban Crossroads explained the soft terrain, fourteen -foot high wall, and the setback were designed to reduce noise. He noted that increasing the height of the wall would have a marginal effect on noise.

Council Member Cabrera commented he noticed on the staff report the pad of the industrial building would be higher than Encelia Avenue. He questioned how it would affect the noise. He explained that he lives near the noisy P&G warehouse, which did not incorporate any noise mitigation measures. He asked if it was the developer's intent to obtain LEED Silver certification, whether they planned to fully re pave the roads and clarification on the two conditions mentioned at the beginning of their presentation.

John Grace indicated their commitment to qualify and pursue LEED certification and confirmed roadway improvements would include repaving and slurry coats subject to the City Engineer's decision.

Bill Lawson discussed the additional mitigation measures.

A.4
Packet Pg. 37
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -6-
Mayor Gutierrez opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m.

Recommendation:

1. That the City Council consider the Appeal filed by MVTC, LLC, (the “Appellant”) appealing the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appellant’s application for a General Plan Amendment to develop a warehouse and logistics center on approximately 80 acres located south of Eucalyptus Avenue, north of Encelia Avenue, east of Quincy Street, and west of Redlands Boulevard and take any action the City Council deems appropriate

The following twenty -seven speakers spoke in support of Item No. F.1.: Bob Palomarez, Devon Dourseou, Alex Zamora, Richard Licerio, Jose Radillo, Elliot Diaz, Jason L owe, Eric Esque, Karina Sical, Art Chavoya, Mike Sotomayor, Julio Flores, Jack Huggins, Ralph Velador, Steven Dourseau, Bill Quisenberry, Al Sanchez, Ricardo Zuniga, Kendra Scott, Jose Garcia, Jayson Baiz, Juan Munoz, Mike Day, Tom Jerele Sr., Roy Bleckert , Omar Cobian, and Don Martin.

The following twenty-five speakers spoke in opposition of Item No. F.1.: Jillian Flores, Nathaly Ortiz, Jeff Sims, Lindsay Robinson, Joe Bunker, Tom Thornsley, Sharilyn Bankole, David Zeitz, Susan Zeitz, Antonio Huggins, Richard Moreno, Brian Jackson, Darric Williams, Fred Banuelos, Don McNicholas, Arlene Sims, Eugene Wright, Gabriela Mendez, Emma Pacheco, Joaquin Castallejos, Ana Gonzalez, Janet Bernabe, Donovan Saadiq, Adam Barela, Tom Hyatt.

Mayor Gutierrez recessed the meeting at 7:56 p.m.

Mayor Gutierrez reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m.

Mayor Gutierrez requested clarity on the filtration devices.

Community Development Director Mancha remarked the filtration is primarily for the dust during construction.

Mayor Gutierrez recessed the meeting at 8:53 p.m.

Mayor Gutierrez reconvened the meeting at 8:58 p.m.

John Grace submitted the supporter cards to City Clerk Jacquez -Nares and addressed comments made by the public.

There being no further comments in support or opp osition, Mayor Gutierrez closed the Public Hearing at 9:02 p.m.

A.4
Packet Pg. 38
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -7-
Council Member Marquez praised the project but asked when the City would cease approving warehouses in residential areas. He recalled his membership to the Teamsters Local 951 as well as his past career repairing equipment in warehouses. He remarked on the difficulty of the decision.

Council Member Delgado stated Hillwood's proposal has exceeded expectations. He indicated the project would be better suited in a different area. He remarked t he City does not require a moratorium on warehouses.

He recalled his youth and his mom's employment at a distribution center. He expressed he would fully support the project if it were located elsewhere.

Council Member Cabrera thanked everyone who share d their thoughts on the project. He explained the decision was difficult. He agreed that good paying jobs are necessary. He added that the issue lies in determining whether the economic benefits outweigh all of the negative impacts. He expressed his respect for the union members. He acknowledged the extensive work performed by Hillwood to mitigate a lot of the negative issues, but explained the location is the crux of the issue. He expressed his desire that there were no docks or truck parking on the South side of the project.

Mayor Gutierrez thanked the public for attending the meeting. He thanked Hillwood for their dedication to addressing the resident's environmental concerns. He remarked that they have gone above and beyond any other company that has developed an industrial project. He explained the jobs offered would provide living wages, and also understood the resident's concerns. He noted the power washing and filtration systems has nothing to do with the actual project. He expressed his pro -growth, pro -development stance, but as he did not see any support for the project, he asked the City Council for a continuance.

Interim City Attorney asked if Mayor Gutierrez was suggesting the item be continued to a date certain.

Mayor Gutierrez replied it could be continued to a date uncertain.

Council Member Cabrera expressed his support for the motion.

RESULT: CONTINUED [3 TO 1] Next: 4/19/2022 6:00 PM
MOVER: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor
SECONDER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Ulises Cabrera NAYS: David Marquez

A.4
Packet Pg. 39
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -8-

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A NY SUBJECT ON THE AG ENDA AND NOT ON THE

AGENDA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

Tom Thornsley

1. Expressed his anger at the City Council for not denying the Hillwood project.

2. He claimed the City Council was lied to by the developer when they purported to have received a play book from the Sierra Club.

3. He was disappointed that documents related to a project going before the Planning Commission were not made available on the City's website.

City Manager Lee stated the information was made available on a flash drive, as is standard protocol, but as the requester was unable to retrieve it, every effort was made to email him the information.

David Zeitz

1. Apologized for his actions at the last City Council meeting.

2. Expressed the need for dignity and control during the City Council meetings.

3. Chastised Mayor Gutierrez for allowing the interruptions.

4. Commended Mayor Gutierrez for ensuring public speakers stay ed on topic, which hadn't been done in a while.

5. Indicated his disappointment for the continuation of the Hillwood project.

Mayor Gutierrez remarked that he is prevented from censoring public speakers.

Elmer Thomas

1. Called for the resignation of Council Members Marquez and Cabrera.

2. Critical of Council Member Marquez.

Linda Thomas

1. Accused Council Member Marquez of verbal abuse.

2. Called for the resignation of Council Member Marquez.

3. Critical of Council Member Marquez.

Bob Palomarez

1. Praised Council Member Delgado.

2. Asked Mayor Gutierrez to adjourn the meeting in memory of Pearl Harbor.

3. Commended Police and Firefighters.

Tom Jerele Sr.

1. Praised the City Council for postponing the Hillwood project.

2. Recounted the difficulties developers faced in the early days of the City.

3. Wished everyone Merry Christmas.

4. Thanked staff for organizing the recent public events.

Roy Bleckert

1. Remembered those lost at Pearl Harbor.

2. Called for the resignation of Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

A.4
Packet Pg. 40
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -9-
Elena Santa Cruz

1. Reported that a group of voters protested and demanded the removal of Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

2. Critical of Council Member Marquez.

3. Accused Council Member Cabrera of misappropriation of his campaign funds.

David Lara Tellez

1. Apologized to staff for recent events.

2. Critical of Council Member Marquez.

3. Called for the resignation of Council Member Marquez.

Louise Palomarez

1. Critical of Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

2. Accused Council Member Marquez of destroying jobs.

3. Wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

Donovan Saadiq

1. Thanked staff for installing a bench at Adrienne Mitchell Park.

2. Accused Council Member Cabrera of misappropriating campaign funds.

3. Praised community members for removing former Council Member Jempson.

4. Expressed support for the removal of Council Members Cabrera and Marquez.

5. Indicated his support for an election for the District 1 vacancy.

6. Critical of Council Member Marquez.

Russell Shafer

1. Critical of Council Members Marquez and Cabrera.

2. Called for the resignation of Council Member Marquez.

3. Accused Council Member Cabrera of misappropriation of campaign funds.

JoAnn Stephan

1. Critical of Council Members Marquez and Cabrera.

2. Expressed support for the Hillwood project.

JOINT CONSENT CALENDARS (SECTIONS A-E)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Marquez, Council Member
SECONDER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera A. CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL

A.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

A.4
Packet Pg. 41
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -10-
A.2. City Council - Special Meeting - Oct 27, 2021 6:00 PM Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.3. City Council - Closed Session - Nov 16, 2021 5:00 PM Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.4. City Council - Regular Meeting - Nov 16, 2021 6:00 PM Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.5. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PURSUANT TO SECTION 10262 (B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE, THE RESULTS OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 2021, SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE BALLOT MEASURE G (RESO. NO. 2021-74) (Report of: City Clerk)
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Adopt the resolution certifying pursuant to Section 10262 (b) of the California Elections Code, the results of the November 2, 2021, Special Election for the ballot Measure G.

A.6. 2022 CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION, BOARD, AND INTER -AGENCY APPOINTMENTS (Report of: City Clerk)
Mayor Gutierrez moved the item to December 21, 2021 and asked City Clerk Jacquez-Nares to email each Council Member to determine which committees they would like to serve on.

Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Ratify the appointments t o the various committees and regional bodies as noted on the 2022 Council Committee Participation List – terms end December 31, 2022.

A.7. NOTICE OF CESSATION OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 87 -1 (TOWNGATE) (RESO. NO. 2021 -75) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-75. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, Acting as the Legislative Body of City of Moreno Valley Towngate Community Facilities District No. 87 -1, Determining that the Special Tax of Said Community Facilities District Shall Cease to be Levied, Authorizing and Directing the Recordation of a Notice of Cessation of Special Tax and Taking Certain Other Actions in Connection Therewith
A.4
Packet Pg. 42
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -11-
A.8. CERTIFY ANNEXATION OF ONE PARCEL INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 4-MAINTENANCE - ANNEXATION NO. 2021-04 (RESO. NO. 2021-76) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 4- Maintenance, adopt Resolution No. 2021-76, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Certifying the Results of an Election and Adding Property to such Community Facilities District. (Annexation No. 20121-04) (Alessandro Industrial No. 14 LP, located on the south side of Alessandro Blvd., west of Heacock St.).

A.9. PURSUANT TO A LANDOWNER PETITION, ANNEX CERTAIN PARCEL(S) INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2014 -01 (MAINTENANCE SERVICES) - AMENDMENT NO. 61 AND 62 (RESO. NOS. 2021 -77 AND 2021-78) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendations:

1. Acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2014-01 (Maintenance Services), adopt Resolution No. 2021-77, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2014 -01 (Maintenance Services) and approving the amended map for said District (Amendment No. 61) (Ada Velis Iglesias de Turcios, located on the north side of Angella Way, east of Indian St.).

2. Acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2014-01 (Maintenance Services), adopt Resolution No. 2021-78, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2014 -01 (Maintenance Services) and approving the amended map for said District (Amendment No. 62) (Alessandro Industrial No. 14 LP, located on the south si de of Alessandro Blvd., west of Heacock St.).

A.10. RECEIPT OF QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

1. Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for quarter ended September 30, 2021, in compliance with the City’s Investment Policy.

A.4
Packet Pg. 43
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -12-
A.11. AUTHORIZE THE EXPANSION OF THE WI -FI GARDEN PROGRAM

UTILIZING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CORONAVIRUS (CDBG-CV) FUNDS (Report of: Financial & Management Services) Council Member Cabrera announced the availability of Wi -Fi gardens and highlighted the programs expansion.

City Manager Lee reported the Wi -Fi garden map and other components of the CLIC digital inclusivity program could be found at www.moval.org/clic.

Recommendations:

1. Approve the expansion of the Wi -Fi Garden Program to provide free Wi-Fi in locations throughout the City.

2. Approve the use of CDBG -CV funds for this program as outlined in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

3. Authorize the Purchasing & Sustainability Division Manager to purchase the materials, supplies, contractors, and services necessary to expand the Wi-Fi Garden Program within the expenditures outlined in the Fiscal Impact section and compliant with both the City’s Purchasing Ordinance (No. 587) and the current Procurement Procedures Manual.

A.12. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY SERVING AS THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY APPROVING THE

RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2022
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023 (ROPS 22 -23) (RESO. NO. SA 2021-04) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendations: That the City Council as Successor Agency:

1. Adopt Resolution No. SA 2021-04. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, serving as Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment S chedule and Administrative Budget for the Period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 (ROPS 22 -23), and Authorizing the City Manager acting for the Successor Agency or his/her Designee to Make Modifications Thereto.

2. Authorize the City Manager acting for the Successor Agency or his Designee to make modifications to the Schedule.

A.4
Packet Pg. 44
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -13-

3. Authorize the transmittal of the ROPS 22 -23, for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 (“Exhibit A”), including Administrative Budget (“Exhibit B”) for the said perio d, to the Countywide Oversight Board for County of Riverside for review and approval.

A.13. AWARD OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR RENTAL AND SERVICE OF PORTABLE TOILETS (AGMT. NO. CSD 2021 -90) (Report of: Parks & Community Services)
Recommendations:

1. Award a professional services agreement to Diamond Environmental Services LP, and authorize and execute a contract with Diamond Environmental Services LP, in the amount of $157,160.35, for a five - year contract term; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, o r designee, to execute all necessary documents to implement the Agreement, and extend the Agreement for a five-year term; and

3. Authorize contingency in the amount of $7,000 per year, total contingency over five -year term of up to $35,000 for additional ren tal and service that may arise during the term of the agreement; and

4. Authorize the Parks and Community Services Director to execute any subsequent change orders to, agreement, but not exceeding the total, subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

ITEM A.14. WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA PER STAFF’S REQUEST.

A.14. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -XX, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE 2022 WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MORENO
VALLEY UTILITY (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-XX, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, to adopt the Annual Wildfire Mitigation Plan.

A.4
Packet Pg. 45
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -14-
A.15. APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COVID -19 UTILITY ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM, APPROVE CONTINUATION OF SUSPENSION OF LATE FEES

AND DISCONNECTS, AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY TO CONFIRM THE

ELECTRIC RATES AND RULES FOR MORENO VALLEY UTILITY (MVU) (RESO. NO. 2021-79) (Report of: Public Works)
Council Member Cabrera highlighted the allocation to continue the program.

Recommendations:

1. Approve an additional budget allocation of $300,000 for the COVID - 19 Utility Assistance Program;

2. Approve an Electric Vehicle Discount Program providing a $0.05 p er kWh discount on electric bills for electric vehicle owners;

3. Approve suspension of late fees and disconnects for non -payment until the Emergency Resolution is lifted by the City; and

4. Approve Resolution 2021 -79. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, to confirm the Electric Rates and Rules for Moreno Valley Utility (MVU) as currently required by increased energy costs, operating costs, operating agreements, and City resolution.

A.16. PEN20-0037 (PM 37478) – APPROVE PARCEL MAP 37478 LOCATED AT

THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ALESSANDRO BOULEVARD AND
REBECCA STREET. DEVELOPER: ALESSANDRO INDUSTRIAL NO. 14 LP (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendations:

1. Approve Parcel Map 37478.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to sign the map and trans mit said map to the Riverside County Recorder’s Office for recordation.

A.17. PEN21-0135 (PM 38112) - APPROVE PARCEL MAP 38112 LOCATED AT

THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PERRIS BOULEVARD AND IRIS AVENUE DEVELOPER: THE LYNCH GROUP, INC. (Report of: Public Works) Recommendations:

1. Approve Parcel Map 38112.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to sign the map and transmit said map to the Riverside County Recorder’s Office for recordation.

A.4
Packet Pg. 46
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -15-
A.18. PM 9184 AND PM 12374 - ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-80 ACCEPTING

PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY F OR PORTIONS OF ANGELLA WAY AND BAY AVENUE (RESO. NO. 2021-80) (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendations:

1. Adopt Resolution 2021 -80. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Accepting Dedication of Easements over Certain Property for Public Right of Way Purposes for Portions of Bay Avenue east of Nason Street and Angella Way east of Indian Street.

2. Direct the City Clerk to certify the acceptance of said dedication and cause said certification to be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Riverside together with said Resolution.

A.19. PEN20-0099 (PM 37920) – APPROVE PARCEL MAP 37920 LOCATED AT

THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALESSANDRO BLVD AND GRAHAM
STREET. OWNER: GRAHAM SQUARE, LLC (Report of: Public Works) Recommendations:

1. Approve Parcel Map 37920.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to sign the map and transmit said map to the Riverside County Recorder’s Office for recordation.

B. CONSENT CALENDAR-COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
B.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

B.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.2) Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

B.3. MINUTES - CLOSED SESSION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

B.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.4
Packet Pg. 47
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -16-
C. CONSENT CALENDAR - HOUSING AUTHORITY
C.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

C.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.2) Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

C.3. MINUTES - CLOSED SESSION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

C.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR - BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
D.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

D.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.2) Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

D.3. MINUTES - CLOSED SESSION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

D.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

A.4
Packet Pg. 48
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -17-
E. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
E.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDA R INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

E.2. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.2) Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

E.3. MINUTES - CLOSED SESSION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 5:00 PM (See A.3)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

E.4. MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 6:00 PM (See A.4)
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
F.1. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. F.1 WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND

MOVED TO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA
F.2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PARCELS TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2021 -01 (PARKS MAINTENANCE) (RESO. NOS. CSD 2021 -38 - CSD 2021 -49) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan provided the report.

Mayor Gutierrez opened the Public Hearing at 9:56 p.m.

There being no comments in support or opposition, Mayor Gutierrez closed the Public Hearing at 9:56 p.m.

City Clerk Jacquez -Nares proceeded to open the ballots and announce the votes.

Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan noted the annexation numbers City Clerk Jacquez -Nares was referring to is a table found in the staff report and annexations 5-11 have been approved.

A.4
Packet Pg. 49
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -18-
Recommendations: That the CSD:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing on the proposed annexations into Moreno Valley Community Services District Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance).

2. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021-38, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Submitting to the Landowners of Territory Proposed for Annexation to Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 (Parks Maintenance) the Question of the Levy of a Special Tax Within Such Territory (Annexation No. 5 - LCG MVD II, LLC, Located at the Southeast Corner of Heacock St. and Hemlock Ave.).

3. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021-39, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Service s District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Submitting to the Landowners of Territory Proposed for Annexation to Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 (Parks Maintenance) the Question of the Levy of a Special Tax Within Such Territory (Annexat ion No. 6 - Maria J. Luna, located at 11950 Mathews Rd.).

4. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021-40, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Submitting to the Landowners of Territory Proposed for Annexation to Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 (Parks Maintenance) the Question of the Levy of a Special Tax Within Such Territory (Annexation No. 7 - Ada Velis Iglesias de Turcios, located on the north side of Angella Way, east of Indian St.).

5. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021-41, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Submitting to the Landowners of Territory Proposed for Annexation to Community Facilities Dis trict No. 2021 -01 (Parks Maintenance) the Question of the Levy of a Special Tax Within Such Territory (Annexation No. 8 - MV Resource Center, LLC, located at the northeast corner of Resource Way and Corporate Way).

6. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021-42, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Submitting to the Landowners of Territory Proposed for Annexation to Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 (Parks Maintenance) the Question of the Levy of a Special Tax Within Such Territory (Annexation No. 10 - Alessandro Industrial No. 14, LP, located on the south side of Alessandro Blvd., west of Heacock St.).

A.4
Packet Pg. 50
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -19-

7. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021-43, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Vall ey Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Submitting to the Landowners of Territory Proposed for Annexation to Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 (Parks Maintenance) the Question of the Levy of a Special Tax Within Suc h Territory (Annexation No. 11 - Gold Coast Properties CA 3, LLC, located southwest of Indian St. and Hemlock St.).

8. Direct the Secretary of the CSD to canvass the returned ballots and report the results of the special election to the CSD Board.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
SECONDER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
Recommendations:

9. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021 -44, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Declaring the Results of an Election in Connection with an Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) and Ordering Said Annex ation (Annexation No. 5 - LCG MVD II, LLC, Located at the Southeast Corner of Heacock St. and Hemlock Ave.).

10. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021 -45, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Declaring the Results of an Election in Connection with an Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) and Ordering Said Annexation (Annexation No. 6 - Maria J. Luna, located at 11950 Mathews Rd.).

11. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021 -46, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Declaring t he Results of an Election in Connection with an Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) and Ordering Said Annexation (Annexation No. 7 - Ada Velis Iglesias de Turcios, located on the north side of Angella Way, east of Indian St.).

12. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021 -47, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Declaring t he Results of an Election in Connection with an Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) and Ordering Said Annexatio n A.4
Packet Pg. 51
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -20-
(Annexation No. 8 - MV Resource Center, LLC, located at the northeast corner of Resource Way and Corporate Way).

13. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021 -48, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Declaring t he Results of an Election in Connection with an Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) and Ordering Said Annexation (Annexation No. 10 - Alessandro Industrial No. 14, LP, located on t he south side of Alessandro Blvd., west of Heacock St.).

14. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2021 -49, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Declaring t he Results of an Election in Connec tion with an Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) and Ordering Said Annexation (Annexation No. 11 - Gold Coast Properties CA 3, LLC, located southwest of Indian St. and Hemlock St.).

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Marquez, Council Member
SECONDER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
F.3. PUBLIC HEARING TO DESIGNATE FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2021 -01 (PARKS MAINTENANCE) (ORDINANCE NO. CSD 56) (Report of: Financial & Management Services) Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan provided the report.

Council Member Cabrera requested clarification that the item was intended to eliminate the requirement of continual Public Hearings.

Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan responded in the affirmative and explained the rate apportionment methodology would appear at a City Council meeting in February.

Mayor Gutierrez opened the Public Hearing at 10:01 p.m.

There being no comments in support or opposition, Mayor Gutierrez closed the Public Hearing at 10:01 p.m.

A.4
Packet Pg. 52
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -21-
Recommendations: That the CSD:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing for the designation of the Futu re Annexation Area for the Moreno Valley Community Services District Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance).

2. Introduce Ordinance No. CSD 56, an Ordinance of the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Providing for Future Annexation of Territory to its Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 (Parks Maintenance) and Taking Certain Related Actions.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
SECONDER: David Marquez, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
F.4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF STATE MANDATED SENATE BILL 1383 ORDINANCE TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 6 ADDING
CHAPTER 6.03 MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL RED UCTION REQUIREMENTS (ORD. NO. 983) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan provided the report.

Council Member Cabrera asked if the legislation includes any funding.

Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan reported the state mandate is unfunded.

Council Member Marquez inquired as to the possible need for additional receptacles and enforcement.

Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan responded we would possibly require them, conversations are ongoing with Waste Management to implement the legislation, and explained because of the extensive requirements Governor Newsom has delayed the implementation and fines for a year.

Council Member Delgado explained food waste would be disposed of in green waste receptacles.

Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan noted the industry is still innovating and the processes are still being determined.

A.4
Packet Pg. 53
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -22-
Mayor Gutierrez opened the Public Hearing at 10:08 p.m.

There being no comments in support or opposition, Mayor Gutierrez closed the Public Hearing at 10:08 p.m.

Mayor Gutierrez recessed the meeting at 10:08 p.m.

Mayor Gutierrez reconvened the meeting at 10:16 p.m.

Recommendation:

1. Adoption of Ordinance Amending City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Title 6, adding Chapter 6.03 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Requirements, which is a required State mandate under Senate Bill 1383.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Marquez, Council Member
SECONDER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
F.5. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2022 -2023 & TO ADOPT 2022 -2023 OBJECT IVES AND POLICIES (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan provided the report.

Council Member Cabrera inquired as to the amount the Federal Government is granting.

Assistant City Ma nager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan remarked the amount was still unknown.

Mayor Gutierrez opened the Public Hearing at 10:18 p.m.

There being no comments in support or opposition, Mayor Gutierrez closed the Public Hearing at 10:18 p.m.

Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to allow for the public to comment on the needs of low- and moderate-income residents in Moreno Valley.

2. Approve the proposed CDBG, HOME, and ESG Grant Objectives and Policies for the 2022-2023 Program Year.

A.4
Packet Pg. 54
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -23-
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
SECONDER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
F.6. PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 2019 -2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN CARES ACT AMENDMENT - REPROGRAMMING ESG -CV FUNDING (Report of: Financial &
Management Services)
Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan provided the report.

Mayor Gutierrez opened the Public Hearing at 10:20 p.m.

There being no comments in support or opposition, Mayor Gutierrez closed the Public Hearing at 10:20 p.m.

Council Member Cabrera expressed his pride for this item and the assistance it provides.

Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to allow public comment on the proposed Substantial Amendment No. 2 to the 2019 -2020 Annual Action Plan CARES Act Amendment.

2. Review and adopt the proposed Substantial Amendment No. 2 to the 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan CARES Act Amendment.

3. Authorize a budget amendment as set forth in the fiscal impact section and authorize the Chief Financial Officer to allocate grant funds between HUD- approved grant activities.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
SECONDER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera

A.4
Packet Pg. 55
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -24-
G. GENERAL BUSINESS
G.1. AUTHORIZE THE REFINANCE OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 5 SPECIAL TAX BONDS (RESO. NO. 2021 -81) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Mohan provided the report.

Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-81, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, Acting as the Legislative Body of Community Facilities District No. 5 of the City of Moreno Valley, Approving the Issuance of its Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2021 in a Principal Amount Not To Exceed Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) and Delivery of Related Documents.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
SECONDER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
G.2. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS CALLING AND GIVING N OTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR APRIL 12, 2022 TO FILL THE DISTRICT 1 CITY COUNCIL VACANCY, REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION

AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND COSTS FOR CANDIDATE
STATEMENTS (RESO. NOS. 2021-82 AND 83) (Report of: City Clerk) City Clerk Jacquez-Nares provided the report.

Council Member Cabrera asked how long the winning candidate would serve.

City Clerk Jacquez-Nares stated until 2024.

Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-82, a Resolution of the City Counci l of the City of Moreno Valley, California, calling and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held in the City of Moreno Valley on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, to fill the District 1 City Council vacancy, and requesting that the Board of Supervi sors of the County of Riverside consolidate the Special Municipal Election with any other election to be held on that same date.

A.4
Packet Pg. 56
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -25-

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-83, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, establishing reg ulations pertaining to materials for candidates and costs pertaining to candidate statements submitted to the voters.

RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 0]
MOVER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
SECONDER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Ulises Cabrera ABSTAIN: David Marquez
G.3. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, CURING AND CORRECTING, PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 54960, 54960.1 AND 54960.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA

GOVERNMENT CODE, THE ALLEGED BROWN ACT V IOLATIONS
DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER, RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2021, FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
(RESO. NO. 2021-84) (Report of: City Attorney)
Interim City Attorney Quintanilla provided the report.

Council Member Cabrera remarked a s the matter is resolved the City needs to move forward and take care of business. He expressed his view that there is no reason to continue belaboring the issue.

Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Curing and Correcting, pursuant to Sections 54960, 54960.1 and 54960.2 of the California Government Code, the alleged Brown Act violations described in the letter, dated November 18, 2021, received from Riverside County District Attorney.

RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 0]
MOVER: Ed Delgado, Council Member
SECONDER: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Ulises Cabrera ABSTAIN: David Marquez
G.4. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION - SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM (Report of: City Clerk)
City Clerk Jacquez-Nares asked for nominations.

Mayor Gutierrez nomination Council Member Delgado.

Council Member Cabrera asked if deliberation was allowed.

A.4
Packet Pg. 57
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -26-
Mayor Gutierrez responded in the affirmative.

Council Member Cabrera remarked that the City has been without a Mayor Pro Tem for several months. He stated that an appropriate nominee would be a Council Member with seniority and more experience. Council Member Cabrera nominated Council Member Marquez.

Council Member Marquez agreed with Council Member Cabrera. He noted when he first started the Mayor Pro Tem would change amongst each Council Member. He remarked Mayor Pro Tem Baca served as Mayor Pro Tem for five years.

Council Member Delgado explained how he ascended to his leadership positions and that leaders were not determined by seniority.

Mayor Gutierrez stated Mayor Pro Tem Baca was a mentor to everyone and the appointment has been based on a vote, not seniority. He did acknowledge other cities rotate the Mayor Pro Tem position, but he believes the Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor should share the same vision.

Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Conduct the reorganization of the City Council by selecting one Council Member to serve as Mayor Pro Tem until De cember 31, 2022.

Motion by Mayor Gutierrez to appoint Council Member Delgado RESULT: FAILED [2 TO 2]
MOVER: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor
AYES: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
NAYS: David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
Motion by Council Member Cabrera to appoint Council Member Marquez RESULT: FAILED [2 TO 2]
MOVER: Ulises Cabrera, Council Member
AYES: David Marquez, Ulises Cabrera
NAYS: Ed Delgado, Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez

Roy Bleckert clarified his understanding that twenty -one minutes ha d to be allo tted on each agenda item at a regularly scheduled meeting for public comment in the past.

Mayor Gutierrez remarked all of the general business items and non -agenda items were considered as one. While public hearings were required by law, to be separated.

A.4
Packet Pg. 58
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -27-
Interim City Attorney Quintanilla clarified the Brown Act require d the City to allow the public to comment on any item that was on the agenda at or prior to the time that it appeared for consideration on the agenda. He further stated that City public hear ing items were required to allow public testimony to be submitted in the context of the public hearing. Additionally, he noted that the Mayor was allowed to impose reasonable restrictions on the length of time.

H. ITEMS REMOVED FROM C ONSENT CALENDARS FOR DISCUSSION OR

SEPARATE ACTION - NONE
I. REPORTS
I.1. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action) March Joint Powers Commission (JPC) - None
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) - Council Member Marquez
Council Member Marquez reported the following:

Items covered at the RCHCA Board of Directors meeting on November 18, 2021 include:
 Moreno Valley’s SKR Mitigation fee collection totaled $15,815 from July 2021 through September 2021.

Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) - None Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) - None
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) - Mayor Gutierrez Mayor Gutierrez reported the following:

Items covered at the WRCOG Executive Committee meeting on December 6, 2021 include:
 The Executive Committee authorized the Executive Director to execute a TUMF Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Moreno Valley. The amendment increases the amount of funding for the Construction Phase of the SR-60 / Moreno Beach Interchange Project by 3.8 million dollars.

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) - Council Member Marquez
Council Member Marquez reported the following:

A.4
Packet Pg. 59
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -28-
Items covered at the RCA Board of Directors meeting on December 6, 2021 include:

 Moreno Valley’s MSHCP fee collection totaled $231,292.00 (15 residential permits and 15.63 acres of commercial/industrial) for the month of October 2021.

School District/City Joint Task Force - None
I.2. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action)

City Manager Lee reminded residents of the ongoing pet adoption event. He announced there are 200 free vaccinations available for dogs and 70 vaccinations available for cats. He invited residents to participate in the Spa rk of Love event on Saturday December 11th and Sunday December 12th.

CLOSING COMMENTS AND /OR REPORTS OF THE C ITY COUNCIL, COMMUNI TY

SERVICES DISTRICT, C ITY AS SUCCESSOR AGE NCY FOR THE COMMUNIT Y

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY , HOUSING AUTHORITY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES.

Council Member Marquez

1. Refuted comments made by Elmer and Linda Thomas.

2. Refused to resign.

3. Wished everyone happy holidays and urged them not to drink and drive.

Mayor Gutierrez reminded everyone to be re spectful of the City Council Members during their closing comments.

Council Member Cabrera

1. Enjoyed Snow Day as well as the Tree Lighting event.

2. Thanked staff for their work.

3. Commended the City Council for the work achieved.

Council Member Delgado

1. Expressed pride that the first three hours of the meeting was civil.

2. Thanked veterans and honored those who lost their lives on this day 80 years ago.

3. Asked residents to be patient as roadway improvements are ongoing in District

2. 4. Visited the Moreno Valley Equestrian Center last week.

5. Announced the "M" would be lit on December 13th in honor of Horse Day.

6. Stated he would be working with Public Works and Landscape Services to address the donkey waste on the sidewalks in Hidden Springs.

7. Remarked he would be working to address the trash under the overpasses and around the City property at the on and off ramps.

A.4
Packet Pg. 60
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -29-

8. Asked that everyone be respectable to one another.

9. Announced an upcoming Coffee with a Councilman event in January.

10. Commended staff for their work and especially Jasmin.

Mayor Gutierrez

1. Thanked staff for their hard work.

2. Commended Parks for the Tree Lighting event.

3. Encouraged residents to participate in the various toy drives.

4. Announced the upcoming Telephone Town Hall on December 15th at 6:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Gutierrez adjourned the meeting in memory of the lives lost at Pearl Harbor at 11:00 p.m.

Submitted by:

___________________________
Pat Jacquez-Nares, MPA, CMC & CERA
City Clerk
Secretary, Moreno Valley Community Services District
Secretary, City as Successor Agency for the Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley
Secretary, Moreno Valley Housing Authority
Secretary, Board of Library Trustees
Secretary, Public Financing Authority

Approved by:

A.4
Packet Pg. 61
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 7, 2021 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL)

Report to City Council

ID#5653 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Steve Quintanilla, Interim City Attorney

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF RES OLUTION NO. 2022 -XX,

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER IN TO

THE SETTLEMENT AGREE MENTS WITH MCKESSON
CORPORATION, CARD INAL HEALTH, INC.,

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CO RPORATION, JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, JANSSEN PHA RMACEUTICALS, INC.,
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, IN C.,
AND JANSSEN PHARMACE UITCA, INC., AGREE T O THE

TERMS OF THE MOU ALL OCATING SETTLEMENT

PROCEEDS, AND AUTHOR IZE ENT RY INTO THE MOU

WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

That the City Council consider and adopt Resolution No. 202 2-XX (Attachment A), authorizing participation in National Opioid Settlement and authorizing the City Manager to execute related participation agreements.

SUMMARY

This report recommends the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements to participate in the settlement of aggregate nationwide settlement agreements with opioid manufacturer s and distributors regarding claims resulting from the opioid addiction epidemic.

DISCUSSION

Background. On July 22, 2021, a settlement was announced in multi -district federal litigation based in Ohio against opioid manufacturers and distributors. The settlement arose out of litigation (including over 4,000 lawsuits) brought in Ohio by states and cities A.5
Packet Pg. 62

Page 2 ends

against the three largest pharmaceutical distributors —McKesson, Cardinal Health and Amerisource Bergen —and the opioid manufacturer Janssen (owned by Joh nson & Johnson). The litigation generally alleges that the distributors and Janssen contributed to the national opioid crisis by ignoring signs of opioid addiction and overselling opioids.

The proposed settlement is worth $26 billion and will cover all sta tes, counties, and cities — even those who are not part of the litigation. The opioid distributors will pay $21 billion over an 18-year period and Janssen will pay $5 billion over a 7-year period.

California Allocation Agreement. Under the terms of settle ment, California is scheduled to receive somewhere between $2.269 and $2.34 billion. The state will be responsible for distributing these funds to cities and counties through an interstate allocation agreement, otherwise the funds will be distributed to ci ties and counties according to a default model in the settlement. An intrastate allocation deal has been agreed upon, and copies are attached to the Resolution under consideration here.

Some of the key terms are:

 The National Settlements Allot a certain a mount of money to California to be allocated between the State and local governments. That amount is divided between State and CA local governments by agreement (the “Allocation Agreements”). The Allocation Agreements split the dollars coming into Californ ia as follows:
o 15% to a State Fund;
o 70% to local governments in an Abatement Accounts Fund; and o 15% to litigating local governments in a Subdivision Fund.  Cities and counties must be aware that the Settlement Agreements and the Allocation Agreements requir e that the money in the Abatement Accounts Fund must be spent on remediation with no less than 50% of each local government’s allocation in each calendar year spent on one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
o The provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program;
o Creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure;
o Addressing the needs of communities of color an d vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
o 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
o Interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth.  The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be divided according to an allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804). The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each eligible local government A.5
Packet Pg. 63

Page 3 ends

(any county or city above 10,000 in population) is set forth in Appendix 1 to each Allocation Agreement.
 Eligible Local Government’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund is a product of the total in the CA Abatement Ac counts Fund multiplied by the City’s percentage set forth in Appendix 1 (the “Local Allocation”).  A City that is an Eligible Local Government will be allocated its Local Allocation only when it becomes a Participating Subdivision by signing the Participati on Agreements to the Settlements.
 The Local Allocation for a city that is a 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 Participating Subdivision, and (b) the c ity has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date as defined in the Settlement Agreements.  If the City wishes, it can elect a direct payment. It must then follow the use and reporting requirements in the Allocation Agreements and Settlement Agreements.

Deadline to Participate. Jurisdictions must affirmatively opt -in to the settlement before January 26, 2022, to receive funds from the settlement.

Options. Even though the City did not participate in the litigation, the City has two options. It can: (1) opt-in to the settlement; or (2) it can decide not to opt-in.

If the City opts -in to the settlement, it must release its claims against the opioid distributors and manufacturers par ticipating in the settlement. The City will receive funds, which it must use to combat opioid abuse in the City or it can enter into an agreement with Riverside County to use the funds for existing County programs. Under the terms of the settlement, the Ci ty would have to report how it spends funds received from the settlement.

If the City does not opt -in, the City will not be a participant in the settlement. The City would retain the ability to pursue its own litigation against opioid distributors and manufacturers. If the City does not opt -in, then funds to be received by the City under the settlement would instead go directly to the State.

Fund Release. The Distributors made an initial deposit of funds into escrow by the end of September 2021 and will make additional deposits in early Summer of 2022. Funds can begin to flow to states and local governments as early as April 2022, depending on when a settling State meets certain requirements. The J&J agreement also offers opportunities for significant ac celeration of payments if states and subdivisions meet specified participation levels.

Conclusion. Our office recommends that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution No. 202 2-XX (Attachment A), authorizing participation in National Opioid Settlement and authorizing the City Manager to execute related participation agreements.

A.5
Packet Pg. 64

Page 4 ends

FISCAL IMPACT

The City will need to create a new fund for the money received through this settlement and allocation program. The City will receive an amount not yet deter mined, according to the participation levels and funding schedules set forth in the Allocation Agreement.

NOTIFICATION

The agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By:

Michael R. Cobden
Interim Deputy City Attorney

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Revenue Diversification and Preservation. Develop a variety of City revenue sources and policies to create a stable revenue base and fiscal policies to support essential City services, regardless of economic climate.

Public Safety. Provide a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community, control the number and severity of fire and hazardous material incidents, and provide protection for citizens who live, work and visit the City of Moreno Valley.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 12/27/21 4:37 PM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

A.5
Packet Pg. 65

Page 5 ends

City Manager Approval  Approved . 12/28/21 11:48 AM A.5
Packet Pg. 66
1 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 04, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH MCKESSON CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.,

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND JANSSEN PHARMACEUITCA, INC., AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE MOU

ALLOCATING SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS, AND AUTHORIZE ENTRY INTO THE MOU

WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
W
HEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) is a charter city and recognized as a political subdivision of the State of California for certain purposes; and W
HEREAS, the United States is facing an ongoing public health crisis of opioid abuse, addiction, overdose, and death. The State of California and California local governments spend billions of dollars each year to address the direct consequences of this crisis.

W
HEREAS, since 2017, state and local governments in California and around the United States have been pursuing litigation against certain manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of opioid pharmaceuticals (the “Opioid Defendants”) in an effort to hold the Opioid Defendants financially responsible for the impact on of the Opioid Epidemic on the City and resources necessary to combat the opioid epidemic; W
HEREAS, negotiations to settle claims against several of the Opioid Defendants, specifically McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen Pharmaceuitca, Inc. (the “Settling Defendants”) have been ongoing for several years;
W
HEREAS, negotiations with the Settling Defendants have resulted in proposed nationwide settlements of state and local government claims to settle the Litigation; W
HEREAS, copies of the proposed terms of those proposed nationwide settlements have been set forth in the Distributors Master Settlement Agreement and the J&J Master Settlement Agreement (collectively “Settlement Agreements”); W
HEREAS, copies of the Settlement Agreements as well as summary of the main terms of the Settlement Agreements, the deadlines for submitting the Participation Agreements to the Settlement Agreements and the MDL Court’s Order setting deadlines for any Plaintiff who declines to enter into the Settlement Agreements, have been provided to the Council with this Resolution and can be found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Final-Distributor- Settlement-Agreement-10.22.2021-Exhibit-Updates_.pdf and A.5.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 2 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 04, 2022
https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Janssen-agreement- 20211105.pdf ;
W
HEREAS, the S ettlement 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 Settlement Agreements (“California Opioid Funds”); W
HEREAS, California local governments as well as the attorneys representing those local governments 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 Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Distributor Settlement and the Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds- Janssen Settlement (collectively the “Allocation Agreements,”) which are agreements between all of the entities identified in the Allocation Agreements; W
HEREAS, copies of the Allocation Agreements are attached to this resolution as Exhibit A;
W
HEREAS, the Allocation Agreements propose to allocate the California Opioid Funds 15% to a State Fund; 70% to local governments in an Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to litigating local governments in a Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlements will be combined pursuant to Allocation Agreements, 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 Allocation”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund Allocation”);
W
HEREAS, the funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund (the California Abatement Accounts Fund Allocation) wil l be allocated based on an allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804). The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each eligible local gover nment (any county or city above 10,000 in population) “Eligible Local Government”) is set forth in Appendix 1 to each Allocation Agreement and provided to the Council with this Resolution. The City’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund is a product of the total in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund multiplied by the City’s percentage set forth in Appendix 1 (the “Local Allocation”).

W
HEREAS, any city that is an Eligible Local Government will be allocated its Local Allocation share only when it becomes a Participating Subdivision by signing the Participation Agreements to the Settlements. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a 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 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 as defined in the Settlement Agreements.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 3 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 04, 2022
W
HEREAS, if a City elects to take a direct distribution of its Local Allocation amount, both the Settlement Agreements and the Allocation Agreements place certain limitations on the time period for expenditures, use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and provide for accounting procedures and oversight of the expenditures of the California Abatement Accounts Funds.

W
HEREAS, the City elects to take its direct distribution of its Local Allocation amount as set forth on Exhibit 1 and to comply with the requirements of the Allocation Agreements.

W
HEREAS, the City, by this Resolution, shall establish an account for the receipt of the Local Allocation Funds consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreements, the Allocation Agreements and this Resolution (“the Opioid Abatement Account”); W
HEREAS, the City’s Opioid Abatement Account shall be separate from the City’s general fund, shall not be commingled with any other City funds, and shall be dedicated to funding opioid abatement measures as provided in the Settlement Agreements and the Allocation Agreements;
NO

W, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

T
hat the Recitals set forth above are true and correct.

Section 2. Authorization to Settle and Release Claims
T
he City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager, to settle and release the City’s claims against the Settling Defendants in exchange for the consideration set forth in the Settlement Agreements, Allocation Agreements including taking the following measures:

1. T
he execution of the Participation Agreement to the Distributors Settlement Agreement and any and all documents ancillary thereto.

2. T
he execution of the Participation Agreement to the Janssen Settlement Agreement and any and all documents ancillary thereto.

3. T
he execution of the Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds- Distributor Settlement by executing the signature pages to that Allocation Agreement.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 4 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 04, 2022

4. The execution of the Proposed California State- Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Janssen Settlement Allocation Agreements by executing the signature pages to that Allocation Agreement.

5. N
otify the Settlement Fund Administrator that the City requests a direct payment under the Allocation Agreements at least 60 days prior to the Payment Date in the Settlement Agreements.

Section 3. Funds to be Placed in Account
T
he City shall establish an Opioid Abatement Account, and the City’s Local Allocation Funds shall be deposited in the City’s Opioid Abatement Account.

Section 4. Ratification of Prior Necessary Actions
A
ll actions heretofore taken by the 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. Severability.

T
hat the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution or Personnel Rules and Regulations attached hereto be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution and Personnel Rules and Regulations as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 6. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.

T
hat all provisions heretofore adopted by the City or the City Council in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 7. Effective Date.

T
hat this Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 5 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 04, 2022
Section 8. Certification.

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this R esolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January 2022.

D
r. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
AT
TEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

P
at Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk Steven B. Quintanilla Interim City Attorney
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 6 RESOLUTION JURAT
STA

TE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNT
Y OF
RIVERSIDE )ss.

CIT

Y OF MORENO

VALLEY )
I, Pat Jacquez Nares, City Clerk of the City of Moreno
Valley, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-XX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the January 04, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NO
ES:

ABSENT
:

ABST
AIN:

PAT

JACQUEZ-NARES, CITY CLERK
(SEAL
)
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 7 EXHIBIT “A”
S

ETTLEMENT ALLOCATION AGREEMENTS
(SEE ATTACHED)
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Distributor Settlement

1. Introduction

Pursuant to the Distributor Settlement Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto (the “Distributor Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Distributor Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Distributor Settlement Agreement.1 For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections IX or X of the Distributor Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement. b) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
c) Litigating Special District means a school district, fire protection district, health authority, health plan, or other special district that has filed a lawsuit against an Opioid Defendant. 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, and LA Care Health Plan.
d) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a 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.

1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Janssen Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Janssen Settlement Agreement. An eligible Subdivision may elect to participate in either the Distributor Settlement or the Janssen Settlement, or in both.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

2 e) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Distributor Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Distributor Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Distributor 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 Distributor 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 Distributor 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

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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

3 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, 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 Distributor 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 Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

4 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 Distributor 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 Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

5 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement.

b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Distributor Settlement Agreement or this CA Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement or this CA Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 6 The CA Subdivision Fun
ds 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.

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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Janssen 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(R), of the Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement, and if applicable, the Janssen 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Janssen 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 A.5.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

7 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and the Distributors.

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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

8 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 Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement, this CA Distributor 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 Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 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—Distributor Settle ment, 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
1 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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% 2 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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% 3 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
4 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
5 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
6 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
7 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
8 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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% 9 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
10 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
11 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
12 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
13 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
14 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
15 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

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 paid or incurred (i) prior to July 21, 2021 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement or Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen 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 a National Opioid Settlement with Distributors, Johnson & Johnson, and others.

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 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 A.5.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

2 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.

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 Distributor Agreement.

vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and the Distributors a A.5.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

3 report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V.B.2 of the Distributor 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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and the Janssen 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 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 4 ii. In the ev
ent 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 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 Distributors 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, Expenses and Costs) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Distributor Settlement Agreement and CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Distributor 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 Distributors Settlement.

[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Distributor 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 Distributor 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]

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Janssen Settlement

1. Introduction

Pursuant to the Janssen Settlement Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto (the “Janssen Settlement Agreement”), including Section VI and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Janssen Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Janssen Settlement Agreement.1 For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections X or XI of the Janssen Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Janssen 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement. b) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
c) 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, and LA Care Health Plan.
d) 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. e) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc.,

1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Distributor Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Distributor Settlement Agreement. An eligible Subdivision may elect to participate in either the Distributor Settlement or the Janssen Settlement, or in both.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

2 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Janssen Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Janssen Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section VI(D)(1) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VI(B)(2) of the Janssen 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 Janssen 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 Janssen 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

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 3 Abatem
ent 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 Janssen 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 Janssen 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

4 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement.

(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;

(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth.

d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Janssen 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

5 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement.

b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Janssen Settlement Agreement or this CA Janssen 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.

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 Janssen Settlement Agreement or this CA Janssen 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.

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 Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

6 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Distributor 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(R), of the Janssen 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 Janssen Settlement, and if applicable, the Distributor 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Distributor 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 A.5.a
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

7 General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

5. State and Subdivision Reporting

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 Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen 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.

d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen 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 VI(B)(2) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Janssen.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

8 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 Janssen 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement, this CA Janssen 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 Janssen 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT 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—Janssen 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
1 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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% 2 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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% 3 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
4 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
5 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
6 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
7 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
8 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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% 9 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
10 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
11 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
12 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
13 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
14 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

APPENDIX 1
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%
15 of 15
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 :

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 paid or incurred (i) prior to July 21, 2021 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. 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.

2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision

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 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 A.5.a
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

2 Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date.

iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.

vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Janssen a report A.5.a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

3 of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section VI.B.2 of the Janssen Agreement.

c) Claims Priority and Limitation.

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 Distributor Settlement Agreement and the Janssen Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.

d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

4 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.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

1 APPENDIX 3

CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION 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 Janssen Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Janssen Settlement Agreement and CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Janssen 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 Distributors Settlement.

[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Janssen 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 Janssen 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]
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Resolution - NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION - MOVAL [Revision 2] (5653 : NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT

Report to City Council

ID#5657 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Steve Quintanilla, Interim City Attorney

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: CITY MANAGER/EXECUTI VE DIRECTOR EMPLOYME NT

AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECT ION 54953(C)(3), THE

INTERIM CITY ATTORNE Y WI LL ORALLY REPORT A
SUMMARY OF THE COUNC IL’S RECOMMENDATIONS

AFTER CLOSED SESSION BEFORE FINAL ACTION IS
TAKEN ON THIS ITEM.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council approve the negotiated changes to the City Manager/Executive Director’s Employment Agreement.

SUMMARY

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, the City Council will have met in closed session to discuss the terms of the City Manager/Executive Director’s Employment Agreement. As required per Government Code Section 54953(c)(3), the Int erim City Attorney will orally report a summary of the City Council’s recommendations after closed session before final action may be taken on this item in open session.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure
A.6
Packet Pg. 132

Page 2 ends

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 12/27/21 4:38 PM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 12/27/21 6:15 PM A.6
Packet Pg. 133

Report to City Council

ID#5610 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: John Salisbury, Chief of Police

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: APPROVE THE REPLACEM ENT OF TWO POLICE

MOTORCYCLES

RECOMMENDED ACTION

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendations:

1. Authorize the purchase of two 2022 BMW R 1250 RT-P police motorcycles and related emergency equipment totaling $62,760.

2. Authorize the transfer of $62,385 from the Equipment Replacement Fund 7510 to General Fund 1010, to add to the budgeted amount of $375 in General Fund Account 1010-60-67-40210-660322, totaling $62,760 to use for the purchase of two 2022 BMW R 1250 RT -P police motorcycles and related emergency equipment.

SUMMARY

This report recommends the City Council authorize the Moreno Valley Police Department (MVPD) to purchase two (2) 2022 BMW R 1250 RT -P Motorcycles from Riverside BMW for a total amount of $62,760. The MVPD will utilize $62,385 of replacement funds and $375 from the Police Departments FY 2021-22 approved budget allocation to acquire this equipment.

DISCUSSION

MVPD has u tilized BMW motorcycles to support the Traffic Division since 2013. BMW motorcycles are a leader in the industry when it comes to ergonomics and overall functionality which is best suited for police work. Additionally, BMW is the only motorcycle fully outf itted for police service by the manufacturer. Other options to A.7
Packet Pg. 134

Page 2 ends

purchase motorcycles for police use require the use of a combination of vendors to completely outfit the motorcycle for police use. Using only BMW motorcycles streamlines the maintenance and re pair process as one vendor will handle all aspects of the process.

When MVPD began utilizing the BMW motorcycles, the R 1200 RT -P series police enforcement motorcycle was used to support the Traffic Division. Because BMW ceased production of the R 1200 R T-P series in 2019, the MVPD began utilizing the R 1250 RT-P police enforcement motorcycles.

Currently, two (2) motorcycles have outlived their service life and are scheduled to be replaced.

 2018 BMW R 1200 RT -P motorcycle (Asset #400288) has is curren tly used as a spare, and has 43,366 miles.
 2018 BMW R 1200 RT -P motorcycle (Asset #400289) is currently used as a spare, and has 46,916 miles.

Service life for a motorcycle is identified by its warranty status and current value.

Aggregate costs for repair s over the life of the motorcycle is also accounted for insofar as the anticipated growth of the aggregate as future repairs will quickly exceed initial purchase price.

The City of Moreno Valley currently contracts for 1 motor sergeant and 9 motor deputies. Maximizing operational efficiencies, it is recommended that we have one (1) motorcycle dedicated to each contracted deputy and three (3) motorcycles used as spares. The motorcycle fleet currently in use are:

 Two (2) 2018 BMW R 1250 RT-P: Spares
 Three (3) 2019 BMW R 1250 RT-P: (2) In-service, (1) spare  Four (4) 2020 BMW R 1250 RT-P: In service
 Three (3) 2021 BMW R 1250 RT-P: In service

Staff recommends utilizing the single source approach to procuring the motorcycles for two key reasons:
 Riverside BMW is consistently competitive in the bid for producing the required law enforcement vehicle; and
 Required regular maintenance that occurs closest to the Moreno Valley Station reduces lost enforcement time.

To confirm Riverside’s competiveness, staff request ed quotes from three BMW motorcycle dealers: Escondido, Long Beach and Riverside.

A.7
Packet Pg. 135

Page 3 ends

Riverside BMW’s quote was the most competitive and is the most practical as there is a significant benefit to the Traffic Division to have maintenance in the closest proximi ty possible.

Dealership Quote per motorcycle
Escondido: $32,003
Long Beach: Unresponsive
Riverside: $31,380

The total price for two (2) 2022 BMW R 1250 RT-P motorcycles is $62,760.

The purchase of the proposed motorcycles is provided for by the Equip ment Replacement Fund 7510 and General Fund 1010. Through the depreciation process, replacement funds (7510) are budgeted and increased as the motorcycles depreciate in value. As part of the biennial budget process, the City has appropriated $15,000 for th e replacement of the police motorcycles in FY 21/22.

Total replacement funds designated for the proposed purchase are $62,385; and funds required from the FY 21/22 appropriation for motorcycles are $375.

The two (2) motorcycles to be replaced are:

Year Asset # V.I.N.

Available Replacement
Funds totaling $62,760
2018 400288 WB10A1309JZ467152 $31,192.38
2018 400289 WB10A1307JZ467151 $31,192.38

ALTERNATIVES

Council has the following alternatives:

1. Authorize the purchase of two (2) 2022 BMW R 1250 R T-P police motorcycles and related emergency equipment totaling $62,760; Authorize the transfer of $62,385 from the Equipment Replacement Fund to the General Fund, with $375 coming from the Police Department’s FY 21/22 General Fund budget allocation.

Staff recommends this alternative.

2. Do not authorize the purchase of two (2) 2021 BMW R 1250 RT -P police motorcycles and related emergency equipment totaling $62,760. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT

A.7
Packet Pg. 136

Page 4 ends

The MVPD is requesting City Council to approve the replacement and purchase of two (2) BMW R 1250 RT -P police motorcycles and related emergency equipment totaling $62,760. Staff is requesting $62,385 from the Equipment Replacement Fund (7510) and $375 of the allocation that was previously a pproved during the FY 21/22 budget approval process to be used for this purchase. Below, details the requested transfers and budget allocations for this purchase:

Approval of FY 2021/22 Transfer of Funds:

Type Account Description Amount
Transfer from: 7510-99-97-88190-901010 Equipment Replacement Reserve $62,760
Transfer to: 1010-99-99-91010-807510 General Fund $62,760

Expenditure Appropriation:

Descriptio
n GL Account No. Type
(Rev/Exp)
FY 21/22
Budget
Proposed
Budget
Increase/
Decrease
FY 21/22
Proposed
Budget
Amendment
PD –
Traffic
1010-60-67-40210-660322 -
Mach-Equip, Repl - Vehicles Exp $15,000 $62,760 $77,760

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Shanna Palau John Salisbury
Senior Contracts Analyst Chief of Police

Concurred By:

Felicia London
Purchasing & Sustainability Division Manager

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Public Safety. Provide a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community, control the number and severity of fire and hazardous material incidents, and provide protection for citizens who live, work and visit the City of Moreno Valley.

Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library
A.7
Packet Pg. 137

Page 5 ends

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 12/14/21 1:18 PM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 12/15/21 8:43 AM A.7
Packet Pg. 138

Report to City Council

ID#5530 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Jesse Park, Fire Chief

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: VEHICLE DONATION TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE

DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2021 -XX acknowledging the 2003 KME 100’ Ae rial Ladder Fire Truck, Asset No. 400180 with Vehicle Identification Number 1K9AF422883N058613 is surplus property and has been donated to Riverside County Fire Department , which was planned as part of the new Ladder Truck purchase this year.

SUMMARY

This report recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution 2021 -XX to acknowledge the surplus designation of the 2003 KME 100’ ALFT 202 and the donation of the equipment to Riverside County Fire Department.

This is consistent with the City’s plan t o purchase the new 2021 KME 1001’ ALFT as part of its strategy to adequately furnish Fire Operations with equipment necessary to perform fire services and provide the 2003 KME 100’ ALFT 202 to Riverside County Fire Department to be used in training at the Ben Clark Training Center.

DISCUSSION
Government agencies are authorized under state law to acquire real property, vehicles, equipment and other assets through various means including direct purchase, dedication from an individual or entity, and receipt a s a gift. Once in possession of the asset, all assets become public property held for the common good of the community.

The depreciation of vehicles and other equipment become technically obsolete, are no longer operable, and / or can be no longer needed by the agency. Government Code A.8
Packet Pg. 139

Page 2 ends

Section 37350, authorizes cities to dispose of real and personal property. City Fiscal Policy #3.05 for the Surplus of Supplies, Materials, and Equipment authorizes the Purchasing Division to dispose of excess equipment by trade-in, sale, or donation.

Understanding that the City of Moreno Valley ordered a new 2021 KME 1001’ ALFT as part of its strategy to adequately furnish Fire Operations with equipment necessary to perform fire services, Riverside County Fire Depart ment requested the donation of the surplus vehicle.

In response, the City approved the donation in accordance to the aforementioned policy and in the interest of the common good.

The ALFT was transferred in “as is” condition with no warranty. By accepting the legal interest and ownership of the vehicle, the County of Riverside Fire Department assumed responsibility for all associated maintenance costs, use costs, liability, insurance, registration, taxation, and any other costs associated with ownership.

Additionally, Riverside County Fire Department Officials committed to assigning the 2003 KME 100’ ALFT to the Ben Clark Training Center for use with specialized training programs and it also retains its use in the area through the Cooperative Agreement with CAL Fire/ Riverside County Fire Department.

The City of Moreno Valley placed the new 2021 KME 1001’ Aerial Ladder Fire Truck in service August 2021.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2021 -XXX. Staff recommends this alternative to comply with the purchasing plan of the new Ladder Truck.

2. Do not adopt Resolution No. 2021 -XX. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT

There will be no fiscal impact.

NOTIFICATION

N/A

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Shanna Palau, MPA Jesse Park
Senior Contracts Analyst Fire Chief

Concurred By:

Felicia London
Purchasing Division Manager
A.8
Packet Pg. 140

Page 3 ends

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Public Safety. Provide a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community, co ntrol the number and severity of fire and hazardous material incidents, and provide protection for citizens who live, work and visit the City of Moreno Valley.

Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the l eft hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. Resolution 2022-XX_City Council_Vehicle Surplus

2. MorenoValley_SurplusVehicleDonation (002)

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 12/28/21 2:26 PM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 12/28/21 2:27 PM A.8
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment 1
1 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 4, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ACKKNOWLEDGING
THE 2003 KME 100’ AERIAL LADDER TRUCK AS

SURPLUS PROPERTY AND DONATED TO RIVERSIDE

COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley purchased a KME 100’ Aerial Ladder Truck in 2003 with vehicle identification number 1K9AF422883N058613 and City Asset No. 400180; and
WHEREAS, the 2003 KME 100’ Aerial Ladder Fire Truck (ALFT) was identified in 2019 by staff to be declared surplus and fully depreciated; and WHEREAS, said procedure is authorized pursuant to City of Moreno Valley Administrative Policy #3.05; and
WHEREAS, the City purchased a 2021 101’ KME ALFT to replace the 2003 KME 100’ Aerial Ladder Fire Truck; and
WHEREAS, Riverside Count y Fire Department requested the donation of the 2003 ALFT to serve unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside, training of new fire fighters at Ben Clark Training Center, and the City of Moreno Valley when needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager approved said donation in the spirit of the common good understanding that the equipment retains its use in the area through the cooperative agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the 2003 KME 100’ Aerial Ladder Truck with vehicle identification number 1K9AF422883N058613 and City Asset No. 400180 has been declared surplus property; and

2. That the 2003 KME 100’ Aerial Ladder Truck with vehicle identification number 1K9AF422883N058613 and City Asset No. 400180 was duly donated to County of Riverside Fire Department accordance with City of Moreno Valley Administrative Policy #3.05.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January 2022.

A.8.a
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Resolution 2022-XX_City Council_Vehicle Surplus (5530 : VEHICLE DONATION TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT) 2 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 4, 2022

___________________________
Mayor of the City of Moreno Valley

ATTEST:

____________________________
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
City Attorney

A.8.a
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Resolution 2022-XX_City Council_Vehicle Surplus (5530 : VEHICLE DONATION TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT) 3 Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: January 4, 2022

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY )

I, Pa t Jacques -Narez, City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021 -XX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)

___________________________________

CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

A.8.a
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Resolution 2022-XX_City Council_Vehicle Surplus (5530 : VEHICLE DONATION TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT) A.8.b
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: MorenoValley_SurplusVehicleDonation (002) (5530 : VEHICLE DONATION TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT)

Page 2 ends

Riverside County Fire Department Officials have committed to making the 2003 KME 100' Aerial Ladder Fire Truck available to the City of Moreno Valley and Unincorporated County areas until such time the City takes delivery of its new Aerial Apparatus.

Ultimately, this 2003 Aerial Ladder Truck will be assigned to the Ben Clark Training Center for use with specialized training programs. We also recognize that donation of this surplus equipment retains it for use in our area through the Cooperative Agreement that has served Moreno Valley exceedingly well over many years.

After approval and acceptance by the County Board of Supervisors, the City will arrange for transfer of the vehicle and title. Should you have any questions, please contact Felicia London, Public Safety Contracts Administrator, at (951) 486-6788.

A.8.b
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: MorenoValley_SurplusVehicleDonation (002) (5530 : VEHICLE DONATION TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT)

Report to City Council

ID#5639 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Brian Mohan, Assistant City Manager
Steve Quintanilla, Interim City Attorney

AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2022

TITLE: COVID-19 PANDEMIC RE SOLUTIONS EXTENDING THE

LOCAL STATE OF EMERG ENCY AND CERTAIN
EMERGENCY MEASURES (RESO. NO. 2022-__)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendations:

That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 202 2-XX Extending the Local State of Emergency and Certain Emergency Measures related to the Local, State and National Declarations of a State of Emergency related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

SUMMARY

The Disaster Council recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Extending the Local State of Emergency and Certain Emergency Measures related to the Local, State and National Declarations of a State of Emergency related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The City Council initially declared a Local State of Emergency at its March 17, 2020 meeting and closed all City facilities to the public to minimize and mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

DISCUSSION

On March 17, 2020, the City Council declared a Local State of Emergency in response to the COVID -19 Pandemic, which prompted the Disaster Council to convene. The Disaster Council consists of the Mayor, City Manager/Director of Emergency S ervices and the Fire Chief. The Disaster Council’s purpose is to develop and recommend for adoption by the City Council emergency plans, mutual aid plans, agreements, A.9
Packet Pg. 147

Page 2 ends

ordinances, resolutions and any necessary rules and regulations to implement the aforementioned.

Since the commencement of the Local State of Emergency, the City Council adopted via various resolutions and/or orders certain “Emergency Measures” related to the following:

 Declaring and Subsequently Extending the Existence of a Local State of Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic;
 Approving the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan;
 Ratifying, Adopting and Approving the Amended Closure Plan Regarding its Termination Date;
 Directing the City Disaster Council and/or City Manager/Emergency Services Director to Seek, Apply for and Accept any Financial Assistance, Grants, Reimbursements the City is Eligible to Receive Under any State or Federal Programs, Agencies or Offices including but not limited to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, the United States Department of He alth and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and/or the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
 Authorizing the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to Obtain Vital Supplies, Equipment and Property Foun d Lacking and Needed for the Protection of Life and Property During the Local State of Emergency;  Waiving the City Manager’s/Emergency Services Director’s Level of Procurement Signature Authority to Mitigate or Prevent the Spread and Transmission of COVID-19;
 Authorizing the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to Suspend the Purchasing Procedures Set Forth in Chapter 3.12 of the Municipal Code Related to the COVID-19 Virus Pandemic Emergency;
 Authorizing the City Manager/Emergency Director to Take any Directly Related and Immediate Action Required by the COVID -19 Virus Pandemic Emergency and Procure the Necessary Public Works Construction Contracts for those Purposes, Without Giving Notice for Bids to Let Contracts;  Granting Qualified Immunity to Certai n Medical Professionals and Veterinarians or Registered Veterinary Technicians Who Render Services During the City’s Local State of Emergency at the Express or Implied Request of the City Disaster Council, City Manager/Emergency Services Director and/or City Council;
 Imposing a Moratorium on Late Fees Related to the Nonpayment of Rent Due to Inability to Pay Related to COVID-19;
 Approving Provisions to Permit Expanded Outdoor Dining for Local Restaurants and Streamlining the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) Pro cess and Instituting a Fee Waiver to Temporarily Allow Existing Restaurants to Expand Outdoor Seating Capacity on Private Property in Order to Implement Proper Social Distancing Measures;
A.9
Packet Pg. 148

Page 3 ends

 Authorizing the Operation of the State of California’s Great Plates Delivered Program, Locally Known as Senior Eats, Reimbursing Local Restaurants for the Delivery of Hot Meals to Seniors;
 Approving Provisions to Allow for Temporary Outdoor Business Operations and Streamlining the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) process and Instituting a Fee Waiver to Temporarily Allow Existing Businesses to Conduct Outdoor Business Operations on Private Property in Order to Implement Proper Social Distancing Measures; and
 Adopting a Declaration of a Fiscal Emergency.

It is important to not e that all of the above Emergency Measures are temporary. Each are set to terminate at such time that the Governor’s State of Emergency is terminated by a subsequent proclamation of the Governor , a concurrent resolution of the State Legislature, or adopti on of or change in previous State legislation, State Commission , CPUC, or other State Board that conflicts with any local Council approved resolutions , and the emergency measures are terminated by the City Council. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in or der to prevent inconsistencies, the Disaster Council or the City Council may suspend the effectiveness of any of the Emergency Measures in the event the President of the United States, the United States Congress, the Governor of the State of California, th e California State Legislature or the Public Health Officer of the County of Riverside adopts legislation, a law, a regulation or order that supersedes any given Emergency Measure.

Notwithstanding the above, under the California Emergency Services Act, th e City Council must review the need for continuing the existence of the Local State of Emergency at least once every 60 days until the City Council terminates the Local State of Emergency. Pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act, the City Council must terminate the Local State of Emergency at the earliest possible day that the conditions warrant.

RESOLUTION EXTENDING LOCAL EMERGENCY AND EMERGENCY MEASURES

In light of the foregoing, the Disaster Council recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution that:

 Extends Declaration of the Existence of a Local State of Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic;
 Reaffirms the Approval the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan;  Continues Directing the City Disaster Council and/or City Manager/Emergency Services Director to Seek, Apply for and Accept any Financial Assistance, Grants, Reimbursements the City is Eligible to Receive Under any State or Federal Programs, Agencies or Offices including but not limited to the Governor’s Office of Emerge ncy Services, the United States Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and/or the Federal Emergency Management Agency; A.9
Packet Pg. 149

Page 4 ends

 Continues to Authorize the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to Obtain Vital Supplies , Equipment and Property Found Lacking and Needed for the Protection of Life and Property During the Local State of Emergency;  Continues to Waive the City Manager’s/Emergency Services Director’s Level of Procurement Signature Authority to Mitigate or Prev ent the Spread and Transmission of COVID-19;
 Extends the Authorization of the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to Suspend the Purchasing Procedures Set Forth in Chapter 3.12 of the Municipal Code Related to the COVID-19 Virus Pandemic Emergency;  Extends the Authorization of the City Manager/Emergency Director to Take any Directly Related and Immediate Action Required by the COVID -19 Virus Pandemic Emergency and Procure the Necessary Public Works Construction Contracts for those Purposes, Without Giving Notice for Bids to Let Contracts;  Extends Granting Qualified Immunity to Certain Medical Professionals and Veterinarians or Registered Veterinary Technicians Who Render Services During the City’s Local State of Emergency at the Express or Implied Request of the City Disaster Council, City Manager/Emergency Services Director and/or City Council;
 Extending the Provisions to Permit Expanded Outdoor Dining for Local Restaurants and Streamlining the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) Process and Instituting a Fee Waiver to Temporarily Allow Existing Restaurants to Expand Outdoor Seating Capacity on Private Property in Order to Implement Proper Social Distancing Measures;
 Extending the Provisions to Allow for Temporary Outdoor Business Operations and Streamlining t he Temporary Use Permit (TUP) process and Instituting a Fee Waiver to Temporarily Allow Existing Businesses to Conduct Outdoor Business Operations on Private Property in Order to Implement Proper Social Distancing Measures;
 Continue to comply with AB 361 Revisions to the Brown Act; and  Extending and Reaffirming the Declaration of a Fiscal Emergency.

Upon adoption of the attached Resolution, all of the above Emergency Measures will remain in full force and effect until such time that the Governor’s State o f Emergency is lifted either by the Governor, a joint resolution of the State Legislature, or adoption of or change in previous State legislation, State Commission, CPUC, or other State Board that conflicts with any local Council approved resolutions, and terminated by the City Council, which pursuant to the California Services Act, the City Council is obligated to terminate at the earliest possible day that the conditions warrant.

Extending the Existence of a Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Under a prior order of the City Council, the City Manager/Emergency Services Director was directed to provide an update to the City Council every 60 days to determine whether the Local State of Emergency needs to remain in effect.

The Disaster Council has determined there remains a need to continue (extend) the City Council’s declaration of the existence of a Local State of Emergency due to the ongoing A.9
Packet Pg. 150

Page 5 ends

nature of the COVID-19 Pandemic, which continues to endanger the health and welfare of the residents and visitors of the City of Moreno Valley, as reflected in the guidance and related findings published by Riverside County Public Health Officer, the Governor’s Office, the California Department of Public Health, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan

The Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan which was prepared under the direction and oversight of the Disaster Council, serves as the City’s “Emergency Operations Plan.” Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Disaster Council is responsible for the development and maintenance of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, which must provide for the effective mobilization of all of the resources of the City, both public and private, to meet any conditions which may arise during the Local State of Emergency. It also provides for the organization, powers and duties and services of certain City employees, who all became “Disaster Workers” upon the adoption the Declaration of the Local State of Emer gency. As Disaster Workers, some City employees may be assigned duties outside the scope of their regular job duties. The Plan also addresses issues such as telecommuting and financial tracking of emergency expenditures for purposes of qualifying for emerg ency assistance from Governor’s Operations of Emergency Services and/or FEMA.

Waiving Limitation on City Manager’s Purchasing Authority

Currently, the City Manager/Emergency Services Director has the discretion to purchase and procure certain materials, equipment, supplies and services, provided that no single transaction exceeds $50,000 or $75,000 for public works contracts. This emergency measure waives these dollar limitations only for those purchases and procurement of materials, equipment, supplies a nd services which are related to mitigating or preventing the spread and transmission of COVID -19. This emergency measure also ratified any and all purchases of equipment, supplies and other materials in response to the arrival of 195 individuals who may h ave been exposed to COVID -19 at March Air Reserve Base on or about January 29, 2020, and who were subjected to a mandatory 14 -Day federal COVID -19 quarantine at the Base, without prior sufficient notice being provided to the City first

Suspending Purchasing Procedures

This Emergency Measure authorizes the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to suspend the purchasing procedures set forth in Chapter 3.12 “Purchasing” of the Municipal Code to procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies in or der to respond immediately and effectively to the COVID -19 Virus Pandemic Emergency.

Suspension of the purchasing procedures essentially authorizes the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to approve the direct purchase of any supplies, materials, equipment or contractual services where immediate procurement is essential to prevent delays which may otherwise hinder the City’s efforts to implement programs and provide services intended to prevent or mitigate the risk of spreading and A.9
Packet Pg. 151

Page 6 ends

transmitting COVID-19. This also allows the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to suspend any requirements for preparing and publishing “Notices Inviting Bids,” soliciting prospective vendors and consultants via “Requests for Proposals” (RFPs) or “Request for Quotes,” a warding a contract or purchase to the “Lowest Responsible Bidder,” requiring “Bidder’s Security,” and implementing “Protest Procedures.”

Suspending Public Contract Bidding Requirements

This Emergency Measure allows for a temporary suspension of the compe titive bidding process associated with public works contracts. Under the State’s Public Contract Code, such a temporary suspension is permitted during a State of Emergency.

Basically, this authorizes the City Manager/Emergency Services Director to cause th e repair or replacement of any public facility directly related to the COVID -19 Virus Pandemic Emergency, which requires immediate action without having to give notice for bids to let contracts as otherwise required under the Public Contract Code.

Obtaining Vital Supplies, Equipment and Property

This Emergency Measure authorizes the City Manager/Emergency Services Director or designee, for the duration of the Local State Emergency, to obtain vital supplies, equipment and property identified as lacking and necessary for the protection of life and property and to bind the City for the fair value thereof.

Application & Acceptance of State & Federal Emergency Aid

FEMA has announced that certain emergency protective measures taken by cities to respond to th e COVID -19 emergency may be eligible for reimbursement. In addition, there may also be some emergency funding made available by the Health and Human Services or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for certain emergency protective measures, the C ity may implement. Such funding may be made available for costs associated with management, control and reduction of immediate threats to public health and safety, such as Emergency Operation Center costs, training specific to the declared event and disinf ection of eligible public facilities, medical facility services and supplies, temporary medical facilities and/or enhanced medical/hospital capacity, use of specialized medical equipment, medical waste disposal, emergency medical transport, medical shelter ing, etc. Moreover, it is expected that under the California Disaster Assistance Act, the State may be providing financial assistance for local costs such as, but not limited to, personnel costs, equipment costs, and the cost of supplies and materials used during disaster response activities; matching fund assistance for cost sharing required under federal disaster assistance programs; and indirect administrative costs and any other assistance deemed necessary by the Director of the Office of Emergency Services.

Granting Qualified Immunity to Medical Professionals and Veterinarians

This Emergency Measure authorizes the City Manager/Emergency Services Director, for the duration of the Local State of Emergency, to request, expressly or impliedly, the A.9
Packet Pg. 152

Page 7 ends

services of certain medical professionals and facilities for purposes related to the Local State of Emergency. This applies to the services provided by a ny physician or surgeon (whether licensed in California or any other state), hospital, pharmacist, respirator y care practitioner, nurse, or dentist for purposes related to the COVID-19. Pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act, a ny physician or surgeon (whether licensed in California or any other state), hospital, pharmacist, respiratory care practitione r, nurse, or dentist who renders services during the Local State of Emergency at the express or implied request of the City Disaster Council, City Manager/Emergency Services Director and/or City Council shall have no liability for any injury sustained by a ny person by reason of such services, regardless of how or under what circumstances or by what cause those injuries are sustained; provided, however, that the immunity herein granted shall not apply in the event of a willful act or omission.

This Emergen cy Measure also applies to any veterinarian or registered veterinary technician who renders services during the Local State of Emergency at the express or implied request of the City Disaster Council, City Manager/Emergency Services Director and/or City Co uncil. They too shall have no liability for any injury sustained by any animal by reason of those services, regardless of how or under what circumstances or by what cause those injuries are sustained; provided, however, that the immunity herein granted shall not apply in the event of a willful act or omission.

Providing For Expanded Restaurant Outdoor Seating

This Resolution continues to authorize the City Manager or designee to maintain the streamlined Temporary Use Permit (TUP) process and fee waiver to temporarily allow existing restaurants within the City to expand outdoor seating capacity on private property in order to implement proper social distancing measures. In association with this plan to facilitate operations for existing City restaurant bus inesses, staff has developed a checklist that provides applicants with a clear and simple understanding of the associated requirements. An over -the-counter approval process has also been made available.

Providing For Temporary Outdoor Business Operations

This Resolution also continues to authorize the City Manager to maintain the streamlined Temporary Use Permit (TUP) process and fee waiver to temporarily allow existing businesses to conduct outdoor operations within the City on private property in order to implement proper social distancing measures in accordance with applicable State guidelines. In association with this plan to facilitate operations for existing City businesses, staff developed a checklist that provides applicants a clear and simple understanding of the associated requirements. An over-the-counter approval process is also available.

Continue compliance of AB 361 Revisions to the Brown Act

On September 16, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 361 (Chapter 165, Statutes of 20 21), enabling local public agencies to continue to use A.9
Packet Pg. 153

Page 8 ends

Moreno Valley City CouncilJanuary 4, 2022

Moreno Valley City Council
January 4, 2022