San Clemente City Council
October 7, 2025

Attachment 1

POLICY AND PROCEDURE
Subject: City Council Meeting
and Operating
Procedures
(Parliamentary Procedures,
Due Process, Mayor/Mayor
Pro Tempore, Council
Correspondence, Meetings,
Agendas, and Minutes)
Index: City Council
Number: 1201-11
Effective
Date:

October 7, 2025 (supersedes
March 19, 2024)
Prepared City Clerk
By:

Supersedes: Policy and Procedures 1201-
1 (Mayor and Mayor Pro
Tempore); 1201-2 (Meetings
of the City Council); 1201-3
(Order of Business and
Preparation of Minutes);
1201-4 (Council
Approved
By:

City Council
Correspondence and
Agenda); 1201-5 (Rules of
Debate, Decorum, Voting
Requirements & Procedures);
1202-2 Management/
Streamlining of City Council
Meetings); and 1201-11 (City
Council Meeting and
Operating Procedures)

1.0 PURPOSE:

To establish policies for City Council meetings and operations, including parliamentary procedures, due process, election/roles of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern, agendas, and the preparation of minutes.

2.0 ORGANIZAT/ONS AFFECTED:

City Council
City Commissions and Committees*
*Note: Except as otherwise noted throughout this Policy, this Policy shall a/so apply to the City's Commissions and Committees. In applying this Policy to City Commissions and Committees, the term "Council" shall be interpreted to mean the name of the City Commission or Committee, the term "Mayor" shall be interpreted to mean "Chairperson", the term "Mayor Pro Tempore shall be interpreted to mean "Vice Chair': the term "Manager" shall be interpreted to mean "Director", and the 170

term "City Clerk" shall be interpreted to mean the staff member responsible for providing support to the Commission/Committee.

3.0 REFERENCES:

The Ralph M. Brown Act, GC Section 54950, et seq.

4.0 POLICY:

4.1 Parliamentary Procedures and Due Process

4.1.1 The proceedings of the City Council shall be guided under the latest revised edition of "Rosenberg's Rules of Order," on all matters pertaining to parliamentary procedure, but no ordinance, resolution, proceeding or other action of the City Council shall be invalidated or the legality thereof otherwise affected by the failure or omission to observe or follow such rules. In the event of a discrepancy between Rosenberg's Rules of Order and this Policy and Procedure, this Policy and Procedure shall prevail.

4.1.2 The Mayor, with assistance from the City Attorney, is designated as the parliamentarian for City Council meetings. The City Clerk shall assist in the City Attorney's absence. Any member of the City Council or the public (pursuant to process below) may raise a point of order and/or seek the City Attorney's input on parliamentary issues, which shall then be considered by the Mayor. The City Council may override any parliamentary decision of the Mayor with a majority vote. The Mayor may interpret and apply but not amend these policies.

Points of order may be raised at any time by City Councilmembers.

Points of order may be raised by members of the public in connection with their opportunity to speak on agenda items pursuant to Section

4.4.6. The Mayor (or chair) shall rule on the point of order and/or request clarification of the law from the City Attorney and then decide and rule. If the point of order is denied by the Mayor or chair, the person making the point of order may seek a vote of the entire Council or body, which decision shall be final.

Members of the public wishing to raise points of order after their opportunity to speak may submit those points of order in writing prior to the adjournment of the meeting. Items so submitted shall be presented for consideration by the City Council in connection with its approval of the minutes of that meeting pursuant to Section

4.6 hereof. At that time the Mayor and City Council will review and decide the point of order raised and determine whether it warrants scheduling and noticing of that item for reconsideration. 171

4.1.3 It shall be understood that a member of the City Council or prospective member of the City Council may, in the course of seeking elective office, be asked to state positions on general issues that may eventually come before the Council at a later date. This policy shall in no way impair that Councilmember's right to consider the issue and vote as he/she determines is appropriate.

4.1.4 Ex parte communications are communications received outside of Council meetings or hearings. When the Council acts in a legislative role (for example, to adopt general plan or zoning amendments or to adopt ordinances), Councilmembers are permitted to draw upon nearly all observations and considerations they receive inside and outside the Council meeting. On the other hand, when acting in a quasi-adjudicatory role (hearing permits, revocations, and similar non-legislative decisions), the Council, as fact-finder, should limit its consideration of facts to those presented at the hearing, where all sides have the opportunity to hear and rebut testimony given by all participants. To this end, Councilmembers should avoid receiving or gathering information that might otherwise influence its consideration of the written record and any other testimony it hears through the formal hearing process, or at least disclose their receipt of that information.

4.2 Election of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore and Roles of Those Offices

4.2.1 At the first Regular City Council meeting in December of each year, the Council shall elect from its members a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. The new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall assume office immediately. (Note: Commissions and Committees shall elect from its members a Chairperson and Vice Chair at its first regular meeting occurring after Council completes its annual appointment process for Commission and Committee members and those members assume office.) The process for electing Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore and for electing Commission and Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs shall be as follows:

4.2.1.1 The nomination/election of the Mayor or Chair is conducted by the City Clerk or staff. Once the new Mayor or Chair is elected, that member of the Council or body immediately presides and conducts the vote on Mayor Pro Tempore or Vice-Chair.

4.2.1.2 The method of nomination in this respect is an "open nomination" solely by and from within the membership of the presently-seated City Council or City body. Nomination cannot be accepted from members of the public.

4.2.1.3 No "second" is required for nomination, although sometimes one or more members will "second" a nomination to indicate endorsement. 172

4.2.1.4 In no event may any one member nominate more persons than there are offices to fill in the respective selection.

4.2.1.5 When it appears that no one else wishes to make a nomination, the chair of the meeting asks one (1) final time if there are additional nominations. If there is a no response, the chair then declares..."the nomination for Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore, Chair or Vice-Chair as applicable is closed."

4.2.1.6 It is unnecessary to have a motion to officially close the nomination; yet, if such a motion is made, that motion then requires an affirmative 213rd vote of the members present [4 or 5]. After nominations are closed, a majority vote is required to re-open it.

4.2.1.7 Nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated.

As soon as one of the nominees receives a majority vote of those members present in the voting, the Mayor or Chair then declares that person elected to that respective office, and no vote is taken on the remaining nominee(s).

4.2.1.8 Rounds of voting shall continue in succession until one nominee is elected.

4.2.2 The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall serve a one-year term at the pleasure of the Council majority.

4.2.3 The Mayor shall act as the primary spokesperson and official representative of the City Council, unless such responsibility is delegated by the Mayor, or otherwise assigned by a majority of the City Council.

4.2.4 The Mayor shall preside at all regular, adjourned regular, special and emergency meetings of the City Council, including joint meetings with commissions and committees and closed sessions.

4.2.5 The Mayor shall execute all official City documents, warrants and correspondence approved by the City Council.

4.2.6 The Mayor is authorized to issue proclamations, commendations and certificates of recognition, which may be presented at Council meetings under Special Presentations. The total time allotted to Special Presentations should, if possible, be limited to 15 minutes per meeting. (This section does not apply to Commissions or Committees.)
173

4.2.7 Nothing in this section is intended to suggest that the office of Mayor possesses formal powers or authority in excess of other members of the City Council; rather, the person serving as Mayor is to be recognized as the chairperson of the Council.

4.2.8 The Mayor Pro Tempore shall serve and perform the functions of the Mayor in the absence of the Mayor. If both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore are absent from a City Council meeting, the Council members present shall select a Councilmember from those members present to perform the functions of Mayor at that particular meeting.

4.3 City Council Correspondence

4.3.1 The City Manager, or his/her designee, is authorized to open and examine all mail or other written communications addressed to the City Council as a body, but shall not open correspondence addressed to an individual Councilmember without their express authorization.

4.3.2 The City Manager may take action, or direct that action be taken, on issues or requests that do not require Council action. The City Manager shall inform Council when actions are taken on matters of significance or that are likely to be of interest to the City Council.

4.4 City Council Meetings

4.4.1 The date, time and location of Regular Meetings of the City Council shall be established by resolution. At 11:00 p.m. at each meeting, the City Council, by majority vote, will determine whether to continue the meeting or adjourn.

4.4.2 At all meetings of the City Council, a majority of the Council members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. In the event less than a quorum of the City Council is present, the City Clerk shall adjourn the meeting (which may include adjourning to an Adjourned Regular Meeting), post a Notice of Adjournment, and prepare minutes that reflect that the meeting was adjourned due to lack of a quorum.

4.4.3 The City Clerk, or Mayor, shall announce an agenda item before discussion on that item commences.

4.4.4 Each person desiring to address the Council is requested to submit to the City Clerk a speaker form. After being called upon by the Mayor, the speaker may proceed to the podium. The speaker may 174

state for the record his/her name and city of residence, but shall not be required to do so.

Members of the public may speak for three (3) minutes and project applicants and appellants (including members of an applicant's or appellant's project presentation team, when applicable) may speak for a combined total of ten (10) minutes on agenda items. At Council's request where Council is acting in a fact-finding or hearing capacity, the Mayor may grant additional time (unless overruled by a majority of Councilmembers present) to speakers on agenda items.

Speakers will be called to the podium once Staff concludes its presentation of an item and before Council begins its deliberations.

Speaker cards will not be accepted once deliberations have commenced.

Speakers on non-agenda items may speak for three (3) minutes during the oral communications - public forum portion of the meeting.

At the beginning of the Consent Calendar, the City Clerk will notify the Mayor or meeting Chair of any public comments related to the Consent Calendar. Speakers will be allotted 3 minutes to speak on the Consent Calendar in its entirety. After public comments, if any, are heard, the City Council will vote on the Consent Calendar as one agenda item.

The time that a speaker devotes to responding to Council inquiries shall not be deducted from their allotted speaker time.

4.4.5 Members of the public may not assign their speaker time to another person.

4.4.6 The purpose of addressing the City Council is to communicate formally with the City Council regarding matters that relate to City Council business or citizen concerns within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. Persons addressing the City Council on an agenda item shall confine their remarks to the matter under consideration by the City Council. Speakers may be asked to clarify how their comments relate to the matter at hand. Speakers may address the entire Council or individual Councilmembers, and, if allowed by the Mayor or chair, City staff.

4.4.7 Once recognized, members of the public shall not be interrupted when speaking unless to be called to order by the Mayor to: (i) curtail extraordinary repetition, (ii) curtail speech that is irrelevant to the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction, (iii) explain how his or her speech relates to the City's subject matter jurisdiction, or (iv) address some other point of order. If a speaker is interrupted to be called to order, the speaker shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, he or she shall be permitted to proceed, 175

with additional time allotted for the time taken to determine the question of order.

4.4.8 In order to avoid repetitious presentations, whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Council with the same message, it shall be proper for the Mayor to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to represent the group's position. Speakers shall not, however, be required to abide by such a request.

4.4.9 To expedite Council meetings, Councilmembers are encouraged to contact Staff prior to Council meetings to obtain answers to questions and to obtain clarifications as needed.

4.4.10Staff shall compose Administrative Reports in a clear and concise manner. Staff shall strive to write reports in a manner that can be easily understood by persons that do not have training in the report's subject matter.

4.4.11Staff presentations at Council meetings are to be condensed to the briefest extent possible, while still providing a basic overview of the issue under consideration. Staff is encouraged to refrain from reiterating issues previously addressed in the Administrative Report.

However, Staff engaged in such communications shall not use these opportunities to communicate with the members of the City Council the comments or position of any other member of the City Council on City Council business.

4.4.12 Members of the public shall not engage in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the City Council meeting. Any person who so disrupts the meeting is subject to removal from the meeting.

Prior to removing anyone from a City meeting, the Mayor (or other designated chair) shall: (i) notify the person that he/she is in violation of this Section 4.4.12, (ii) specify the specific behavior giving rise to that conclusion; (iii) explain all grounds for the belief that the person's conduct is in violation of law/policy and why such conduct subjects the person to expulsion; and (iv) notify the person that if the conduct continues he/she will be removed. The person receiving such notification shall be asked if he/she understands the conclusion but shall not be required to accept it.

Members of the public receiving notice of disruption pursuant to this section shall have the right, prior to being removed from the meeting, to ask the Mayor to consult with the City Attorney on the grounds for expulsion, and to submit a point of order on the grounds for expulsion. The City Council may override this decision pursuant to Section 4.1.2. The City Attorney shall have a duty to inform the Mayor (or other designated chair) and the public if the City Attorney believes that the Mayor's action is in violation of applicable law. 176

4.4.13 Motions must be seconded in order to proceed to a vote.

4.5 City Council Agendas

4.5.1 With the exception of items added to a City Council agenda pursuant to Section 4.5.4 of this Policy, the City Manager and Mayor in conference shall be responsible for determining items to appear on City Council meeting agendas.

4.5.2 The standard template for City Council agendas shall be established by Council by majority vote. The City Manager shall have the authority to reorganize the template on a case-by-case basis if he/she believes that a variation in the normal order of business is appropriate.

4.5.3 Councilmembers may agendize items to enable them to "report out" on matters relating to their own activities, including activities pertinent to their Council-appointed positions on regional commissions, committees and boards, provided the report is informational only. If Council action is being sought, the process defined in Section 4.5.4 of this Policy shall be followed.

4.5.4 Two members of the City Council may propose at a Council meeting that an item be agendized for future Council discussion, consideration, and/or action. Subject to notice and hearing requirements, the item shall be agendized for a future meeting and noticed as required by law. Items agendized pursuant to this section shall appear on an agenda under the New Business portion of the agenda and the names of the Councilmembers who agendized the item shall be included with the item description. Staff Reports will only be prepared if a minimum of three members of the City Council vote affirmatively at a Council meeting to direct Staff to prepare a report.

Any member of the City Council may request placement of one or more items on a future City Council meeting agenda by submitting a short description of the topic to the City Manager prior to the normal close of business one week prior to the meeting.

Upon receipt of such a request, the City Manager will determine if the request can be addressed administratively by staff, if the item needs to be referred to the City Attorney for determination about being heard in Closed Session, or if direction from the City Council is necessary. If direction of the City Council is necessary, the City Manager may consult with the City Attorney to ensure all provisions of the Brown Act are satisfied. If the Councilmember request includes the need for a staff report, the item shall be primarily associated with issues that directly impact the finances, property, authority, policies, or interest of the City of San Clemente or its residents.

If the item cannot be addressed administratively and the City Attorney has determined that a Closed Session is not permissible, the City 177

Manager will place the item on the Consent Agenda of the next meeting of the City Council under the heading: “City Councilmember Requests for Future Items.” Requests received after the deadline will be placed on the next available Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda item will include the request of the Councilmember, whether a staff report is necessary, the anticipated amount of time necessary to properly prepare the item for consideration by the City Council, and any other relevant details that can be shared in a brief manner.

If the Consent Agenda item passes without further discussion by the City Council, the item will be placed on an appropriate future agenda and a staff report will be included if identified in the request. If the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and a majority of the City Council indicates they do not desire to have the item on a future agenda, the item will not be placed on a future agenda. Likewise, if the City Council does not desire to have a written staff report prepared, a report will not be prepared although the item may still be placed on a future agenda for consideration.

4.5.4.1 Placement of Special Presentations on the agenda shall be the privilege of the Mayor and does not require action by the City Council. If an item of recognition is desired by a member of the City Council, that does not require additional action by the City Council, the member should contact the Mayor directly and request the placement of a Special Presentation on the agenda.

If the Mayor refuses the request, the member of the City Council may incorporate the procedure of this section to place an item of recognition on the agenda.

4.5.5 Notwithstanding Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.4 of this Policy, the process to review, appeal, or otherwise "call up" decisions by the Planning Commission or other subordinate City bodies shall be subject to the requirements of the San Clemente Municipal Code.

4.5.6 Notwithstanding Section 4.5.4, a proposal to reconsider any action taken by the City Council may be raised only at the same meeting or the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council after the action is taken and may be raised only by one of the
Councilmembers who voted with the prevailing side. Additionally, the motion to reconsider must be made prior to approval of the meeting minutes for which the action was takenmay only be made by one of the Councilmembers who voted with the prevailing side.

4.5.7 The City Clerk shall be responsible for the preparation of Council meeting agendas and shall cause copies to be posted on the City Hall bulletin board(s) and City website. Regular and Adjourned Regular Meeting agendas shall be posted within the posting time requirements as set forth in State law. In the case of special meetings, agendas shall be posted as soon as practical, but in no event less than the posting time requirements as set forth in State law.
178

4.5.8 Consent Calendar items shall be comprised of items that are expected to be noncontroversial. Unless an item is removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the Council or staff, for separate discussion and action, the Consent Calendar may be acted upon by one motion as one item.

4.5.9 The City Council may waive the reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances. The reading of Resolution titles shall be optional. The reading of Ordinance titles shall not be waived.

4.5.10 Members of the public may address Council concerning matters within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, during the Oral Communications portion of the agenda. Speakers may address Council once during either Oral Communications Part 1 or Part 2. Speakers shall be allotted 3 minutes in which to give his or her presentation.

4.6 City Council Minutes

4.6.1 The City Clerk shall have exclusive responsibility for the preparation of the minutes.

4.6.2 The minutes of City Council meetings shall be submitted to Council for approval/modification at a City Council meeting. Any direction for modifications to the City Council minutes shall only be made upon a majority vote of the City Council.

4.6.3 Minutes shall be prepared in brief concise form, in what are commonly referred to as "action minutes". Action minutes memorialize what was done at a meeting, as opposed to what was said at a meeting. An exception to this guideline is that a brief summarization of comments provided to Council by the public are to be included in the minutes. Additionally, the identity of Councilmembers who make motions, second motions, and cast votes on motions are to be included in the minutes.

4.6.4 Unless the reading of the minutes of a City Council meeting is ordered by a majority of the Council, such minutes may be 179

approved without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished each Councilmember with a copy thereof.

4.6.5 The approved minutes shall be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk upon approval by the City Council and shall constitute the official record of the City Council meeting.

4.6.6 The City Clerk shall enter the original executed minutes into the official records of the City as a permanent document.

4.7 Closed Sessions

4.7.1 The City Council may hold closed sessions during duly-noticed Council meetings on issues authorized by State law.

4.7.2 A City Commission or Committee may hold closed sessions during duly-noticed meetings of its body on issues authorized by State law, the City Council, and the City Attorney.

4.7.3 No member of the City Council, employee of the City, or any person present during a closed session shall disclose to any other person the content or substance of discussion or action which took place during the session, unless a majority vote of the Council authorizes such disclosure.

4.7.4 Closed sessions shall be limited to members of the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney and/or City legal counsel, as well as staff members and experts designated by the City Manager or City Attorney to attend portions of Closed Sessions relating to specific issues, as permitted by law.

4.7.5 To the extent possible, the public will be notified prior to the time that the City Council recesses to closed session as to whether or not a public announcement of action is anticipated following the Closed Session.

4.7.6 Where potential plaintiffs and defendants have manifested or communicated their awareness of facts and circumstances and a legal theory connecting those facts and circumstances to potential litigation involving the City, those facts and circumstances, together with (i) the identity of potential parties or (ii) related documentation, shall be disclosed prior to a closed session to discuss anticipated litigation, in accordance with GC 54956.9.
180

4.8 Assignment of a City Councilmember as a Liaison to Each City Commission or Committee

4.8.1 The City Council Liaison shall meet with the Chair and support staff of the assigned Commission or Committee to review the proposed agenda to determine consistency with the adopted work plan.

4.8.2 Accept requests for City Council or staff support to accomplish tasks included in the adopted work plan.

4.8.3 Provide an oral report of the Commission or Committee activities to the City Council during the appropriate agenda item on a regular agenda of the City Council.

4.8.4 The City Councilmember liaison is not expected to attend the meetings of the Commission or Committee, but rather act as a resource and conduit for improved communication.
181
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10C.

Submitted By: City Manager
Prepared By: Andy Hall, City Manager
Subject:
..titl e
R..body ECONSIDERATION OF JOINING THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY BEACH COALITION Fiscal Impact:

Following a modification of the proposed bylaws, there is no direct fiscal impact associated with participation in the coalition.

Summary:

The City of San Clemente has been invited to be a member of the South Orange County Beach Coalition. On August 19, 2025, the City Council, on a 3-2 vote, moved to join the Coalition.

Subsequently, on September 2, 2025, Councilmember Wu, with support from Mayor Knoblock and Councilmember Cabral, requested that the item be placed on the October 7, 2025 agenda for reconsideration.

Background:

The County of Orange, through the office of Supervisor Foley, has formed the South Orange County Beach Coalition. The stated objective of the Coalition is to provide a collaborative body to advise the governing bodies of the respective parties to foster greater cooperation toward the maintenance and enhancement of beaches and increase cross-jurisdictional collaboration for the benefit of coastal resilience, within the Orange County (“County”) portion of the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The City of San Clemente has been invited to be a member of the Coalition and on August 19, the City Council, by majority vote decided to join.

On September 2, 2025, Councilmember Wu, with support from Mayor Knoblock and Councilmember Cabral requested that the City Council reconsider the action of the City Council.

The previous vote of 3-2 no longer stands and the City Council will consider the matter again, which could change the outcome of the vote and direction of the City Council or result in the same action.

Council Options:
 The City Council may take action opposite of the previous action of the City Council (i.e., not to join the Coalition).
 The City Council may take action alternative to the previous action of the City Council (i.e., assign staff to attend Coalition meetings rather than an elected official).  The City Council may take the same action as the previous action of the City Council (i.e., join the Coalition).
182
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10C.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Environmental Review/Analysis:

This is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council reconsider a previous action to join the South Orange County Beach Coalition and make an appropriate motion to proceed with the previous action or consider a motion to take a different action.
..end
Attachment:

1. Updated South Orange County Beach Coalition Bylaws
Notification:

None.
183

SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY BEACH COALITION BYLAWS
(EFFECTIVE MM-DD-YYYY)
I. NAME OF ORGANIZATION
A. The name of this organization shall be the South Orange County Beach Coalition, hereinafter referred to as “Coalition.”
B. The official mailing address of the Coalition shall be:

South Orange County Beach Coalition
OC Parks Headquarters
13042 Old Myford Road
Irvine, CA 92602
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COALITION
The members of the Coalition are the signatories of the South Orange County Beach Coalition Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and said members shall appoint representatives pursuant to the provisions of the MOU.

III. OBJECTIVES
The Coalition will provide a collaborative body to advise the governing bodies of the respective Parties to foster greater cooperation toward the maintenance and enhancement of beaches and increase cross-jurisdictional collaboration for the benefit of coastal resilience, within the Orange County (“County”) portion of the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The Parties will work in good faith to facilitate and participate in the implementation of the Coalition, which seeks to foster collaboration, coordination, and partnerships aimed at reducing risk factors associated with the chronically eroding shoreline spanning from the Headlands at Dana Point Harbor to the County boundary in San Clemente.

The Coalition’s primary advisory objectives shall include the following:
• Increase cross-jurisdictional communication relative to regional sand management in support of coastal resiliency.
• Identify green, grey, and hybrid solutions to retain sand and minimize coastal erosion.
• Recognize opportunities and solutions to mitigate impacts of sea level rise and effectively collaborate efforts to address the pressing challenge. • Coordinate efforts and identify opportunities for additional collaboration and partnerships through separate agreements and funding opportunities.

Attachment 1
184

• Collect, share and analyze relevant data and recommend activities to enhance coastal resiliency.
• Serve in an advisory capacity to the various leadership and elected bodies that oversee the Parties who are represented within the Coalition. • Collaborate on engagement efforts at the state and federal levels, as well as from private sources, to secure funding for the Parties’ various projects in furtherance of the objectives of this MOU.
• Serve as a forum for public discourse and engagement relative to the implementation of strategies to address and minimize coastal erosion.

IV. APPOINTMENT AND MEMBERSHIP
A. The Coalition is to be composed as follows:

1. Members
a. Members of the Coalition shall be composed of those public agencies, districts, tribes, and other entities owning and/or managing coastal land within the Orange County portion of the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The five (5) initial voting representatives in total, are hereby designated as Members of the Coalition, and their respective representative(s) and number of votes before the Coalition, are as follows:

1. County of Orange Fifth District Supervisor – Chair, one vote

2. County of Orange, OC Parks (CSA 26) – one vote

3. Orange County Flood Control District – one vote

4. Capistrano Bay Community Services District – one vote

5. Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation
(84a) – one vote
b. Members are to be “voting members” and are able to cast ballots on advisory actions or items before the Coalition. Each Member shall have the number of votes provided above that may be cast by each Member organization’s designated
representative(s).
c. At any time, should another public agency that is not currently a signatory to the MOU be identified as one owning and/or managing coastal land within the Orange County portion of 185

the Oceanside Littoral Cell that public agency may be added as a Member to the MOU as approved in writing pursuant to an Amendment to the MOU in accordance with Section VIII – Amendment of the MOU, except those entities identified in IV.A.1.d below, which are authorized to become voting
Members upon their individual execution of the MOU.
d. As indicated in the MOU, the following four (4) public entities are hereby approved to become automatically designated as voting members upon subsequent adoption of the MOU by
their respective Boards, Council, or Governing Body and execution of the MOU without the need for Amendment to the MOU or further approval by existing voting Members:
i. California State Parks
ii. Orange County Transportation Authority
iii. City of Dana Point
iv. City of San Clemente
e. Each Member shall designate representatives who shall have the authority to cast votes, according to the number of votes provided above, on behalf of the respective Member.
i. Each Member may appoint an alternate representative
to attend and participate in Coalition meetings should
the primary representative for each voting position be
unable to attend a Coalition meeting.

6. Partners
a. Partners of the Coalition shall be comprised of those entities with vested interests in the coastal land subject to the objectives of the MOU and consist of the following:

1. Bring Back Our Beaches

2. California Coastal Commission

3. California State Parks

4. Capistrano Shores, Inc.

5. City of Dana Point

6. City of San Clemente
186

7. Cotton’s Point Homeowners Association

8. Cyprus Cove Community Association

9. Cyprus Point Homeowners Association, The Breakers

10. Cyprus Shores Community Association/Homeowners
Association

11. Orange County Transportation Authority

12. Shorecliffs Homeowners Association

13. Surfrider Foundation

14. Save Our Beaches SC Incorporated (Save Our
Beaches San Clemente)

15. United States Army Corps of Engineers

16. University of California, Irvine, Flood Lab
a. Partners are to be “non-voting participants” and are unable to cast ballots on advisory actions or items before the Coalition. b. At any time, should any other entity be identified by the Coalition as having a vested interest in the land subject to the objectives of the MOU and wish to be designated as such, they may be designated a Partner, or have their Partner designation removed as deemed appropriate, by a majority vote of all Members. Should any designated Partner indicate in writing to the Coalition its wish to remove its Partner designation, such removal will be effectuated administratively without further action of the Coalition.
c. Partners shall have the ability to designate a representative to participate in Coalition meetings to provide insight,
recommendations, feedback, and similar discourse that
benefits the Coalition, and cross jurisdictional aspects of the Coalition.

17. Other Interested Parties
a. All other individuals or entities not expressly listed above shall not have status as a Member or designation as a Partner in the Coalition unless agreed upon by Members as provided herein.
187

b. Other interested parties are encouraged to attend meetings and provide public comment and input on discussions and items under consideration by the Coalition.

V. COALITION OFFICERS
A. Coalition officers shall consist of:

1. Chair
a. The Fifth District Supervisor of the Orange County Board of Supervisors shall serve as the Chair of the Coalition.
b. In the Chair’s absence, the Executive Officer shall select a Member present at the meeting to facilitate the meeting. c. Duties of the Chair
i. Preside at meetings; call special meetings; decide
points of order; announce all business; entertain
motions; put motions to vote; announce vote results;
appoint and remove, as needed, committee Chairs;
and represent the Coalition at public functions.

2. Executive Officer
a. The OC Parks Director shall designate an OC Parks staff member to serve as the Executive Officer and a designee for the Executive Officer.
b. Duties of the Executive Officer
i. Provide administrative support to ensure the
successful implementation of Coalition meetings.
ii. In coordination with the Chair, set the meeting
agendas; provide for appropriate public meeting
notifications/notices in compliance with the Ralph M.

Brown Act, California Government Code section 54950
et seq.; attend to the Coalition’s necessary
correspondence; serve as the custodian of the
Coalition’s records (excluding any Member records
that are not maintained or controlled by the Executive
Officer or County of Orange); serve or have a designee
serve as the clerk of the Coalition during meetings; and similar administrative functions.
188

VI. DUTIES OF MEMBERS
A. General Duties

1. Members shall attend meetings of the Coalition and of committees to which they are appointed.

2. Members shall notify the Executive Officer of the Coalition of any expected absence for a meeting by 5:00 p.m. of the day before a regularly scheduled Coalition meeting, indicating good and sufficient reasons for the absence.

3. In the performance of its responsibilities, the Coalition shall not engage in nor employ any unlawfully discriminatory practices in the provision of services or benefits, assignment of accommodations, treatment, employment of personnel or in any other respect on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, marital status, medical condition, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability or any other protected group in accordance with the requirements of all applicable County, state, or federal laws.

4. Members of the Coalition shall operate strictly within designated purposes of the Coalition.

B. Division of Costs

1. Facilitation and administration of the Coalition is to be borne by the County of Orange.

VII. COMMITTEES
A. Ad Hoc Committees: The Chair may establish ad hoc committees of less than a quorum of the Coalition’s membership to accomplish time-limited tasks that support the goals of the Coalition.

1. Terms of appointment for ad hoc committees shall be for the period of time required to fulfill the ad hoc committee’s purpose.

VIII. MEETINGS AND ACTIONS
A. The Coalition shall meet quarterly, or as otherwise scheduled by the Executive Officer with the consent of the Chair.

B. Meetings shall be held at a day, time, and location scheduled by the Executive Officer with the consent of the Chair.

C. The Coalition may elect to conduct a field trip in lieu of or in addition to a regular meeting.
189

D. Each meeting shall be open to the public, and the Coalition shall give notice of its meetings and conduct those meetings as required by law.

E. The Coalition shall, at its final meeting of each year, adopt a schedule of regular meetings and transmit that schedule in writing to Members, Partners, and the public at large.

F. All Coalition meetings shall be open, public and noticed in conformance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code section 54950 et seq., as amended and held at a location within Orange County, California that satisfies the access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

G. Special meetings of the Coalition may be called either by the Chair or at the request of a majority of Coalition members. Notice of special meetings shall:

1. Be delivered to members personally, by mail or electronically, and must be received no later than 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

2. State the business to be considered and whether alternative technological means may be used such as telephone or video conferencing, as technological resource availability permits and as permissible by the Ralph M. Brown Act.

H. Quorum Requirements

1. Quorum requirements are as follows:
a. General Meetings: Quorum shall be no less than 50%+1 of the voting membership.

I. Voting Majority: Decisions and acts made by majority vote of the members at any duly constituted meeting shall be regarded as acts of the Coalition, except as otherwise provided by these Bylaws.

IX. COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT
A. Compensation and reimbursement for costs incurred for attendance at Coalition meetings shall only be paid to the representative(s) of Members by and in accordance with the policies and rules established by respective Members’ governing bodies. The Coalition and the County shall not be liable for paying compensation or reimbursement to any representative(s) of a Member.
190

X. RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS
A. Members of the Coalition may resign from the Coalition by providing ninety (90) days prior written notice to all Members and the Executive Officer as outlined in the MOU.

XI. AUTHORITY
A. Parliamentary Authority: The Chair shall preside and manage Coalition meetings using parliamentary procedure consistent with these bylaws, any special rules of order the Coalition may adopt, and any applicable County, state, and federal law.

B. Standing and Ad Hoc Committees

1. Standing and ad hoc committees shall have no independent authority and shall be limited to exercising only those specific functions granted to them by the Coalition.

2. No standing or ad hoc committee shall have independent authority to commit the Coalition to any policy or action without the prior approval of the general membership of the Coalition.

XII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. Representative(s) of Members of the Coalition and any of its committees shall abstain from voting on any issue in which they may be personally interested to avoid a conflict of interest in accordance with County, state, and federal laws and shall refrain from engaging in any behavior that conflicts with the best interest of the Coalition and their respective Member.

B. Representative(s) of Members of the Coalition shall not vote nor attempt to influence any other Coalition member on a matter under consideration by the Coalition or any of its committees:

1. Regarding the provision of services by such member (or by an entity that such member represents; or

2. That would provide direct financial benefit to such member or the immediate family of such member; or

3. Engage in any other activity constituting a conflict of interest under County, state, or federal law.

C. If a question arises as to whether a conflict exists that may prevent a Member or its representative(s) from voting, the Chair or designee may consult with designated County staff to assist them in making that determination.
191

D. Representative(s) of Members of the Coalition shall complete any relevant ethics training as required by their respective Member’s policy and Assembly Bill 1234 (Government Code sections 53234 through 53235.2).

Members shall be solely responsible for ensuring compliance of their representative(s) with County, state, and federal laws, especially as it pertains to ethical training.

E. Neither Coalition nor any of its Members shall promote, directly or indirectly, a political party, political candidate, or political activity using the name, emblem, or any other identifier of Coalition.

F. No assets or assistance provided by County to the Coalition shall be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization, except as otherwise permitted by law.

XIII. AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS
A. Any amendment to the Bylaws shall be made pursuant to an Amendment to the MOU, which shall be made in writing and signed by all Parties to the MOU.

XIV. SEVERABILITY
A. Should any part term, portion or provision of these Bylaws be determined to be in conflict with any law or otherwise unenforceable or ineffectual, the remaining parts, terms, portions or provisions shall be deemed severable and their validity shall not be affected thereby, provided such remaining portions or provisions can be construed in substance to constitute the provisions that the members intended to enact in the first instance.

XV. STAFFING SUPPORT
A. Staff support from the County shall be provided to support the Coalition in conjunction with the work of the Coalition.
192
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

Submitted By: City Manager
Prepared By: Andy Hall, City Manager
Subject:
..titl e

PROVISION OF CONTEXT AND DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH AND DISCUSSION OF A VIOLATION OF THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT (BROWN ACT) BY COUNCILMEMBER WU

AND POTENTIAL WAIVER OF CLOSED SESSION CONFIDENTIALITY TO AID SUCH DISCUSSION ..body
Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this item.

Summary:

The City of San Clemente has been in real property negotiations with another governmental agency to obtain some strategic parcels of property in the City. The negotiations have been complex and delicate, involving multiple parties. The negotiations have identified a possible path forward that potentially works for all involved. However, negotiations are still ongoing.

As allowed by the Brown Act, conferences with real property negotiators are often held in closed session for various reasons, including the ability to discuss contract terms and options without the other negotiating parties knowing purchase price and other purchase limitations, allowing potential terms to remain unknown to potential other parties in case the negotiations do not result in a real property transfer or lease, and other reasons associated with typical real property negotiations.

Disclosure of information from a City Council closed session meeting is a violation of the Brown Act. Once a violation has been identified, the City Council has some options for corrective action.

For example, the City Council may (1) discuss the matter in an open session and, after notice, hold a censure hearing related to the Councilmember (censure may not be discussed in closed session), (2) the City Council may direct staff to refer the matter to the District Attorney for review and possible action, or (3) the City Council may take action to initiate litigation against the Councilmember for declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

After receiving a referral from the City Council of a Brown Act violation by Councilmember Wu involving unauthorized disclosure of closed session information, the District Attorney reviewed the information and determined there was a Brown Act violation, but that action taken by the City Council would suffice in this instance and no further action would be taken by the District Attorney’s Office. (See Attachments 1 and 2.)
At the September 16, 2025, meeting of the City Council, the City Council directed the City Manager to provide information concerning the incident, to the extent possible, and information 193
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
about the Brown Act violation. Following correspondence from several residents, the City Council indicated that it is important for the public to understand the severity of the violation. It should be noted that negotiations are still ongoing, which limits the amount of detail that can be provided in this report. Additionally, only public information can be provided about this matter unless and until the City Council decides to waive closed session confidentiality so that the matter can be discussed publicly.

Background:

Real property negotiations are often delicate and complex by nature. Conferring with real property negotiators in closed session allows the City to discuss the terms of a proposed sale, lease or other real property transaction without placing themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

However, if the information from the closed session is shared with the other negotiating party, it could result in the City being in a weaker negotiating position. Even if this does not occur, sharing information from a closed session remains a violation of the Brown Act.

A violation of the Brown Act by Councilmember Wu involving his revealing closed session information was reported to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Following a determination by the District Attorney that a violation of the Brown Act had occurred, Councilman Wu offered two statements on the public record at the September 2, 2025 meeting of the City Council. Because his statements included only limited details, several members of the public have asked for an explanation of what happened to prompt the statements by Councilmember Wu.

At the September 16, 2025 meeting of the City Council, in response to the inquiries by members of the community, the City Council directed the City Manager to provide, to the extent possible, information about the Brown Act violation because it is important for the public to understand the severity of the violation. It should be noted that since the violation involved disclosure of confidential closed session discussions concerning real property negotiations, confidentiality of the closed session details has not been waived by the City Council and negotiations are still ongoing, the amount of detail that can be provided in this public report is limited.

On March 4, 2025, the City Council met in closed session under Government Code section 54956.8 to discuss negotiations with TCA, Talega Associates, LLC and Talega Maintenance Corporation regarding certain real property located near the eastern terminus of Avenida Pico.

Andy Hall, City Manager and Adam Atamian, Community Development Director were designated on the agenda as the City Negotiators for these negotiations.

On March 11, 2025, the City Manager received a text from the Executive Director of the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) regarding the potential transfer of certain properties from the TCA to the City of San Clemente. In part, the text message read, “I have been meeting today w(ith) my board Chair to answer a few questions about what is required. Apparently, she was approached by Council member Wu last week on the topic and he mention(ed) Telega is making things hard and we don’t need their approval to transfer the property which is counter to what our counsel believes.”
The City Manager’s response to the Executive Director, in part, it states, “I’m not certain why CM (Council Member) Wu would be making any statements about the transaction….” The relevant 194
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
text chain was concluded with the TCA Executive Director, stating, in part, “My board Chair Kelly wasn’t sure what the issue was either and why CM Wu brought it up.” In relation to closed sessions, there is a clear expectation and legal provisions to ensure that the information shared in closed session is not discussed or shared with any person not included in the closed session, unless specifically directed to do so by a consensus of the City Council (for example, generally designated staff negotiators are generally given direction to conduct specific negotiations and return to the City Council with information for further consideration). The real property negotiators for the City are required to be listed on the Closed Session agenda. In this instance, Councilmember Wu was not one of the designated City negotiators. Nevertheless, Councilmember Wu admittedly had a conversation with a Board Member of the TCA. The Board Member shared the contents of the conversation with the Executive Director of TCA who contacted the City Manager with concerns about being questioned about their position regarding the properties.

The City Manager contacted Councilmember Wu, who confirmed the conversation, and informed Councilmember Wu that the situation was a violation of the Brown Act and would need to be reported. He also advised Councilmember Wu of the duty to maintain the confidentiality of closed sessions. After being so advised, an additional conversation between Councilmember Wu and the Executive Director of TCA was reported to the City Manager.

Councilmember Wu’s violation of the Brown Act was reported to and investigated by the Orange County District Attorney. The Orange County District Attorney confirmed that a violation occurred, but did not choose to take any further action other than actions that would be taken by the City Council. (See Attachments 1 and 2.)
Councilmember Wu has expressed that his intentions in talking with TCA representatives was to further the negotiations. In reality, the outcome of the discussions have impacted communication between the City Manager and the Executive Director of TCA.

Legal Considerations
Discussions and materials provided to Councilmembers by the City Attorney are attorney-client privileged and individual members many not waive attorney-client protections. Individual Councilmembers do not hold the attorney-client privilege when they receive advice from either the City Attorney or from other counsel retained to represent the City. "[A]n attorney for a governmental entity usually has only one client, namely, the entity itself, which acts through constituent sub-entities and officials…." (Cal. State Bar Com. Prof. Responsibility, Formal Opn.

No. 2001-156, 2001 CA Legal Ethics Ops. LEXIS 5, *7; see also Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.13 ("Organization as Client").)
Notably, an attorney cannot act as counsel to the City and personal counsel to an individual member of the City Council, as the California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit any attorney from representing both the City and representing another client, including any individual Councilmember, on any matter where the individual’s interests are or may be adverse to the City, without the City’s explicit consent. (See Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.7 and 1.11; Civil Service Com. v. Super. Ct. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 71, 78-79 (county counsel disqualified from 195
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
representing the independent county civil service commission because of litigation between the commission and the county).)
Where the City Attorney (or special counsel) provides confidential and privileged advice regarding City business, even to individual Councilmembers, it is the City Council and not the individual Councilmember, who holds the attorney-client privilege. This is because the City is the client, and therefore, the attorney-client privilege extends to communications between the City Attorney (or any counsel retained by the City) and City officials in their official capacities. Any attorney representing a client has a legal and ethical obligation to preserve the confidentiality of those communications. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e) (attorney's duty to "maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client”); 84 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 71 (2001) (state whistleblower statutes do not override government attorneys' ethical and statutory obligations to maintain client confidences).) Only the client, in this case, the City Council, can waive the attorney-client privilege. (Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule

1.6; Cal. Evid. Code § 954 ("the client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer....")
Because the City Council holds the privilege with respect to any written or oral legal advice/opinions addressed to the City Council, an individual Councilmember cannot waive the privilege. Such confidential communications may not be disclosed to the public, to other public agencies or their officials, to other City boards/commissions, or to anyone other than those who are identified as recipients of the information or who have a need to know such information, unless the City Council passes a motion in open session waiving the attorney-client privilege and waiving closed session confidentiality.

Likewise, the City Attorney cannot waive the attorney-client privilege at the request of an individual Councilmember, even if the privileged communication was with that Councilmember and only that Councilmember. Instead, the waiver must be approved by the City Council itself. (See People ex ref. Lockyer v. Super. Ct. (Pfling) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 387, 398, disapproved on other grounds in People ex ref. Lockyer v. Super. Ct. (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703, fn.5.) Absent express informed consent (specifically, a formal action by the City Council at a duly noticed, public meeting where the item is on the agenda pursuant to the Brown Act after receiving advice of counsel regarding the waiver has been given to the City Council), confidentiality of discussions with the City Attorney, whether inside or outside closed session, must be maintained.

As a result, only public information concerning this matter has been included in this report.

The Brown Act Prohibits Unauthorized Disclosure of Confidential Closed Session Information
The Brown Act permits meetings to be conducted in closed session in certain specified circumstances. Government Code section 54956.8 permits a legislative body to hold a closed session to confer with its negotiators regarding proposed real property transactions.

A communication made in closed session that is specifically related to the circumstances that allow the agency to meet in closed session is "confidential information." (Govt. Code § 54963(b).) 196
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
The Brown Act was amended in 2002 to codify existing case law and Attorney General opinions and now clearly provides that: "A person may not disclose confidential information that has been acquired by being present in a closed session authorized by Section … 54956.8… to a person not entitled to receive it, unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that confidential information." (Govt. Code § 54963(a).) The privilege of confidentiality is held by the legislative body as a whole. (76 Ops.Atty.Gen. 289, 290 (1993).) Only a majority of the body can waive the privilege of confidentiality; one member does not have that authority unless one of the limited statutory exceptions applies.1 The privilege of confidentiality extends to what was discussed as well as materials produced in connection with the closed session. (Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 324, 334, citing 76 Ops.Atty.Gen. 289, 290-191 (1993).) The California Attorney General has repeatedly evaluated the importance of maintaining confidentiality following closed sessions. In one such opinion, where a local board held a closed session to discuss litigation matters with the board's attorney, disclosure of information from the discussion by a single member of the board was prohibited under the Brown Act. The Attorney General set forth the policy underlying the Brown Act's allowance of closed sessions as follows:
“A city council needs freedom to confer with its lawyers confidentially in order to obtain adequate advice, just as does a private citizen who seeks legal counsel, even though the scope of confidential meetings is limited by the state's public meeting requirements. The public interest is served by the privilege because it permits local government agencies to seek advice that may prevent the agency from becoming embroiled in litigation and it may permit the agency to avoid unnecessary controversy with various members of the public.”
80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 231, 236 (1997), quoting Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 378. The opinion goes on to explain:

The board (or individual members) cannot claim to have a basis for holding a closed session while at the same time revealing information received at that meeting. 80 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 231, 238 (1997). The Attorney General concluded that a local board member may not publicly disclose information that had been received and discussed in closed session unless the information is authorized by law to be disclosed. (Id. at 240-241; see also Kleitman, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at 334 (members of the legislative body may not reveal confidential information to the public and they cannot be required to disclose their recollections of the closed session in court).)
City Council Policy Prohibits Unauthorized Disclosure of all Closed Session Information Section 4.7.3 of City Council Policy No. 1201-11 goes farther than the Brown Act and prohibits any disclosure of closed session information without a majority vote of the City Council. It states:

1 Those exceptions are: (1) making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law; (2) expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken by a legislative body in closed session; (3) disclosing information acquired during a closed session that is not confidential information; and (4) disclosing information under the whistleblower statutes of the Labor and Government Codes. (Govt. Code § 54963(e) and (f).)
197
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 6
“No member of the City Council, employee of the City, or any person present during a closed session shall disclose to any other person the content or substance of discussion or action which took place during the session, unless a majority vote of the Council authorizes such disclosure.”
Remedies
The Brown Act includes remedies that are available in instances in which an individual member discloses confidential information obtained from a closed session. The remedies include:
(1) injunctive relief to prevent the disclosure of confidential information; (2) disciplinary action against an employee who has willfully disclosed confidential information;
(3) referral to the grand jury of a member of the legislative body who has willfully disclosed confidential information; and
(4) any other remedies currently available at law.
(Govt. Code § 54963(c).) The latter category may include barring the individual who disclosed the confidential information from future closed sessions or the grand jury presenting an accusation against the person for “willful or corrupt misconduct in office” to the district attorney. (80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 231 (1997), quoting 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 289 and citing Hamilton v. Town of Los Gatos (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1050, 1054, Govt. Code § 3060 and People v. Tice (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 750, 754).”) Following a trial and upon conviction, the court pronounces judgment that the defendant be removed from office. (Govt. Code § 3072.) The Brown Act may also be enforced using the general criminal sanction set forth in Government Code section 1222. (76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 289 (1993), citing Adler v. City Council (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 763, 774-775.) Government Code section 1222 provides:

Every willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law upon any public officer, or person holding any public trust or employment, where no special provision is made for the punishment of such delinquency, is punishable as a misdemeanor.

In addition, the Brown Act provides for the District Attorney or any interested person to file an action for an injunction, mandamus or declaratory relief to prevent or stop violations or threatened Brown Act violations or to determine the applicability of the Brown Act to ongoing actions or threatened future actions of the legislative body or certain past actions. (Govt. Code §54960(a).) Unlike criminal liability, the civil remedies available under the Brown Act do not require that the body take action or that the member act with a specific intent to deprive the public of information.

See, e.g., CAUSE v. City of San Diego (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1029; Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904; and Duval v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.

Where a court finds that the Brown Act has been violated, the plaintiff in a civil case is entitled to recover costs and attorney fees. See, e.g., Common Cause v. Stirling (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 518, 524. The statute allowing for costs and fees specifies that they shall be paid by the local 198
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 7
agency and shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the local agency. (Govt. Code § 54960.5.)
In 2020, the City Council conducted a censure hearing and censured the Mayor Pro Tem for a variety of “unacceptable conduct”, including disclosing confidential information from closed session in violation of City Council Policy No. 1201-11 and the Brown Act. The November 17 and 23, 2020 staff reports from those proceedings can be found at https://www.sanclemente.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=60488 and https://www.sanclemente.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=60592, respectively. It should be noted that the previous City Attorney concluded that special counsel needed to be hired in connection with the censure proceedings. Censure may not be discussed in closed session.

Summary:

In summary, Councilman Wu violated the Brown Act by sharing information from a closed session with a member of the party with whom the City is negotiating. The City Manager reported the violation. The District Attorney received the referral from the City Council and confirmed that a violation of the Brown Act occurred. Councilmember Wu provided two public statements, with limited information, on September 2, 2025, which resulted in several residents requesting a more detailed explanation. The City Council directed the City Manager to prepare a statement (this report) about the situation.

Council Options:

The City Council has several options:
 The City Council may receive and file this report.
 The City Council may, by majority vote, waive closed session confidentiality relating to this incident and have a thorough and open discussion concerning Councilmember Wu’s actions.  The City Council may discuss the matter in open session and determine whether or not to schedule a censure hearing related to Councilmember Wu violating the Brown Act. Scheduling a censure hearing will require direction to retain special counsel to advise the City with respect to such proceedings.
 The City Council may vote to initiate litigation against Councilmember Wu for violating the Brown Act and seek declaratory and injunctive relief. This would also require hiring special counsel to file the litigation.
 The City Council could accept Councilmember Wu’s statements and take no further action.  The City Council could provide additional direction to staff.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

This is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 199
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10D.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 8
Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Emphasize the critical nature of maintaining the confidentiality of closed session discussions and not violating the Brown Act;

2. Discuss whether it is in the City’s best interest to maintain closed session confidentiality related to this incident or waive privilege so that a full discussion may be had in public; and

3. Determine if appropriate actions have taken place to ensure future closed session discussions remain confidential.
..end
Attachment:

1. June 12, 2025 Letter from Orange County District Attorney indicating the reported Brown Act violation had been adequately addressed and the file would be closed.

2. August 18, 2025 Letter from Orange County District Attorney clarifying the Brown Act violation was committed solely by Councilmember Wu.

Notification:

None.
200
REPLY TO: ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WEB PAGE: http://orangecountyda.org/  MAIN OFFICE  NORTH OFFICE  WEST OFFICE  HARBOR OFFICE  JUVENILE OFFICE  CENTRAL OFFICE 300 N. FLOWER ST. 1275 N. BERKELEY AVE. 8141 13TH STREET 4601 JAMBOREE RD. 341 CITY DRIVE SOUTH 300 N. FLOWER ST.

SANTA ANA, CA 92703 FULLERTON, CA 92832 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ORANGE, CA 92868 SANTA ANA, CA 92703 PO. BOX 808 (92702) (714) 773-4480 (714) 896-7261 (949) 476-4650 (714) 935-7624 PO. BOX 808 (92702) (714) 834-3600 (714) 834-3952
June 12, 2025
Elizabeth A. Mitchell
City Attorney, City of San Clemente
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
[email protected]
RE: City of San Clemente Brown Act Referral
Dear Ms. Mitchell:

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office (“OCDA”) received emails and associated documentation from the City of San Clemente regarding a potential Brown Act violation by a member of the San Clemente City Council (“Council”). Based on the nature of the allegations, curative action taken by the Council, and your distribution of training materials to the Council emphasizing the confidentiality of closed session discussions, the OCDA has concluded that Council has adequately addressed the issue under the law. As a result, OCDA will be closing its file on this matter.

Sincerely,
Avery T. Harrison
Avery T. Harrison
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Special Prosecutions Unit

OFFICE OF THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

TODD SPITZER
Attachment 1
201
Attachment 2
REPLY TO: ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WEB PAGE: http://orangecountyda.org/  MAIN OFFICE  NORTH OFFICE  WEST OFFICE  HARBOR OFFICE  JUVENILE OFFICE  CENTRAL OFFICE 300 N. FLOWER ST. 1275 N. BERKELEY AVE. 8141 13TH STREET 4601 JAMBOREE RD. 341 CITY DRIVE SOUTH 300 N. FLOWER ST.

SANTA ANA, CA 92703 FULLERTON, CA 92832 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ORANGE, CA 92868 SANTA ANA, CA 92703 PO. BOX 808 (92702) (714) 773-4480 (714) 896-7261 (949) 476-4650 (714) 935-7624 PO. BOX 808 (92702) (714) 834-3600 (714) 834-3952
August 18, 2025
Elizabeth A. Mitchell
City Attorney, City of San Clemente
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
[email protected]
RE: City of San Clemente Brown Act Referral- Revised Closing Letter Dear Ms. Mitchell:

On June 12, 2025, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (“OCDA”) provided the City of San Clemente with a closing letter indicating that the OCDA was satisfied with the curative and training measures taken by the San Clemente City Council (“Council”) in response to a Brown Act violation.

Subsequently, the OCDA received a request from the Council to clarify that the referenced Brown Act violation was committed (solely) by Councilmember Zhen Wu. This letter serves as confirmation that the only Brown Act violation identified was by Councilmember Wu.

Sincerely,
Avery T. Harrison
Avery T. Harrison
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Special Prosecutions Unit

OFFICE OF THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

TODD SPITZER
202
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10E.

Submitted By: Public Works
Prepared By: David Rebensdorf, Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject:
..titl e

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER RATE SETTING PROCEDURES UNDER PROPOSITION 218 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 53750 THROUGH 53759.2 AND 54354.5 FOR PROPERTY OWNER OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED WATER FEES ..body
Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact from establishing the rate setting procedures.

Summary:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 2257 allows local agencies to establish a formal objection procedure for ratepayers to raise concerns about proposed rate changes. This law is a “win-win”, providing more opportunities for public input and allowing local agencies to address any legitimate concerns in the rate setting process before rates are adopted, thereby avoiding costly litigation.

The resolution before the City Council would establish an objection process that is designed to address disputes during the public participation stage, reducing the likelihood of surprise lawsuits after rates are approved, consistent with AB 2257. They also align with constitutional provisions and Proposition 218, which set standards for public notice, hearings, and protest procedures.

Background:

AB 2257 legislation mirrors the California Environmental Quality Act process, emphasizing transparency and early resolution of disputes. It does not bypass the public participation process mandated by Proposition 218, but enhances it by creating an additional objection mechanism. By fostering communication between agencies and ratepayers, AB 2257 seeks to minimize litigation risks and promote increased communication and collaborative problem-solving in public ratesetting processes.

The legislation created an exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure that requires ratepayers to bring a written objection regarding a proposed property-related water or sewer fee or charge, or any special assessment, to the local public agency governing body’s attention prior to the deadline established by the local public agency as part of the rate or assessment consideration process. The purpose is also to provide an opportunity for the local public agency to address or resolve the objection or objections before its governing body makes a final decision on whether to establish a new, or amend a current, property-related fee or special assessment pursuant to Proposition 218.
203
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 10E.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Attachment A to proposed Resolution No. 25-151 provides requirements for the City to mail Proposition 218 Notices, respond to written objections, and conduct the 218 Protest Public Hearing. In addition, it provides information and procedures to guide property owners when they wish to provide written objections and/or protests.

Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 25-151, which will establish water rate setting procedures under Proposition 218 and Government Code sections 53750 through 53759.2 and 54354.5 for property owner objections to proposed water fees.
 Modify and approve Resolution No. 25-151.
 Continue the Item and direct staff to provide additional information.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15378 (14 CCR section 15378). Establishing water rate setting procedures for property owner objections to proposed water fees has no potential to result in either a direct or physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-151, which will establish water rate setting procedures under Proposition 218 and Government Code sections 53750 through 53759.2 and 54354.5 for property owner objections to proposed water fees. ..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 25-151
- Attachment A to Resolution No. 25-151 Water Rate Setting Procedures Notification:

None.
204
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-151

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING WATER
RATE SETTING PROCEDURES UNDER PROPOSITION 218
AND GOVERNMENT CODE 53750 THROUGH 53759.2 AND
54354.5 FOR PROPERTY OWNER OBJECTIONS TO

PROPOSED WATER FEES
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente (“City”) provides water service to property owners (who may also be referred to as “owners”) within the City’s service area, and establishes the amount of water rates to be charged customers; and WHEREAS, California law authorizes the City to charge a fee to the property owners or property owners’ “tenants” (who may be collectively referred to as “ratepayers” or “customers”) for the proportionate cost of providing water services to each customer in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the voter-approved ballot measure known as “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D; as it is implemented by the Legislature at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions). The City refers to those fees as water rates (“water rates” or “rates”); and
WHEREAS, under Proposition 218, the City’s water rates are considered to be a “fee” for a “property-related service” (also referred to as a “property-related fee”), subject to the particular requirements of Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6. A property-related fee is one imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership. In general, the City may only increase its existing water rates if the City (1) calculates the water rates in accordance with Proposition 218, (2) conducts a noticed public hearing before the City Council, as described in this resolution, and (3) a “timely written protest” is not submitted by property owners representing a majority of the parcels served by the City; and WHEREAS, under Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 (known as “AB 2257”), the City may establish a supplemental process for objecting property owners to exhaust administrative remedies, also described in this resolution, by which the City will take specified actions in response to any “timely written objection.” Under this process, only an owner who submits a timely written objection will have a right to challenge a proposed increase in water service charges through a legal proceeding. (These supplemental processes were authorized by Assembly Bill No. 2257, Chapter 561, Statutes of 2024, effective January 1, 2025); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to document the processes that the City will follow in considering proposed new or increased water rates, including compliance with Proposition 218 as well as the exhaustion of administrative procedures under AB 2257. The processes described in this resolution provide a meaningful opportunity for a property owner to submit a written objection to proposed new or increased water rates early in the rate consideration process, and to provide an opportunity for the City to address or resolve any objections before the City Council makes a final decision on whether to adopt a proposed water rate pursuant to Proposition 218; and
205
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 2
WHEREAS, this resolution will identify the process that the City will follow in order to implement the administrative remedies to be exhausted by property owners under Government Code sections 53759.1 prior to an owner initiating litigation to challenge the water rates. In general, at least 45 days before a public hearing to consider a proposed new or increased water rate, the City will make available the proposed water rates, and post the written basis for the proposed water rates on its internet website. The City will provide at least 45 days for any property owner to review the proposed water rates and timely submit to the City a written objection to the water rates that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218. The City will consider and provide a substantive written response to each timely written objection submitted prior to the close of the public hearing described in Section 1(C) of Exhibit A to this resolution; and WHEREAS, for any water rates approved by the City implementing the procedures described in this resolution, a person or entity shall be prohibited from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution for those water rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to the City a written objection to those rates that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby intends to adopt the exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure as outlined in Government Code section 53759.1, and the administrative record principles contained in Government Code section 53759.2.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and fully incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the water rate setting procedures attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated fully herein by reference (“Water Rate Setting Procedures”). The Water Rate Setting Procedures explicitly incorporate and implement the requirements contained in Proposition 218 and the procedures by which property owners are required to exhaust administrative remedies as set forth in Government Code section 53759.1(c).

SECTION 3. For any water rate adopted or approved by the City implementing the procedures described in this resolution, a person or entity shall be prohibited from bringing a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution for those water rates, unless that person or entity has timely submitted to the City a written objection to those water rates in accordance with this resolution that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______. 206
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 3
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the
San Clemente, California City of San Clemente, California

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-151 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of October, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
____________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
207
Resolution No. 25-151 Exhibit A Page 4
Water Rate Setting Procedures
These “Water Rate Setting Procedures” (“Procedures”) describe the processes that will be followed by the City of San Clemente (“City”) in establishing any new or increased water rates, as summarized in the Resolution identified in the header of this Exhibit “A.” The Water Rate Setting Procedures include compliance with Proposition 218 (including the consideration of “written protests” from record owners) as well as the procedures for exhausting administrative remedies under Government Code section 53759.1 (including the consideration of “written objections” from record owners).

For the purpose of considering written protests and written objections, the City will consider the term “record owner” to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the rates to the City (consistent with Proposition 218; California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 2(g)).

1. Overview of Exhaustion Procedure
If the City publishes a notice of public hearing identifying procedures for property owners to submit written objections (described in Section 2(b), below),¹ the City will follow the “exhaustion procedure” set forth herein, to be conducted concurrently with or before the Proposition 218 process, for the City Council’s consideration of any proposed new or increased water rates. This exhaustion procedure shall be conducted in accordance with “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D; as it is implemented by the Legislature1 at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions), and the particular procedures set forth in Government Code section 53759.1. The exhaustion procedure provides an opportunity for record owners to submit a “timely written objection” to identify substantive bases for asserting proposed water rates do not comply with Proposition 218. A ”record owner” may be referred to in these Procedures as the “owner” or “property owner.” The processes described herein may be referred to as “these Procedures.”
a. City staff will post on its internet website a notice of the exhaustion procedure, and this notice will be prominently incorporated in the Proposition 218 public hearing notice mailed to each record owner.
b. The notice will identify the date and time by which timely written objections must be submitted to the City, and the date will be no less than 45 calendar days after the notice is mailed to record owners.

1 If the City publishes a notice of public hearing that does not identify procedures for property owners to submit written objections, the City will conduct the public hearing in compliance with Proposition 218, and consider any written protests in accordance with these Procedures.
208
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 5
c. City staff will review timely written objections and draft written responses providing the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed water rates in response to the written objections. City staff will present its written responses to the City Council prior to the close of the public hearing for the Proposition 218 protest hearing and the City Council will review them to determine whether action is needed in response to the written objections or written responses. d. Following the City Council’s review and response to timely written objections and written responses, it is within the discretion of the City Council to proceed with the Proposition 218 protest hearing process, as described herein, to consider approval of the proposed water rates.
e. Rate Challenger Must Exhaust Administrative Remedies. No claim, suit for damages, suit for injunctive relief, petition for writ of mandamus, or administrative or judicial proceeding shall be brought against the City (including the City Council, or its employees, officers, or designees) regarding a challenge to a proposed water rate unless the challenging party first exhausts its administrative remedies by complying with these Procedures and submitting to the City a timely written objection.

2. Notice of Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Initiating Exhaustion Procedure Prior to approving or imposing any new or increased water rates, the City will conduct a public hearing and provide prior written notice to each record owner of the hearing and the exhaustion procedure as described in these Procedures. To the extent that the City sends a regular billing statement for water service provided to a “customer” (e.g., a “tenant” or other “ratepayer”) who is not the record owner, the City will also mail the written notice to the customer at the address for the billing statement. The City will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner no later than 45 days prior to the public hearing. The contents of the hearing notice will include:
a. Compliance with Proposition 218:
(1) The date, time, and location of the public hearing. (2) The amount of the water rates proposed to be imposed on each parcel.

This may be satisfied by identifying the rate amounts for each customer type subject to the rates.
(3) The basis upon which the amount of the proposed water rates were calculated.
(4) The reason for the proposed water rates.
(5) The location to which owners must submit written protests via mail, email, fax, or personal delivery.
209
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 6
(6) To the extent required by Government Code section 54354.5, the notice will identify the opportunity for record owners to be heard as to whether the proposed water rates are not in compliance with any requirements of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941 (Government Code Sections 53000 – 55821), including: (a) the rates are discriminatory or excessive, or (b) the rates will not be sufficient under the provisions of any outstanding revenue bonds (including Government Code section 54515). (7) How members of the public may obtain additional information regarding the proposed new or increased fee, including a link to information that is available on the City’s website or by requesting a mailed copy. This will include a copy of the resolution or ordinance by which the proposed new or increased water rates are proposed to be adopted.
b. Compliance with the Exhaustion Procedure for Written Objections. If the City chooses to follow the exhaustion procedure for written objections, substantially concurrently with mailing the public hearing notice, the City will post on its internet website the written basis for the proposed water rates and a link to the Proposition 218 public hearing notice, which will be supplemented with the following prominently displayed information:
(1) The “deadline” (date and time) by which a “timely written objection” must be submitted to the City. The deadline will be no earlier than 45 days after the City mails to property owners the notice of the public hearing. (2) The location to which written objections must be submitted to the City via mail, email, fax, or personal delivery.
(3) All substantive requirements for submitting a written objection. The record owner must comply with the requirements set forth in Procedures section 3, below, including specifying the grounds on which the owner alleges the proposed new or increased water rates does not comply with Proposition 218.
(4) Notice that: (a) any person’s failure to submit a timely written objection bars any right of that person to challenge the proposed new or increased fee through a legal proceeding; and (b) there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging the proposed new or increased water rates (in accordance with Government Code section 53759).
c. The City will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner of a parcel that is subject to payment of the new or increased fee. The notice shall be mailed to owner’s address shown on the last equalized property tax assessment roll. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the most recent equalized property tax assessment roll of the Orange County Recorder is sufficient 210
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 7
evidence of the record owner of each parcel. A person may rebut the presumption by providing to the City written proof of ownership. (2) The City Clerk, or designee, may certify by affidavit the proper mailing of notices described in these Procedures, and any such affidavit shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in the absence of fraud. (3) Failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate the hearing or its results.
(4) The City will also provide supplemental notices to the address where the City customarily mails the billing statement for water rates. d. Concurrently with publishing and mailing the public hearing notice, the City will post on its website relevant information regarding the proposed new or increased fee including a copy of the cost of service analysis (which may be referred to as a water “rate study”) which provides documentation of compliance with all substantive requirements of Prop 218 regarding the calculation of the amount of the proposed new or increased fee.

3. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Objections In order for a record owner to submit a timely written objection, it must:
a. Be received by the City at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the deadline identified on the public hearing notice. The deadline may be no earlier than 45 days after the City mails to record owners the notice of public hearing.
b. Be in writing (i) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the water rates; and (ii) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the City.
c. Specify the grounds for alleging the proposed rates do not comply with Proposition 218. The grounds must identify (i) the substantive requirement of Proposition 218, and (ii) the reason the proposed water rates do not comply with that requirement. For any proposed new or increased “fee” for a property-related service (such as water rates), relevant substantive requirements of Proposition 218 include:
(1) Revenues derived from the water rates shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related water service. (2) Revenues derived from the water rates shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. 211
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 8
(3) The amount of the water rates shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) No water rates may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Water rates based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted.
(5) No water rates may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.

4. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Protests
In order for a record owner to submit a timely written protest, to be considered as a part of the Proposition 218 protest hearing described in Section 6, below, it must:
a. Be received by the City at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing. b. Be in writing (1) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the water rates; and (2) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the City.

A written protest must be submitted in paper form. Any protest will not satisfy this requirement if it is submitted in any non-paper format such as: email, facsimile, or spoken protest via telephone or in person.
c. Must clearly identify that the record owner opposes the proposed new or increased water rates that are the subject of the hearing. d. Will only be counted as one protest per parcel. That means that if any one or more record owners of a parcel submits a timely written protest (or timely written objection) for the same parcel, it will be counted as one timely written protest. e. Record owners of multiple parcels within the City may file one protest for each parcel owned within the City’s service area.
f. A record owner may withdraw a written protest only if the withdrawal is submitted in writing by the record owner clearly indicating an intent to withdraw for an identified property, and it is received by the City at the location (and no later than the time) for submitting written protests. After a written protest is withdrawn, a record owner may submit a new or replacement written protest in accordance with the requirements of these Procedures. No other modification to a timely written protest may be made.
212
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 9
g. The City Clerk shall take custody of all submitted written objections and written protests.
(1) In order to protect the integrity of the procedures for considering written objections and written protests as described in these Procedures, all written objections and written protests shall remain confidential until the City Manager (or designee) has determined they may be published in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 4(g)(2).
(2) Any submitted written objection and written protest shall be a public record, subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code sections 7920.000, et seq.); however, the City may withhold the record if the City determines that the public interest served by not disclosing clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure under Government Code section 7922.000. As a general rule, the City finds there is a substantial public interest in not disclosing written objections and written protests to protect the integrity of the process described herein during the time that: (A) written objections are still being submitted and (B) prior to the time that the Brown Act meeting agenda is posted (e.g., at least 72 hours before a regular meeting under Government Code section 54954.2).

5. City’s Response to Timely Written Objections
At the close of the written objection period, City staff shall review timely written objections and shall draft written responses to the written objections. The City’s written response will include: (i) the grounds on which the objection is (or is not) resulting in amendments to the proposed new or increased water rates; and (ii) an explanation of the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed new or increased water rates.

City staff shall present the written responses to the City Council at the public meeting that was specified in the public hearing notice described in Section 2, above. a. In accordance with the Brown Act, the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council prior to the Council’s action related to the timely written objections and written responses. (See Government Code section 54954.3(a).) b. In accordance with Government Code section 53759.1(d), the City Council, in exercising its legislative discretion in considering timely written objections and written responses, shall determine for the proposed new or increased water rates whether further review, clarification, or reduction is needed, and whether to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest hearing.
213
Resolution No. 25-151 Page 10

6. Conducting the Proposition 218 Protest Public Hearing If the City Council determines to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest public hearing for proposed new or increased water rates (as previously noticed in accordance with Section 2, above), the public hearing shall be conducted consistent with the following:
a. The City Council will open the public hearing and consider all evidence presented during the hearing including the public hearing notice and all documents referenced therein (particularly including the Rate Study), all written objections, written responses, written protests, and any testimony, documents, or information presented during the public hearing.
b. Prior to closing the public hearing, the City Council will request if there are any additional written protests to be submitted to (or withdrawn from) the City. c. The City Council will then close the public hearing and request a report from the City Clerk to identify the number of timely written protests compared to the total number of parcels subject to the new or increased fees. (1) A majority protest exists only if the number of timely written protests exceeds one-half of the parcels served by the City.
(2) If the City Clerk determines that additional time is needed to tabulate timely written protests, the City Council shall recess or continue the public meeting to provide sufficient time for the City Clerk to complete the tabulation.
(3) If the City Clerk determines that there is a majority protest, the City shall not impose the new or increased water rates.
(4) If the City Clerk determines that there is not a majority protest, the City Council shall continue its deliberations and take action on the proposed new or increased water rates.
(5) The City Clerk’s determinations under these Procedures shall be the final determination of the City subject to appropriate judicial review. This shall include the City Clerk’s determinations that: (a) a written protest meets the requirements for a timely written protest in accordance with these Procedures; or (b) a majority protest has (or has not) been submitted for the proposed rates.
214
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (1)
215
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting
Mayor Knoblock
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Loeffler
Councilmember Wu
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

A Regular Meeting of the San Clemente City Council was called to order by Mayor Knoblock on September 16, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. in the San Clemente City Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

PRESENT: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock STAFF PRESENT: Andy Hall, City Manager; Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney; Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk; Megan Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Mayor Knoblock, CARRIED 5-0, to recess to Closed Session at 4:30 p.m. to discuss the following:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a)&(d)(2)
Number of Cases: 1
Facts and Circumstances per Government Code section 54956.9(e)(2):

Alleged violation of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code sections 4000, et seq.) as set forth in the attached letter from Angelo and Lisa Garruba.

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION Whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d) (4)
Number of Cases: 1
AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

216
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 Closed Session concluded at 4:54 p.m.

BUSINESS MEETING
The Business Meeting reconvened at 5:30 p.m. with all City Councilmembers present.

INVOCATION
Pastor Brieann Knutson, San Clemente Presbyterian Church, gave the invocation.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Cabral led the Pledge of Allegiance.

1. Special Presentations
A. Presentation of Proclamation to Daughters of the American Revolution declaring September 17-23, 2025 as Constitution Week.

The City Council presented a proclamation to Kitty Carretti and Anne Grey, Daughters of the American Revolution, setting apart September 17-23, 2025 as Constitution Week.

2. Council Member Reports
Mayor Knoblock:
· Announced that the Orange County Transportation Authority is placing sand on North Beach.
· Attended a LA28 Olympic meeting.
· Attended the Lifeguard of the Year ceremony at the San Clemente Community Center on September 9, 2025.
· Attended a meeting with staff concerning new technology for the City’s water and sewer treatment facility.
· Met with City staff concerning a proposed subdivision. · Attended the Salty Turf groundbreaking ceremony on September 10, 2025. · Attended a meeting concerning Casa Pacifica.
· Attended the Orange County Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast on September 12, 2025.
· Participated in the sand sampling survey conducted off the coast of Dana Point on September 6, 2025.
· Attended a vigil in memory of Charlie Kirk at the Outlets at San Clemente on September 14, 2025.

Councilmember Cabral:
· Attended a meeting on the Doheny Desalination project.

217
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 · Announced that he was elected to represent Orange County by the Cal Cities Board of Directors.
· Attended the Lifeguard of the Year ceremony at the San Clemente Community Center on September 9, 2025.
· Attended the Salty Turf groundbreaking ceremony on September 10, 2025. · Shared his personal experience of being at the capital on September 11, 2001 to an external audience.
· Attended Camp Pendleton’s 83rd Anniversary Colors Ceremony on September 11, 2025.
· Attended a meeting with Larry Agran, Mayor of Irvine. · Attended a San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Community Engagement Panel meeting.
· Organized a meeting concerning Casa Pacifica.
· Attended Toast to the Casa: Casa Royale on September 13, 2025. · Attended the vigil for Charlie Kirk on September 14, 2025. · Attended the Pet Project Foundation Gala on September 14, 2025. · Commented on the Orange County Transportation Authority's sand placement on San Clemente beaches.

Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier:
· Attended the Salida del Sol Elected Officials VIP Open House on September 3, 2025.
· Observed the Orange County Transportation Authority Sand Placement on September 5, 2025.
· Attended the United4OC 2030 Kick-Off event on September 6, 2025. · Attended the Salty Turf groundbreaking ceremony on September 10, 2025. · Attended Camp Pendleton’s 83rd Anniversary Colors Ceremony on September 11, 2025.
· Attended the Toast to the Casa: Casa Royale on September 13, 2025. · Attended the Pet Project Foundation’s Gala on September 14, 2025. · Met with Assemblywoman Davies regarding supporting USA Surf as the official sponsor for Olympic surfing on September 16, 2025. · Displayed photographs of San Juan Capistrano’s new affordable housing development.

Councilmember Loeffler:
· Attended the San Clemente Chamber of Commerce Business Meeting on September 4, 2025.
· Attended a Ribbon Cutting ceremony for “Smalls Smash Club”. · Observed the Orange County Transportation Authority Sand Placement on September 5, 2025.
· Attended the Business Development meeting in North Beach on September 5, 2025.

218
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 · Met with residents concerning a building project on September 8, 2025. · Attended the Lifeguard of the Year ceremony at the San Clemente Community Center on September 9, 2025.
· Attended a meeting concerning the Business Park on September 9, 2025. · Attended the Salty Turf groundbreaking ceremony on September 10, 2025. · Attended the Orange County Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast on September 12, 2025.
· Attended the San Clemente Chamber of Commerce Membership Meeting on September 12, 2025.
· Attended a briefing with the City Manager and City Attorney on September 15, 2025.
· Recognized Orange County Sheriff’s Department for their continuing efforts to keep the City safe.

Councilmember Wu:
· Responded to resident emails.

3. Oral Communications (Part 1)
Erik Weigand, San Diego Gas and Electric, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Wildfire Safety & PSPS Preparedness". A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Eliminate Deliberative Process Privilege - Ensure Privacy spoke on privacy concerns; opined that individuals names should not be included in Administrative Reports.

Lois McNicoll commented on the Orange County Transportation Authority work along the beach trail as it relates to closures.

Jagjit Sohi, San Clemente, urged the City Council to stay neutral on items that are divisive in the community as it relates to national politics.

Suzie Whitelaw, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "OCTA Places Sand on San Clemente Beaches". A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier requested City staff to provide Suzie Whitelaw's PowerPoint presentation to the City Council.

Donna Vidrine, San Clemente, spoke on gun violence and national political issues.

Mike Kay commented on the fire mitigation measures taken by the City as it relates to the goat grazing program.

Aaron Washington requested that the City have a 9/11 display to memorialize

219
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 first responders annually; commented on the municipal golf course pro shop operations.

4. Motion waiving reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

5. Consideration of agendizing items requiring immediate action None.

6. Closed Session Report - City Attorney
City Attorney Mitchell provided the following Closed Session Report:

No reportable action concerning:

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 4956.9(a)&(d)(2)
Number of Cases: 1
Facts and Circumstances per Government Code section 54956.9(e)(2): Alleged violation of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code sections 4000, et seq.) as set forth in the letter from Angelo and Lisa Garruba attached to the City Council meeting agenda of September 16, 2025.

The City Council approved 5-0, to initiate litigation against Fadia Middlebrook and Mark Middlebrook pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of Cases: 1

7. Staff Communications
None.

8. Public Hearings
Motion by Councilmember Cabral, second by Mayor Knoblock, CARRIED 5-0, to hold a joint public hearing for items 8A and 8B.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

220
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 8A. CONSIDERATION TO INTRODUCE, AND CONDUCT A FIRST READING OF, AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE ZONING AMENDMENT, ZA25-362, TO THE

MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A HEIGHT
EXCEPTION, OF UP TO 55 FEET TO THE PLATE LINE AND 62 FEET TO

THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR HIGHEST PROJECTION, FOR A HOTEL
(BUILDING 15) AT THE OUTLETS AT SAN CLEMENTE; AND
CERTIFICATION OF ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARBLEHEAD
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. 1995091037),

WHICH HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 The City Council determined to hold a Joint Public Hearing with Agenda Item 8B; see page 8 of these minutes for the title and summary of Agenda Item 8B.

Mayor Knoblock opened the Joint Public Hearing.

The City Councilmembers made the following disclosures:

Councilmember Wu disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Councilmember Loeffler disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Councilmember Cabral disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Mayor Knoblock disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Community Development Director Atamian narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Amendment to Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Development Standards" and responded to City Council inquiries. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Tim Flemming, applicant, spoke on the proposed project.

221
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance No. 1795 approving Zoning Amendment ZA25-362, to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan to allow a height exception, of up to 55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the top of the roof or highest projection for a hotel (building 15) at the Outlets at San Clemente; and Addendum No. 6 to the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan:

George Dutra, San Clemente
John DeNizio, San Clemente
Lynn Sobel, San Clemente
Nancy Shephard, San Clemente
Michelle Harris, San Clemente
Laura Knapp, San Clemente
Kathy Ward, San Clemente
Jodi DiLascio
Jack Diamond
Beverly Wiesen
Amanda Quintanilla, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "MCSP Changes". A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

There being no others desiring to speak, Mayor Knoblock closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Councilmember Cabral, second by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, CARRIED 5-0, to introduce, and conduct a first reading of Ordinance 1795 entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL
SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH NO. 1995091037) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT ZA25-362 TO AMEND SECTION 502(V)(D) OF THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL

SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A HOTEL WITH THE SAME HEIGHT

EXCEPTION GRANTED TO THE THEATER, FOR A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 55 FEET TO THE PLATE LINE AND 62 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR HIGHEST PROJECTION.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
Meeting Recessed
The meeting recessed at 6:51 p.m. and reconvened at 6:59 p.m. with all City Councilmembers present.

222
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 8B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT (PHP) 25-343 TO AMEND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN PERMIT (SPP) 99-16 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 99-17 TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HEIGHT OF THE HOTEL, FROM 45 FEET UP TO 62 FEET, AT 401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA TO INCLUDE A ROOFTOP

RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR DINING AND INTERIOR KITCHEN AND RESTROOMS ON A 1.7-ACRE PARCEL (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER [APN] 691-422-04) WITHIN THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (MCSP) AREA, AND FINDING THAT ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE MCSP FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DEMONSTRATES NO NEW

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IS NEEDED, CONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 AND §15183
The City Council determined to hold a Joint Public Hearing with Agenda Item 8A; see page 6 of these minutes for the title and summary of Agenda Item 8A.

Mayor Knoblock opened the Joint Public Hearing.

The City Councilmembers made the following disclosures:

Councilmember Wu disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Councilmember Loeffler disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Councilmember Cabral disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

Mayor Knoblock disclosed he received communications from residents that are of a similar nature to the public comments received and available for public inspection online and available at the meeting.

City Planner Lightfoot narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Amendment to the 'Lodge Hotel'" and responded to City Council inquiries. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Tim Flemming, applicant, spoke on the proposed project.

223
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 The following individuals spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Project 25-343 to amend commercial site plan permit 99-16 and conditional use permit 99-17 to modify the previously approved height of the hotel, from 45 feet up to 62 feet, at 401 W. Avenida Vista Hermosa to include a rooftop restaurant with outdoor dining and finding Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan demonstrates no new significant impacts and that no further environmental review is needed:

George Dutra, San Clemente
Laura Knapp, San Clemente
Paul Kaminski, San Clemente
Jerry Sigala, San Clemente
Crystal Stoey, San Clemente
Ronald Salmon
Helena DeCoro, San Clemente
Bart DeCoro, San Clemente
Kathy Ward, San Clemente
Beverly Wiesen
Amanda Quintanilla narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "The Lodge at SC". A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

There being no others desiring to speak, Mayor Knoblock closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Councilmember Cabral, second by Mayor Knoblock, CARRIED 4-1 (Councilmember Wu voting NOE) to:

Adopt Resolution No. 25-137, which will:

1. Approve PHP25-343 to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17 to modify the previously approved hotel at 401 W. Avenida Vista Hermosa to allow for an increase in height to 62 feet to incorporate a rooftop restaurant with outdoor dining.

2. Find that Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) demonstrates no new significant impacts and that no further environmental review is needed, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections15162 and 15183.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: Wu

224
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 Meeting Recessed
The meeting recessed at 8:22 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all City Councilmembers present.
8C. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-224, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-223, DISCRETIONARY SIGN PERMIT 25-263, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-225 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK COMPLEX AT 1000 CALLE CORDILLERA WITH 11 NEW

BUILDINGS ON VACANT LAND, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MASTER SIGN

PROGRAM, A LAND AND CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL

OWNERSHIP OF EACH BUILDING/SUITE, AND PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF A 30-FOOT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, PUBLIC UTILITY AND

STORM DRAIN PURPOSES, AND MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Mayor Knoblock opened the Public Hearing.

Associate Planner Carrillo narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Luminar Business Park" and responded to City Council inquiries. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

The City Councilmembers made the following disclosures:

Councilmember Loeffler disclosed communications with Olen and the President of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.

Councilmember Cabral disclosed communications with Olen and the President of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.

Richard Lutzky (Participating via Zoom) and Francisco Arias, representing the applicant SC Holding LLC, narrated a PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council inquiries. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Matt Miller, Rancho San Clemente Business Park, urged the City Council to require the Luminar Business Park to join the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.

Dale Lyon, Rancho San Clemente Business Park, urged the City Council to require the Luminar Business Park to join the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.

Doug Casey, Rancho San Clemente Business Park, urged the City Council to require the Luminar Business Park to join the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.

225
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 Rob Johnston, Johnston Pacific, spoke in support of the Luminar Business Park project.

Steve Del Guercio, Counsel for SC Holding LLC, opined that the property should not be required to be a member of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.

Amanda Quintanilla commented on the property and proposed uses.

Richard Lutzky (Participating via Zoom), applicant, provided a rebuttal to public comments.

There being no others desiring to speak, Mayor Knoblock closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Councilmember Wu, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 5-0, to:

Adopt Resolution 25-138, which will:

1. Determine that the project does not require further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15183.

2. Conditionally approve Development Permit 25-224, Conditional Use Permit 25-223, Discretionary Sign Permit 25-263, and Tentative Tract Map 25-225 for the Luminar Business Park project.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
Meeting Recessed
The meeting recessed at 9:13 p.m. and reconvened at 9:17 p.m. with all City Councilmembers present.
8D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FAILURE OF

BROADMOOR SAN CLEMENTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO ENFORCE

CERTAIN COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&RS)
Mayor Knoblock continued the Public Hearing.

Community Development Director Atamian and City Prosecutor Silver reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to City Council inquiries.

226
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 The following individuals spoke in support of the City enforcing the 17 foot height limit in the Broadmoor Homeowners Association:

Charlene Marlowe, San Clemente, provided written comments to the City Council. A hard copy of the comments are on file with the City Clerk.

Matthew Marlowe, San Clemente
Maureen Wilson
Reva Buck
John Carretti
Paul Lefcourt
Paul Buck, San Clemente
Shannon O'Toole, San Clemente
Eric Fermin
The following individuals spoke in support of allowing Broadmoor to enforce its Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs):

Linda Williams, Broadmoor Homeowners Association, narrated a PowerPoint presentation concerning enforcement action by the Broadmoor Homeowners Association. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Angelo Garruba, San Clemente
John McAuley
Marianne McAuley, San Clemente
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Wu, CARRIED 5-0, to determine that the Broadmoor Association has continued enforcement of its Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CR&Rs), and continue the public hearing to January 20, 2026, to allow the Broadmoor Association’s process to continue according to their specified timelines.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
Following public comments, the Public Hearing was continued to January 20, 2026.

9. Unfinished Business
None.

Continue Meeting Past 11:00 p.m.

Motion by Councilmember Loeffler, second by Mayor Knoblock, CARRIED 5-0, to continue the meeting until 11:30 p.m.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

227
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025

10. New Business
10A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 50 - AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING
The following individuals spoke in opposition of proposed Resolution No. 25-139:

Decline, San Clemente
Linda More, San Clemente
Jackie Dooley, San Clemente, submitted written comments to the City Council.

A hard copy of the written comments are on file with the City Clerk.

Jennifer C., San Clemente
Rev. Lucy Stafford-Lewis, San Clemente
Louise Herbert
Anne Prestridge, San Clemente
Bill Prestridge, San Clemente
Donna Vidrine
Catherine Hall
M. Aguilar
Tom Streeter, San Clemente
The following individuals spoke in support of proposed Resolution No. 25-139:

Tony Rubolino
Amanda Quintanilla
Motion by Councilmember Wu, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 4-1 (Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier voting NOE), to adopt Resolution No. 25-139 entitled A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POSITION OF OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 50 ON THE NOVEMBER 2025 BALLOT.

AYE: Cabral, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: Enmeier
10B. CONSIDERATION OF MAKING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS STATISTICS

AVAILABLE VIA THE CITY WEBSITE
Motion by Councilmember Loeffler, second by Councilmember Wu, CARRIED 5-0, to continue this item to the October 7, 2025 City Council meeting.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

228
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 10C. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION PROVIDING DIRECTION TO

COMPLETE A WATER COST-OF-SERVICE STUDY AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A DRAFT PROPOSITION 218 NOTICE FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC

HEARING
Public Works Director/City Engineer Rebensdorf with Sanjay Gaur, Water Resources Economics, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "City of San Clemente 2025 Water Rate Study" and responded to City Council inquiries. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Motion by Councilmember Cabral, second by Mayor Knoblock, CARRIED 5-0, to:

1. Direct staff to include the following components in the Cost-of-Service Study to be returned to City Council for further review and consideration:
a. Develop a uniform rate for all customers.
b. Increase the total fixed revenue recovery from 32% to 36% to continue improving revenue stability that is more aligned with the City’s fixed costs.
c. Continue to utilize a pass-through approach to clearly distinguish (a) the external costs of imported water from (b) the City’s costs of treating, storing, and delivering that water.
d. Include Municipal Water District of Orange County fixed costs in fixed meter charges.
e. Institute new Demand Management Rates based on the six stages of water shortage levels ranging from 10%-50% water reduction. f. Develop a five-year rate increase.

AND

2. Adopt Resolution No 25-140, which will direct staff and the consultant to complete the Water Cost-of-Service Study based on the City Council’s direction as to components to be included for further review and consideration and direct staff to prepare a draft Proposition 218 notice for consideration at the November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
The City Council requested that the cost of service study be placed on the

229
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 City's website.
10D. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE(S) TO

REPRESENT SAN CLEMENTE AT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING
Motion by Councilmember Cabral, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to appoint Councilmember Cabral as the voting delegate and appoint Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier and Mayor Knoblock as the voting alternates at the Annual Business Meeting of the League of California Cities Annual Conference on October 10, 2025.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

11. Consent Calendar
A. City Council Minutes
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to approve:
(1) APPROVE THE SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2025.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
B. Commission/Committee Minutes
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file:
(1) BEACHES, PARKS, & RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2025.
(2) BEACHES, PARKS, & RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2025.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
C. Warrant Register
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to:
(1) APPROVE WIRE TRANSFER NOS.
3301 THROUGH 3308 AND WARRANT NOS.
606950 THROUGH 607063, PAID ON
9-5-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,721,075.74

230
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $4,721,075.74
AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
Payroll Register
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to:

APPROVE WARRANT NO. 987 AND
AUTOMATIC DEPOSIT ADVISES 106009
THROUGH 106352, FOR THE PERIOD
8-18-25 THROUGH 8-31-25, PAID
ON 9-5-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $616,306.10
TOTAL PAYROLL REGISTER $616,306.10
AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
11D. CONTRACT AWARD - LIFEGUARD TOWERS REPLACEMENT (2025) AND

FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to:

Adopt Resolution No. 25-141, which will:

1. Find the Lifeguard Towers Replacement (2025), CIP Project No. 22104, categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 2 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section15302.

2. Award the Lifeguard Towers Replacement (2025), construction contract to Capo A General Contracting as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25-47, by and between the City of San Clemente and Capo A General Contracting, providing for Lifeguard Towers Replacement, in the amount of $111,900, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. C25-47 provided as attachment 2 of the Administrative Report dated September 16, 2025, and on file with the City Clerk.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

231
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 11E. CONTRACT AWARD - DEFINED BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to:

Adopt Resolution No. 25-142, which will:

Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25-48, by and between the City of San Clemente and Milliman, Inc., providing for Defined Benefit Administration Services, in an amount not to exceed $45,000 annually, and authorize the City Manager at his discretion to exercise two (2) one-year extension options.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
11F. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE M2 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

PROGRAM (CTFP) FUNDS FOR THE POCHE BEACH WATER

RECLAMATION PROJECT
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 25-143 entitled A RESOLUTION OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE M2

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM (CTFP)
FUNDS FOR THE POCHE BEACH WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
11G. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL OF RED CURB AT THE DRIVEWAY OF 2470 SOUTH OLA VISTA,

AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES, 14 CCR SECTION 15301) OF THE STATE CEQA

GUIDELINES
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to:

Adopt Resolution No. 25-144, which will:

1. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

232
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025

2. Approve the red curb modification as illustrated in Attachment 1 of the Administrative Report dated September 16, 2025, and on file with the City Clerk.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

12. Oral Communications (Part 2)
Amanda Quintanilla spoke on City Staff honoring 9/11 first responders with the day of service.

Tony Rubolino commented on the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

13. Future Agenda Items
Cars and Coffee Conditional Use Permit
Councilmember Loeffler, with the support of Councilmember Wu and Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, agendized review of the Cars and Coffee Conditional Use Permit at the Outlets at San Clemente.

Fire Mitigation Activities
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, with the support of Councilmember Wu and Councilmember Cabral, directed staff to provide a memo to the City Council concerning scheduled fire mitigation activities in the City.

E-Bike Licensing
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, with the support of Councilmember Loeffler, directed the Community Safety and Welfare Committee to research feasibility of e-bike licensing and provide a recommendation to the City Council.

Affordable Housing and Housing Element Update
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, with the support of Councilmember Wu and Councilmember Loeffler, directed staff to provide an update on affordable housing and the housing element.

Councilmember Wu's Brown Act Violation
Councilmember Cabral, with the support of Councilmember Wu, agendized and directed the City Manager to write an Administrative Report concerning waiving privilege regarding Councilmember Wu's Brown Act violation.

233
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025

14. Reports
A. City Attorney
Announced that her firm, Burke, Williams and Sorensen, was a sponsor for the Pet Project Foundation's Gala on September 14, 2025.

B. City Manager
None.

15. Adjournment
Motion by Mayor Knoblock, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 5-0, to adjourn at 11:35 p.m. in memory of Charlie Kirk. The next Regular Meeting will be held on October 7, 2025. Closed Session will begin at 4:30 p.m.The Business Meeting will commence at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at City Hall Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
_______________________________
MAYOR of the City of
San Clemente, California
_______________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California

234
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (1)
Submitted By: Choose an item.

Prepared By:

Subject:
..titl e
DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 23, 2025 ..body Fiscal Impact:

Summary:

Background:

Council Options:

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
..end
Attachment:

Notification:
235

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE

DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
JULY 23, 2025
Subcommittee Members Present: Chair M. Steven Camp, and Committee Members Cameron Cosgrove and Scott
McKhann
Subcommittee Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: City Planner, Jonathan Lightfoot
Chair Camp called to order the Design Review Sub-Committee Regular Meeting for City of San Clemente at 3:00 p.m. on July 23, 2025.

1. MINUTES
A. Review and file minutes of the Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) Special Meeting on June 25, 2025.

There being no changes to the June 25, 2025 Special Meeting of DRSC, Committee Member Cosgrove moved to approve the Minutes. Committee Chair Camp seconded the motion, and the Motion carried 2-0-1, Committee Member McKhann abstained.

2. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

A. A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-306, Miramar Event Center and Restaurants: Applicant Initiated Modifications to Theater Interior Design and Exterior Site Walls
An applicant request to amend a previously approved project to modify the interior design of the theater building and the exterior site walls near the intersection of El Camino Real and Boca de la Playa. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2017 via resolution PC 17-017.

City Planner Lightfoot proceeded to summarize a presentation that focused on the modifications from the approved plans titled, “Miramar Theater Revision” that is available by contacting the Planning Division. The interior changes consisted of:
• Adding a bridal staircase.
• Demising curtains near the theater stage area
• Moorish arches along the theater walls with frescos elements Exterior changes being requested include:
236
Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes July 23, 2025 Page 2 • Continuation of the block wall around courtyard closer to the El Camino Real frontage.
• A gate under a trellis to provide direct entry from the El Camino Real sidewalk.
• Elimination of the stairs and handicap ramp entry near the intersection of El Camino Real and Boca de la Playa. A new accessible entrance is proposed further north along the El Camino Real frontage. • A public facing fountain (with an inward seat wall) at the east corner of the property surrounded by a low stucco wall topped with iron pickets that provide partial visibility into the site.
• During events, wood doors that are interior of the iron pickets would be closed to limit traffic noise and visibility.
• Replacement of one of the courtyard fountains with a faux fireplace.

City Planner Lightfoot further explained that any outdoor activities that are amplified will require a Minor Conditional Use Permit approved by the Zoning Administrator, and introduced the applicants Aaron Leshtz, architect with Aha Studio, and Tory Stevens with Wedgewood Weddings as the tenant.

Interior Changes highlight:
• Added bridal staircase connecting to the addition area. • Demising curtains near the theater stage area.
• Moorish arches along the theater walls.
• Staff is reviewing egress calculations.
• The bridal staircase will provide direct access into the main room for the bride.
• The 2017 approved floor plan had a hallway that extended but didn't include any offices for tenant use.
• The demising curtains would run before the first large box beams on the ceiling.
• The curtains would typically be withdrawn to the corners. • There are three structural supports for the curtain.
• The Moorish arches would involve a small furring of the wall, increasing in thickness towards the ceiling.
• The goal is to give a cathedral element as opposed to just the right angle at the top of the wall.
• Potential relocation of fresco elements to the top of the arch.

City Planner Lightfoot further explained that any outdoor activities that are amplified will require a Minor Conditional Use Permit approved by the Zoning Administrator, and introduced the applicants Aaron Leshtz, architect with Aha Studio, and Tory Stevens with Wedgewood Weddings as the tenant.

Mr. Stevens stated that he was satisfied with City Planner Lightfoot’s presentation is prepared to answer any questions. City Planner Lightfoot answered Chair Camp’s request for a building status stating that progress was moving along and why it is now necessary to address the modifications. Chair Camp confirmed that 237
Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes July 23, 2025 Page 3 the purpose of the interior “shell” is to make modifications to fit the needs of the tenant’s operations, while in maintaining the historical resource’s integrity.

Topics of discussion between the design team, future tenant, committee and staff highlighted the following:
• Recent site visits and the need for a decision on tenant improvements to advance the progress of project construction.
• Committee’s recognition of historic significance of the site, location is a gateway to the city, and the visuals are more important than they might typically be elsewhere.
• Wedgewood and Aaha Studio aim to bring the building back to its prestige and activate its use, while being sensitive to the history of the building. • Reason for the modifications: The initial proposed patio area doesn't work for Wedgewood due to noise, visibility to private events, and space limitations; and the approved option limited the ability to have an outdoor ceremony or cocktail hour event. Further, the proposed enclosure with a fountain aims to activate the corner from a public perspective; and the gates would be open 80-85% of the time when events are not active. • Event operations: There is only one function at a time, either indoor or outdoor; the parking provided is sufficient because there is only one event at a time; and Wedgewood is aware that they don't have amplified sound approval.
• Interior changes and rationale: The drapery is to hide preset tables during ceremonies and then open up for banquets; the curtain will only be closed when there are preset tables; the hallway is intended to allow people to access the restrooms without disrupting the event.
• Restroom access: Within the non-historic footprint, staff previously approved a modification to the layout of the new hallway, restrooms, and staff offices.
• Previous Approvals and Changes: A revision was already approved for the restroom and office changes; the current proposal abandons the potential use of the property for a traditional theater, but still aligns with the 2017 approval which allowed for the space to be used as an events center (e.g. wedding venue/performing arts space/theater/etc).
• Stage and Curtain Clarification: The current construction does not include a stage; the demising curtain and its structure are independent of the building structure and can be removed; tables are stacked when not in use; and the curtains will likely only be closed for about two hours during a wedding ceremony.
• Architectural Details: Enhanced the space with arches, referencing the existing arches; the plan is to reinstate a plaster wainscoting between the arches, referencing historical photos; the lighting will replicate historic fixtures; and to add scale to the space and break up the large plane.

PUBLIC SPEAKERS:

Larry Culbertson, Historical Society representative and resident expressed opposition to the requested changes and recommended a historic preservation specialist review and that the item be referred to a Planning Commission hearing. 238
Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes July 23, 2025 Page 4 Wayne Eggleston, former city council member and planning commissioner, stated he collaborated with previous owner on conceptual plan, expressed concerns with changes and recommended the public be more involved.

Tom Marshall, board member for Cabrillo Playhouse expressed concerns about the outdoor entertainment and amplified sound, and the subcommittee responded that those activities would require a public hearing.

Linda Sadeghi, owner of Casino, asked operational questions and expressed concerns about competing wedding venues as it relates to parking, noise and safety for pedestrians, impacts on the building’s floors with frequent events on the same day and deliveries.

Applicant Mr. Stevens responded to the speakers’ comments stating that Wedgewood was not yet onsite and is not responsible for construction. Mr.

Stevens offered to connect their Vice President of Operations with Ms. Sadeghi through City Planner Lightfoot to discuss her operational questions and stated that Wedgewood’s aim is to be a partner in the community that helps other businesses.

The Subcommittee asked Ms. Sadeghi about amplified sound, which she stated that the Casino sometimes uses amplified sound for approximately twenty minutes for ceremonies or with Special Activities Permit. Otherwise, amplified sound is allowed indoors until 1:00 p.m. per the Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Discussions continued that highlighted:
• Flow of events between an indoor vs. outdoor ceremony. • Occupancy load for the different types of events and how occupancy is calculated.
• The Moorish arches.
• Outdoor wedding lighting.
• The main entry gate, fountain and fireplace.
• Enclosing the patio and visibility impacts of exterior architectural design elements may be enhanced with the use of more wrought iron panels in the fencing.
• The theater entrance and design related to the doors and tower, and the rotated entry.
• Disappointment of the theater not being used for performing arts but understanding of the needs of the tenant were expressed. • New and original design elements and rationale for changes. • Alternative design ideas and historical context relating to the enclosed patio.
• Functionality related to operational advances of the new side entrance as it related to transient population and unwanted interactions during weddings and events if too accessible.
• Compromise is needed given the significant investment to preserve the building despite challenges in balancing the need for a functional and safe space that is attractive and compatible with the neighborhood. 239
Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes July 23, 2025 Page 5 • Whether retaining a historic preservation consultant is appropriate for the scope of work proposed.
• Interior design regarding the wainscotting, fresco designs, painted wood floors, the area behind the linen curtains, and solutions to acoustic issues. • Location for deliveries and coordination with neighbors. • Existing stairs, the sidewalk, the building egress, line of sight impacts of a wall, support for securing the space and staff evaluations.

Summary of DRSC feedback:

The DRSC acknowledged the interest in maintaining at least partial visibility into the sight, although there was not consensus on the degree of openness that was appropriate. They did agree that site security was a concern and supported some form of perimeter enclosure. The Subcommittee did not express concerns with the requested interior modifications.

3. NEW BUSINESS
None.

4. OLD BUSINESS
None.

5. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.

6. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned to the next Regular Design Review Subcommittee meeting on August 13, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., San Clemente City Hall, First Floor Community Room, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA.

Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
M. Steven Camp, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
240
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (2)
Submitted By: Choose an item.

Prepared By:

Subject:
..titl e
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2025. ..body
Fiscal Impact:

Summary:

Background:

Council Options:

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
..end
Attachment:

Notification:
241

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 2025 @ 6:00 p.m.

San Clemente City Hall Council Chamber
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org

1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Camp called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:04 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City’s YouTube Channel.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner McCaughan led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Gary P. McCaughan, M.D., Scott McKhann; Karen PrescottLoeffler; Brett Freeman; Patrick Griffin; Vice Chair M. Steven Camp; Chair Cameron Cosgrove (arrived at 8:15 p.m.)
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
David Carrillo, Associate Planner
John Ciampa, Contract Planner
Zachary Ponsen, Assistant City Engineer
Ryan Kim, Senior Civil Engineer
Gena Burns, Deputy City Attorney
Tamara Tatich, Recording Secretary
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.

5. MINUTES
A. Receive and file Minutes from Study Session of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 6, 2025.
242
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 2

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN, SECONDED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, AND CARRIED 5-0-1, COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN ABSTAINED,

CHAIR COSGROVE ABSENT, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF AUGUST 6, 2025.

B. Receive and file Minutes from Planning Commission Regular Meeting of August 6, 2025.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, AND CARRIED 5-0-1, COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN

ABSTAINED, CHAIR COSGROVE ABSENT, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 2025.

6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.

REORGANIZATION OF AGENDA

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, SECONDED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, AND CARRIED 6-0, CHAIR COSGROVE ABSENT, TO CONSIDER NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 9A AND 9B PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8A AND 8B ON THE AGENDA. PLEASE REFERENCE PAGE 8-9 OF THESE MINUTES FOR THE NEW BUSINESS ITEMS SUMMARY OF ACTION.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-323, Hanson Hotel, 1801 N. El Camino Real A request for Planning Commission to consider a Development Permit (DP) 25-324 for the development of a three-story, 61 room hotel, with a third-floor rooftop restaurant and bar, two cafes, pool with a bar and restaurant, and a two-level subterranean parking structure with site improvements including walls, hardscape, landscaping, pedestrian improvements, and improvements in the City right-of-way.

A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-329 is requested for the hotel use, outdoor seating for the restaurants and cafes, amplified music, and full range alcohol service (Type 47 License) on a vacant lot at 1801 N. El Camino Real.

The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15332 (Class 32: Infill Development Projects).
243
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 3 Vice Chair Camp opened the public hearing and asked the commissioners of any ex parte communications. Vice Chair Camp, Chair Pro Tem McKhann, and commissioners Freeman, McCaughan and Prescott-Loeffler drove by or visited and are familiar with the site. Commissioner Freeman took photos.

Contract Planner John Ciampa summarized a staff report titled, “Hanson Hotel, DP25-324 & CUP25-329,” that is available by contacting the Planning Division, that included an overview; brief history; Design Review Subcommittee recommendations; feedback from the California Coastal Commission; and hotel features that cited 61 hotel rooms with 25% affordable, a rooftop restaurant and bar with alcohol service that required a CUP, two cafes, amplified music for ambiance included in the CUP with hours of operation and an acoustical study, two subterranean parking levels with 104 spaces, Spanish Colonial Revival architecture with a sensitivity to massing and scale, compatibility with the adjacent North Beach Historic District parking garage configuration, hotel and restaurant parking ratio, and pedestrian access. The presentation included view simulations with landscaping as a gateway element along Avenida Pico and El Camino Real/Pacific Coast Highway.

Staff and Commissioner discussions included enforcement, management and auditing of the affordability component; logistics of the dumpsters; and garage security.

To respond to the Commissioners’ signage questions, the applicant and architect Jorden Seagraves confirmed that the signage will be submitted at a later date.

Mr. Seagraves gave a brief applicant’s presentation that included Marblehead Coastal was a focus on the acoustic study and discussions with CR&R with respect to the trash service. The Commissioners also confirmed with Mr. Seagraves that 26 decibels (A-weighted) is described as “faint” or “very, very low.” Conceptual signage and proposed public art at the front of the garden was described by Mr.

Seagraves.

Public Comment:

Francis Engler, representative of the UniteHERE Hotel Workers Union expressed opposition for environmental concerns, and questioned the adequacy of the biological assessment and CEQA review.

City Planner Jonathan Lightfoot responded to the public comments citing the two categorical exemptions referenced in the staff report and resolution. The Class 32 CEQA infill exemption is supported by the findings of the biological and traffic studies; and city staff relies on consultants for these studies. The consultants did not identify a species of concern within their biological report.

Vice Chair Camp closed the public hearing and expressed excitement for the proposed gateway opportunity, and recalled the compelling improvements made over the three years as the project concept evolved.
244
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 4 Commissioners thanked staff, the DRSC and the applicants; and stated that the project meets the design standards, Coastal Land Use Plan policies, is sensitive to neighbors, compliments the historic district, addressed all environmental issues; and the Findings can be met including relying on the two CEQA exemptions.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, AND CARRIED 6-0, CHAIR COSGROVE ABSENT, TO

DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA AND ADOPT RESOLUTION PC25-013 APPROVING DISCRETIONARY PERMIT 25-324 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-329, HANSON HOTEL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITOINS OF APPROVAL.

IT WAS REQUESTED BY VICE CHAIR CAMP TO RECESS AT 8:01.

Chair Cosgrove arrived at 8:15 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:21 p.m. with all Planner Commissions Present.

B. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-214, Luminar Business Park, 1000 Calle Cordillera
A request for the Planning Commission to consider a Tentative Tract Map (TMP) 25-225, Development Permit (DP) 25-224, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-223 and Discretionary Sign Permit (DSP) 25-263 to develop a new light industrial business park complex with eleven new buildings on vacant land, in conjunction with a Master Sign Program, and a Tentative Tract Map for a land and condominium subdivision, to allow for individual ownership of each building and/or each industrial suite. A 30-foot easement for public access, public utility, and storm drain purposes will be partially abandoned.

The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162 (Subsequent review of Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declarations) and §15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning).

Chair Cosgrove asked the commissioners of any ex parte communications. Vice Chair Camp disclosed a meeting with the landscape architect and the DRSC process, and Chair Pro Tem McKhann stated he visited and is familiar with the site.

Chair Cosgrove opened the public hearing.

Associate Planner David Carrillo summarized a staff report titled, “Luminar Business Park, DP25-224/CUP25-223/TTM25-225,” that is available by contacting the Planning Division. The report for a new industrial complex in the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan consisting of eleven buildings and 487 parking spaces included zoning, land use, the site plan, tentative tract map details for a land and condominium subdivision, design and architecture, the master sign program, a 245
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 5 drought tolerant landscape plan, and noted that the project is consistent and in compliance with policies and standards.

Three custom Conditions of Approval were highlighted:
• 4.10: Ensures Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Management requirements are applied
• 5.7: Submit an updated Master Sign Program prior to approval of individual signs
• 7.8: Property manager to maintain an updated parking table to ensure parking compliance.

An errata of corrections to the published staff report and resolution was handed to the Commissioners:
• “Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association” should read “Amanecer Maintenance District HOA” on the last paragraph of page 7 in the staff report; and
• Remove references to fuel modification zones in CoA 2.5 in the Resolution.

The Applicant requested a modification to CoA 1.6 to extend the expiration timeframe from 3 years to 4-6 years. Staff supports this request.

The Commission requested the staff’s position on other changes requested by the applicant (identified below), and stated staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request for 74 sq. ft. on individual tenant signs. Staff addressed the Commission’s question that CC&Rs that will be written if a subdivision is approved.

Applicant Rick Lutzky gave a virtual presentation via Zoom providing some history and the owner’s vision for the property and the unique features of the project before introducing Paul Allen, architect for Ware Malcomb. Mr. Allen gave a presentation that highlighted the inspiration of coastline, hillside and natural woodlands along the hillside, the building's facade has been carefully considered in terms of tones and colors sympathetic to the region of San Clemente. The design was inspired by the Fibonacci sequence as an ordering principle for the building facade. There are four distinct designs applied to the eleven buildings across the site to introduce variety. The presentation concluded with images of the facade, including a corner view of the amenity and a typical elevation.

Chair Cosgrove requested Mr. Lutzky to concisely address the requests for the Condition Amendments:
• Condition 1.6: Requesting an extension of the time period from 3 years to 6 years to account for market uncertainties.
• Condition 2.5(E): Requesting to work with staff to identify specific portions of the CC&Rs that require city approval, limiting approval rights to those sections. • Condition 3.14: Requesting a carve-out from the blanket easement to allow planting trees in common areas.
246
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 6 • Condition 4.10: Proposing to use option “B” for the traffic demand management program, including carpool/vanpool spaces, bicycle storage, an all-gender shower, and a transformation center.
• Condition 7.3: Requesting that commercial recreation uses be allowed to keep doors open for air circulation.

Public Comment
Rob Johnston, commercial realtor stated that his firm has been selected as the exclusive marketing team for the Luminar Business Park, highlighted the facilities and benefit in expressing his support for the project.

Chair Cosgrove asked for staff’s response to the Applicant’s Condition requests, as follows:
• Condition 1.6: Staff is supportive of the extension.
• Condition 2.5(E): Staff supports refining which portions of the CC&Rs need updating.
• Condition 3.14: Staff has no problem revising the Condition to eliminate the clause that prohibits trees in the common area.
• Condition 4.10: Staff generally concurs, except for subpoint “D,” where alternative “A.3.a” should be used for consistency with Zoning Ordinance Section 17.76.040.
• Condition 7.3: Staff recommends being more precise in the language to allow doors to be open for air circulation unless amplified entertainment is being used.

The Commission inquired about the shared parking and the parking process for the commercial recreation use; questioned whether business owners are able to live onsite, and staff clarified that residential uses are not proposed and any violations would be addressed by Code Compliance; clarified that the development plan is a long-term hold and rent units out; clarified color palette for the buildings, the basic color of the building is “sea salt,” a light gray-blue; there are no limits on operating hours; noise ordinance governs noise levels; sign size is in compliance; EIR is based on a 1983 EIR for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan; the project is subject to the Regional Circulation Financing Program (RCFP) impact fee for traffic, of which they are mitigating.

Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing.

Commissioners discussed the modifications for the Conditions of Approval and best method to facilitate those changes to enable adopting a Resolution. The Commission made the required Findings regarding the Development Permit, Zoning, Conditional Use Permit, Discretionary Sign Permit, and Tentative Tract Map. The Findings include consistency with the General Plan, Compliance with Zoning Regulations and City Design Guidelines, and no detriment to health, safety, and welfare. The Commission made the necessary Findings, with specific considerations for signage (subject to the 64 sq ft limit). 247
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 7 The Commission provided staff with the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval to be presented to the City Council as a recommendation by the Planning Commission:
• Condition 1.6: Revise to allow a 6-year time frame instead of 3-years. • Condition 2.5: Leave as is, and applicant can make their request for changes to the CC&R’s to the City Council.
• Condition 3.14: No changes needed; leave as drafted.
• Condition 4.10: Alternative “A.3.a” from Zoning Ordinance Section 17.76.040 should be used for consistency with code.
• Condition 7.3: All commercial recreation activities are to occur indoors, with doors and windows closed during amplified sound.
• Augment Condition 5.7: Add language limiting each tenant to 64 square feet of signage, with no individual sign exceeding 64 feet.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, SECONDED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, AND CARRIED 7-0, TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER GUIDELINES §15162 AND §15183, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION PC25-012 012 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-224, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-223, DISCRETIONARY SIGN PERMIT 25-263, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-225 FOR

LUMINAR BUSINESS PARK, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS TO FOLLOW:
• CONDITION 1.6: REVISE TO ALLOW A 6-YEAR TIME FRAME INSTEAD OF 3- YEARS.
• CONDITION 2.5: LEAVE AS IS, AND APPLICANT CAN MAKE THEIR REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE CC&R’S TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
• CONDITION 3.14: NO CHANGES NEEDED.
• CONDITION 4.10:

O A: MODIFY LANGUAGE TO STATE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE 22 PARKING SPACES FOR CARPOOL VEHICLES AND 4 SPACES FOR
VANPOOL VEHICLES.

O B: APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE BICYCLE PARKING CONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE SECTION 51064,
REQUIRING APPROXIMATELY 22 SHORT-TERM AND 22 LONG-TERM
BICYCLE PARKING SPACES.

O C: THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE ONE ALL-GENDER SHOWER
FACILITY.

O D: A COMMUTER INFORMATION AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED,

OFFERING EMPLOYEES INFORMATION ON TRANSPORTATION
ALTERNATIVES.
• CONDITION 7.3: ALL COMMERCIAL RECREATION ACTIVITIES ARE TO

OCCUR INDOORS, WITH DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED DURING
AMPLIFIED SOUND.
248
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 8 • AUGMENT CONDITION 5.7: ADD LANGUAGE LIMITING EACH TENANT TO 64 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE, WITH NO INDIVIDUAL SIGN EXCEEDING 64 FEET.

9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Modification of Red Curb at 2470 South Ola Vista
Assistant City Engineer Zachary Ponsen and Senior Civil Engineer Ryan Kim summarized a staff report titled, “Red Curb Modification at 2470 South Ola Vista,” that is available by contacting the Planning Division. The request made by the property owner is unique in that red curbs are not for private drive approaches; however, the street is a local collector with speeds close to 30 mph, the street is a statewide bike route, and the street curve is over 90 degrees making it difficult for the residents to exit driveway due to limited backup distance and obstructed view of bike lane. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to find the project exempt to CEQA and to approve a recommendation to proceed to City Council for approval.

Vice Chair Camp opened the public hearing and asked the commissioners of any ex parte communications. Commissioners Freeman and Prescott-Loeffler both visited the site and took photos.

Commissioner discussions included how many parking spaces would be impacted, setting precedent, history of the existing bus stop with red curbing and public safety.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN, AND CARRIED 5-1, COMMISSIONER FREEMAN OPPOSED, CHAIR

COSGROVE ABSENT, TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES, 14 CCR §15301.K), AND TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS AT 2470 SOUTH OLA VISTA:

1. INSTALL A 64-FOOT RED CURB ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 2470 SOUTH OLA VISTA.

2. REMOVE THE EXISTING PARKING STALL MARKINGS WITHIN THE PROPOSED RED CURB AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.

3. REMOVE THE EXISTING 82-FOOT RED CURB LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 2470 SOUTH OLA VISTA.

4. INSTALL PARKING STALL MARKINGS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PARKING SPACES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.

B. Red Curb Installation at the Calle De Soto and Calle Nina Intersection Assistant City Engineer Zachary Ponsen and Senior Civil Engineer Ryan Kim summarized a staff report titled, “Installation of Red Curb Modification at on Calle De Soto,” that is available by contacting the Planning Division. A complaint from a 249
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 9 resident on Calle Nina stating large trucks parking near the intersection of Calle De Soto and impacted line of sight to turn safely.

A summary of Staff’s analysis highlighted the streets are residential with some cutthrough traffic on Calle De Soto from Avenida Salvador; no accidents have been reported in the area; residents on the inside of the turn are not requesting red curbs; centerline striping exists, and the red parking aligns with it; this is a narrow street, with a centerline; the center line was added a few years ago to guide people on what side of the street to be at on at that intersection.

Staff received six emails in opposition of installing red curbs stating a significant loss of parking, only about 35 feet of the 70-foot area can theoretically be used for parking, a compromise could be to narrow the red curb to 20 feet, which would eliminate one parking space, complaints also mentioned commercial cars parking in the area, fear that moving cars will shift parking problems to in front of their houses or driveways.

Vice Chair Camp opened the public hearing and asked the commissioners of any ex parte communications. Commissioners Freeman and Prescott-Loeffler both visited the site and took photos.

Commissioners’ discussions with staff identified that parking is allowed on both sides of Calle De Soto, and along the green belt area except for where a fire hydrant is located; parking is not allowed past a stop sign on a radius; that a new California Law prohibits parking within 20 feet of an intersection, and that the law was intended for pedestrians rather than line of sight cars; and cars are being parked close to the intersection.

Public Comments:

Marie Denison, resident on Calle De Soto spoke in opposition of red curbing and that the neighbors stated no issues as suggested by the six letters of opposition submitted to the Commissioners.

A summary of the Commissioner’s discussions included parking enforcement; and projected impacts of red curbing on parking, liability and ambiguous new law led the Commission to not unanimously support the red curbing.

Deputy Attorney Gena Burns suggested denying the recommendation, allowing the City Council to review the Minutes and agendize the item if desired.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FREEMAN, AND CARRIED 6-0, CHAIR COSGROVE ABSENT, TO DENY THE REQUEST AND NOT RECOMMEND THE RED CURB TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

10. OLD BUSINESS
None.
250
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2025 Page 10

11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Commissioner Reports
B. Tentative Future Agenda
City Planner Lightfoot announced that the next meeting may be cancelled due to the Labor Day holiday.

12. ADJOURNMENT

THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR CAMP AND CARRIED 7-0, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:14 P.M. TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD IN-PERSON ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2025, AT 6:00 P.M., AT THE SAN CLEMENTE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 910 CALLE NEGOCIO, 2
nd FLOOR, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA.

Respectfully submitted,
Cameron Cosgrove, Chair
Attest:

Jonathan Lightfoot, Secretary of the Planning Commission 251
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (3)
Submitted By: Choose an item.

Prepared By:

Subject:
..titl e
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2025. ..body
Fiscal Impact:

Summary:

Background:

Council Options:

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
..end
Attachment:

Notification:
252
Zo Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2025 Page 1

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
August 21, 2025
San Clemente City Hall First Floor
Community Room
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, California 92673

1. CALL TO ORDER
Zoning Administrator (ZA) Adam Atamian called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of San Clemente Zoning Administrator to order on August 21, 2025 at 3:01 p.m.

The meeting was held in the First Floor Community Room of City Hall, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California.

Staff Present: Adam Atamian, Zoning Administrator
Zach Rehm, Principal Planner
Araceli Mejia, Assistant Planner
Tamara Tatich, Administrative Assistant

2. MINUTES

1. Minutes from the Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting of June 4, 2025.

ZA Atamian received and filed the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of June 4, 2025.

3. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-166, Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR)25- 183, Leverich STAR, 252 W. Mariposa
A public hearing to request the Zoning Administrator approve three short term apartment rental (STAR) units within an existing fourplex at 252 W Mariposa. Units 1, 2, and 3 would be used for overnight accommodations of less than 30 days, and Unit 4 would be occupied by the on-site property manager. Units 1, 2, and 3 currently operate as short-term lodging units (STLU) outside the established STLU zone.

The Zoning Administrator will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities).

DRAFT
253
Zo Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2025 Page 2 Assistant Planner Mejia the staff report that explained the differences between a Short Term Lodging Unit (STLU) and a Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR), and summarized the operational and property details.

Principal Planner Rehm recommended a Condition of Approval on the advertising of the property:
• Condition 7.15 references on-site public noticing maximum rental occupancy.

Applicant Sheryl Leverich made a statement highlighting the following:
• Clarification that the STAR permit would become active when the current STLU permit expires.
• They feel they have set an example for how it should be done and have done it for a long time.
• They screen their guests and have many repeaters.
• Their advertising already states only two people.
• They have four off-street parking garages and do not allow guests to park in the driveways.

ZA Atamian opened the public hearing and disclosed that he drove by the property.

ZA Atamian confirmed that guests park in the garages and not on the streets. ZA Atamian stated in his research he found no history of code enforcement complaints on the existing STLU operating licenses and OCSD did not identify any major concerns about past complaints on this property. ZA Atamian observed that the applicant has a beautiful property and it is very well maintained, appreciates that the applicant has been involved in this project since the city had a vacation rental permit prior to 2016 and has been maintaining this use and compliance with the general standards of being good neighbors and being eyes on the street for the city.

ZA Atamian clarified Condition of Approval 7.19 in relation to the starting of operations for the STAR.

ZA Atamian noted that parking concerns were raised by members of the public about STLUs and STARs generally, but the comments do not seem to be the case with this property.

There being no further questions of staff or the applicants, ZA Atamian closed the public hearing.

ZA Atamian determined the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities).

Action: The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution ZA25-016 approving Short Term Apartment Rental 25-188, Leverich STAR, subject to the Conditions of Approval with the following modifications:

DRAFT
254
Zo Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2025 Page 3 • Change Condition C(3) to reflect advertising a maximum occupancy of “two” guests to replace “four.”
• Revise Condition 7.19 to state “Units 1, 2, and 3 shall not commence short term apartment rental operations until after the amortization period ends on May 17, 2026.”
• Add a new Condition 7.20 limited units 1, 2, and 3, to a maximum occupancy of two guests per unit.

2. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-160, Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR)25-174, Kropfl STAR, 140 Avenida del Reposo
A public hearing to request the Zoning Administrator approve one short term apartment rental (STAR) unit within an existing duplex at 140 Avenida del Reposo.

The upper unit, Unit 140, would be used for overnight accommodations of less than 30 days, and the lower unit, Unit 138, would be occupied by an on-site property manager. Both units 138 and 140 previously operated with Vacation Rental Permits outside the established STLU zone.

The Zoning Administrator will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities).

Assistant Planner Mejia the staff report that explained the differences between a Short Term Lodging Unit (STLU) and a Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR), and summarized the operational and property details.

At the conclusion of the staff report, Principal Planner Rehm advised ZA Atamian that the hearing notice misidentified a current STLU operating at the site, which is incorrect in that it was a previous vacation rental; and noted that through condition

7.19 staff is recommending that the applicants be allowed to operate the STLU on May 17, 2026 or when the 227 Avenida de la Grulla STLU expires, whichever is first.

ZA Atamian invited the applicants Keith, Carrie and Carson Kropfl to make a statement. The applicants highlighted they purchased in the property in 2016 and that Ms. Kropfl is an Airbnb super host with a 4.96 rating and is diligent about screening guests. Their son, Carson would become the property manager. There were letters of support presented by the applicant, a copy of which is available by contacting the Planning Division.

Neighbor, Branko Lepan was present and spoke in support of the Kropfl family operations and emphasized the high caliber of guests and positive exposure the property brings to the community.

ZA Atamian addressed an applicant’s request to begin operations earlier than May 17, 2026 by stating that the ZA cannot allow operations until the amortization period ends at 227 Avenida de la Grulla. ZA Atamian further stated that the misstatement DRAFT
255
Zo Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2025 Page 4 in the hearing notice had no bearing on the application and that the application met all the requirements of the zone. ZA Atamian acknowledged that the neighbors impacted the most have expressed their support.

ZA Atamian stated that a letter of opposition was received from Peter O’Sullivan citing concerns for illegal short term rentals, noise, reduced parking, and absent owners; however, the comments were more general and not specific to this property.

ZA Atamian determined the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities).

Action: The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution ZA25-015 approving Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR)25-174, Krofll STAR, 140 Avenida del Reposo, subject to the Conditions of Approval with the following modifications:
• Modify Condition 7.19 the Short Term Apartment Rental unit at 140 Avenida del Reposo shall not commence short term apartment rental operations until after the amortization period ends on May 17, 2026.

3. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-178, Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR)25- 188, Hawit STAR, 222 La Paloma
A public hearing to request the Zoning Administrator approve one short term apartment rental (STAR) unit within an existing duplex at 222 La Paloma. The upper unit, Unit B, would be used for overnight accommodations of less than 30 days, and the lower unit, Unit A, would be occupied by an on-site property manager. Both units 1 and 2 currently operate as short-term lodging units (STLU) outside the established STLU zone.

The Zoning Administrator will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities).

Assistant Planner Mejia the staff report that explained the differences between a Short Term Lodging Unit (STLU) and a Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR), and summarized the operational and property details.

ZA Atamian opened the public hearing and confirmed with staff that no public comments were received for this item. In reviewing the staff report, ZA Atamian requested a recess at 4:05 p.m. to allow time for staff to retrieve the correct Resolution.

The meeting reconvened at 4:15 p.m.

ZA Atamian noted that staff provided copies of the corrected Resolution to the ZA and obtained additional copies for the public.

DRAFT
256
Zo Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2025 Page 5 ZA Atamian invited the applicant, Diane Hawit to make a statement, and Ms. Hawit highlighted significant support from her neighbors and that she enjoyed hosting guests.

ZA Atamian noted that he visited the property and commended her on the maintenance of the property.

ZA Atamian stated that the garages must be used for parking rather than storage and that stacking vehicles in the driveway or on the street is not allowed by code, and stated that the project must be conditioned to use onsite parking per the code.

ZA Atamian confirmed that Ms. Hawit is the onsite property manager.

ZA Atamian stated that the Resolution that was attached to the staff report was for a different project that was heard in today’s hearing, however the general content is similar in nature and that the corrected Resolution clarifies the details of the specific application for this property.

ZA Atamian stated that there was a complaint received in 2022 for an occupant being loud on a weekday evening. However there has been nothing reported since that time and no violations reported.

Having no further questions, ZA Atamian closed the public hearing.

ZA Atamian acknowledged that the maximum occupancy is six, per the code. The property has a history of operating short term with no issues with exception of what was mentioned previously. The project is not anticipated to create any public impact, and no comments stating otherwise were received.

ZA Atamian determined the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities).

Action: The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution ZA25-017 approving Short Term Apartment Rental (STAR)25-178, Hawit STAR, 222 La Paloma, subject to the Conditions of Approval with the following modifications:
• Strike Condition 1.6(c).
• Strike Conditions 4.0, 4.15 and 4.16.
• Change 7.18 to reflect Unit “A” to replace “4.”
• Clarify in the Resolution’s second recital that Unit B is the upstairs unit and Unit A is downstairs.
• Modify Condition 7.19 Unit B shall not commence short term apartment rental operations until after the amortization period ends on May 17, 2026, or until 323 W. Mariposa ceases operation of their amortized STLU, whichever comes first.

DRAFT
257
Zo Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2025 Page 6

5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Tentative Future Agendas
ZA Atamian cited, San Clemente Municipal Code §17.12.060 Decision Process, subsection F(2) that indicates that the Zoning Administrator may refer process to decisions to the planning commission depending on level of public concern anticipated for a matter.

ZA Atamian stated that in order to make this determination, the Zoning Administrator directed the Tentative Future Agenda (TFA) be reviewed for consideration by the Zoning Administrator during the Zoning Administrator meeting to determine whether items should remain on a Zoning Administrator Agenda, or whether those items are anticipated to involve an amount of public concern significant enough to be elevated to the Planning Commission Agenda; thus, saving the public and applicants time and expense in processing discretionary applications.

Action: The Zoning Administrator motioned that a Tentative Future Agenda item be added to all future Zoning Administrator Agendas.

6. OLD BUSINESS
None.

7. ADJOURMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m. to a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Administrator, which will be held on Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department, City Hall, First Floor Community Room, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California.

Respectfully submitted,

SAN CLEMENTE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Adam Atamian, Zoning Administrator
DRAFT
258
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (4)
Submitted By: Choose an item.

Prepared By:

Subject:
..titl e
DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2025. ..body
Fiscal Impact:

Summary:

Background:

Council Options:

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
..end
Attachment:

Notification:
259

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE

DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
AUGUST 27, 2025
Subcommittee Members Present: Vice Chair Scott McKhann, Member Cameron Cosgrove, Member Brett Freeman
Subcommittee Members Absent: Chair M. Steven Camp
Staff Present: Senior Planner, Christopher Wright
Assistant Planner, Araceli Mejia
Vice Chair Cosgrove called to order the Design Review Sub-Committee Regular Meeting for City of San Clemente at 3:00 p.m. on August 27, 2025.

1. MINUTES
A. Review and file minutes of the Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) Regular Meeting on July 23, 2025.

There being no changes to the July 23, 2025 Meeting of DRSC, Vice Chair Cosgrove moved to approve the Minutes. Committee Member McKhann seconded the Motion, and the Motion carried 2-0-1, Committee Member Freeman abstained.

2. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

A. Public Hearing Project (PHP)25-307, Discretionary Sign Permit 25-337, Signage for the Miramar Event Center and Restaurants, 1700 N. Camino Real A request for signage on the historic Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley, currently being rehabilitated for use as an event venue and food hall. A Discretionary Sign Permit is required to allow a business in the Architectural Overlay to have more than 25 square feet of signage, a monument sign, and to allow channel letters with push-through face lighting.

Senior Planner Wright summarized the project, displaying the plans on the screen.

The proposed signs include a projecting sign on the tower, a monument sign fronting the intersection of Avenida Pico and N. El Camino Real, and wall sign above the food hall entrance. The monument and wall signs have cut metal letters with external illumination. As a recommendation, staff suggested adding a marquee sign to resemble what existed above the theater and asked for feedback on that idea. The marquee would have changeable letters with limited lighting to mimic the original sign or some variation that fits the Spanish district, not a digital changeable sign that isn’t allowed in the City.

DRAFT
260
Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes August 27, 2025 Page 2 Additionally, as a discussion item separate from the signage application that is the subject of the agenda item, Senior Planner Wright requested DRSC feedback on three ideas to make minor accent exterior changes to the architecture, provided the owner was supportive of the ideas, in which a separate architectural amendment would be required. These ideas include restoring a mural on the tower, adding a historic thematic mural on the alley, and restoring a cornice detail on the building. Neither the tower mural or cornice detail have been found historically significant.

The applicant’s representatives, Barbara Cohen and Steve Emery of AD/S, summarized the owner’s goals for the signs, described them in more detail, and answered questions. They stated that the owner has collaborated on the current plans so changes, such as an added marquee sign, would need to be discussed with the owner as to whether they want to make changes.

Larry Culbertson, supported the signage package, delighted that the signage is understated. He is intrigued with the idea of adding a marquee sign, and likes the idea but questioned what and how content would be changed. While the marquee is intriguing and brings that part of the building to the original look, the signage package is nicely understated so a marquee should be carefully done to complement the building. He was not in favor of restoring the mural on tower and cornice detail, given these items not being historically significant and would detract, not add, to the attractive architecture. He had some openness to a mural on the alley but more details are needed.

Chair Steven Camp, that was absent, provided written comments on the agenda item, that were summarized by Senior Planner Wright. The comments included several suggestions: 1) continue the sign panel on the projecting sign to wrap around at the top-and-bottom to adjoin the building, similar to the original sign, versus the current proposal to offset the sign panel with pin-mounted supports, 2) split the copy of “event center” so that “event” was at the top and “center” was at the bottom, similar to the original sign, and 3) shift the projecting sign upward to be more centered on the tower like the original sign.

The Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) discussed the project, and made the following comments either individually or as a group.

For the signage proposal, the subject of the agenda item:
• The projecting sign’s sizing, mounting, materials, lighting, and positioning complement the building well as-is. No changed were suggested.
• The Subcommittee has no suggested changes on the monument sign.

The sizing, placement, materials, and up-lighting usage work well for the site and sign purpose.
• For the wall sign above the food hall, the Subcommittee asked whether the letter height and sign’s size is large enough to be visible as intended. If the owner has interest in enlarging the sign, the Subcommittee is supportive of changes if the design team works with DRAFT
261
Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes August 27, 2025 Page 3 staff to ensure the sign is scaled and positioned to complement the building facade.
• The Subcommittee did not favor adding the marquee sign, questioning how content would be managed. The current sign proposal complements the building as-is. In adding a marquee, especially if sized like the original sign, the sign would occupy more wall space above the entrance, potentially detracting from the architecture. But, the Subcommittee recognized that there is no design or details presented so the feedback is conceptual at this point. If the owner wishes to pursue the idea, staff should collaborate with them to find a design and plan for the sign that could be supported.

In regards to staff’s request for input on conceptual ideas to restore the tower mural, restore the cornice detail, and add an alley mural, as a potential separate project application, the Subcommittee made the following comments:
• There was not support for restoring a mural on the tower, considering it is not historically significant based on information provided; and the architecture looks great as-is without the mural.
• The Subcommittee was open to adding a mural on the alley facing bowling alley wall, if done well and themed to highlight the historic nature of the site and district. Then, it could add interest to a stark wall. • There was not support for adding the cornice detail, stating that the architecture looks great as-is, “less is more” in that context, and that the cornice is not historically significant based on information provided.

The Subcommittee recommended for the signage to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision.

B. Public Hearing Project (PHP)25-288, Discretionary Sign Permit (DSP)25-294, Valencia Building Sign Program
A request to consider two new signs on the Valencia Building, the establishment of a new Master Sign Program, and exceed 25 square feet of signage for a business within the Architectural Overlay District.

Araceli Mejia, Assistant Planner, presented the item and gave background on the project site, explaining that a projecting sign could be an option for Sign A as well as moving one of the wall signs lower. A palm tree currently stands in front of the W Avenida Florencia façade and would cover any signage directly above the arch, so staff recommended to remove the sign option for Sign A that sits above the arch. Staff confirmed that a projecting sign could be larger than what the applicant showed on their plans. The wall sign on W Avenida Valencia should be smaller so that it could be more compatible with the mass of the tower. Staff also explained that the size of either sign would have to be in scale of the building.

The applicant, Sanjay Patel, Ryan Ybarra, and Sachin Bhakta presented their item. The applicant wants to place the wall sign on Sign A higher on the building to allow for more visibility. Sanjay prefers the wall sign on the building for Sign A rather than a projecting sign due to the logo of the restaurant set to be the tenant DRAFT
262
Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes August 27, 2025 Page 4 in the restaurant space. The applicant wants the logo with the arches to be reflective of the building and to be highlighted on the sign. The intent of the applicant is to also have the chef’s name on the sign because that is what will drive people to visit the restaurant.

No members of the public commented on this item.

The Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) discussed the project, and made the following comments either individually or as a group:
• The projecting sign would be more beneficial considering it would be more visible to customers traveling from both directions along El Camino Real. • The wall sign sizing and placement should be adjusted slightly to fit the spacing of the tower design as staff suggested. The applicant was encouraged to work with staff on changes to maximize visibility but complement the building design.

The Subcommittee supported for this item to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision.

3. NEW BUSINESS
None.

4. OLD BUSINESS
None.

5. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.

6. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned to the next Regular Design Review Subcommittee meeting on September 10, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., San Clemente City Hall, First Floor Community Room, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA.

Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Cameron Cosgrove, Vice Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Christopher Wright, Senior Planner
DRAFT
263
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (5)
Submitted By: Choose an item.

Prepared By:

Subject:
..titl e
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2025. ..body
Fiscal Impact:

Summary:

Background:

Council Options:

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
..end
Attachment:

Notification:
264

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
September 4, 2025
San Clemente City Hall
First Floor Community Room
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, California 92673

1. CALL TO ORDER
Zoning Administrator (ZA) Adam Atamian called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of San Clemente Zoning Administrator to order on September 4, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the First Floor Community Room of City Hall, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California.

Staff Present: Adam Atamian, Zoning Administrator
Zach Rehm, Principal Planner
Laura Coury, Assistant Planner
Tamara Tatich, Administrative Assistant

2. MINUTES
A. Minutes from the Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting of August 21, 2025.

ZA Atamian received and filed the minutes for the regular meeting of August 21, 2025

3. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.

4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 24-085, Coastal Abode Outdoor Display, 228 Avenida Del Mar
A public hearing to request the Zoning Administrator approve Public Hearing Project (PHP)24-085 and Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP)24-104, Coastal Abode, a request to allow an outdoor display associated with retail sales at 228 Avenida Del Mar.

The Zoning Administrator will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15303(e) (Class 3: New Accessory Structures).

Assistant Planner Coury summarized the staff report that highlighted the 1928 historic residence being converted to commercial use in 1964 with DRAFT
265
Minutes of the Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting September 4, 2025 Page 2 three parking spaces. Currently the building is a home décor, gift, furnishings and art store with displays in the front and rear of the property. Outdoor display uses have existed for many years, at times taking up required parking. The municipal code provides that no display shall occupy require parking. Staff recommended that the Zoning Administrator continue the item to October 9, 2025 Zoning Administrator meeting.

Principal Planner Rehm asked for feedback on alterantives that would allow for outdoor display and for parking to be placed either on the site or for parking to replaced.

ZA Atamian opened the public hearing and invited the applicants to make a statement. Mr. Mike Erwin spoke on behalf of owner Sabrina Lane-Erwin stating the Conditional Use Permit has never changed and fees were paid.

Assistant Planner Coury clarified that the applicant had applied for the Minor Condtional Use Permit and paid the necessary fees for the discretionary hearing, but nothing has been approved or denied at this point in the process. The business was impacted by a new neighboring restaurant.

Public parking is more affected by the restaurant parklet program than the business.

Public Comments:

Terry Murphy, Tenant and owner of Coastal Abode stated that the area in the front is available for loading and unloading of product and merchandise, and for customer access; ebikes often block the parking area; there is no need for expanding the area; and suggested reinstating the parking in the back lot that was previously employee parking and is now allocated to the neighboring restaurant.

Amanda Quinanilla, resident, expressed concern about the sublease; questioned the change of ownership; appreciates the historical resource but added the historic building is not visible due to the excessive landscaping and display; and noted that you cannot see the name of the business because it’s not visible.

Mimi Lane, former owner and mother to current owner of the property, spoke about owning historical Ole Hanson homes; the impacts of the new neighboring restaurant; San Clemente charm and concerns with newer construction; and changes in regulations.

ZA Atamian reviewed written public comments consisting of some in support of the business and many wanting revisions to the City’s parking requirements, and stated that the social media posts had been viewed but were not accepted into the record since they were not submitted directly to the Zoning Administrator.

DRAFT
266
Minutes of the Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting September 4, 2025 Page 3 ZA Atamian clarified the name on the business license, and confirmed receipt of communications from the property owner expressing concern with any physical modificaitons to the site.

Staff confirmed that the application for a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) was prompted by citations being issued to Coastal Abode for the outdoor displays.

Mr. Erwin questioned whether an easement exists for use of the public sidewalk, and ZA Atamian explained the prescriptivee easement wouldn’t apply over public right of way.

ZA Atamian asked staff about parking waiver history. Assistant Planner Coury stated that the only change in the parking requirement was when the residence converted to a commercial use, and that no history of waivers were found.

Having no further questions of staff or the applicant, ZA Atamian closed the public hearing and
ZA Atamian cited the options available for the item:
• The ZA can approve or deny the application with specific Findings; • Continue the item to October 9, 2025; or
• Refer the matter to the Planning Commission or the Cultural Heritage Subcommittee/Design Review Subcommittee.

ZA Atamian stated the amount of public interest, interpretation of what type of outdoor display is allowed, parking ratio for outdoor area, and needed modifications or mitigation should elecit a higher level of review, more specifically the the City’s Cultural Heritage Subcommittee, followed by review by the Planning Commission.

Action: The Zoning Administrator referred Public Hearing Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permit 24-085, Coastal Abode Outdoor Display, 228 Avenida Del Mar to the Planning Commission consistent with San Clemente Municipal Code §17.12.060(F)(2).

B. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 24-139, La Casa Verde de Granada Outdoor Display, 130 Avenida Granada
A public hearing to request the Zoning Administrator approve Public Hearing Project (PHP)24-139 and Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) 24-140, La Casa Verde de Granada, a request to allow an outdoor display associated with retail sales at 130 Avenida Granada.

The Zoning Administrator will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA DRAFT
267
Minutes of the Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting September 4, 2025 Page 4 Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15303(e) (Class 3:

New Accessory Structures).

Assistant Planner Coury summarized the staff report that highlighted the 1928 historic residence being converted to commercial as a preschool in 1989 and later in 2009 as a retail use offering gifts, décor, furishings and art; the owner improved the intregrity and made other imporvements over time adhereing to the Spanish Colonial Revival Design; the code requires a MCUP for accessory outdoor display; the code provides that no outdoor display shall occupy any part of the required parking area; a fire hydrant prevents additional parking.

Staff recommends continuing the idea to the October 9, 2025 Zoning Administrator meeting with guideance and code interpretation for staff and the applicant; or for the Zoning Administrator to refer the item to the Planning Commission.

ZA Atamian opened the public hearing and invited Amy Walstrom, a representative for owner Ellen Bodas to make a statement and she stated that the business has been family-owned for almost 16 years; the display on the driveway has proven effective in attracting customers; and expressed safety concerns for cars pulling in and out of the driveway.

Public Comments:

Amanda Quinanilla, resident expressed her support for the outdoor displays in the front area, and enjoyed the back area.

ZA Atamian noted the similarities between the layout of this property and the layout of the last project discussed; stated that this item also needs to be referred to the Planning Commission; and cautioned that changes ot the drive approach require a Cultural Heritage Subcommittee or and the Planning Commissions approval.

There was a discussion on specific parking spots, the required amount of parking per business, legal non-conformating uses as the associated restrictions; consideration of a parking agreement with a neighboring business; and the existence of free public parking lots on Avenida Granada.

Having no further questions of staff or the applicant, ZA Atamian closed the public hearing.

Action: The Zoning Administrator referred Public Hearing Project 24-085 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 24-140, La Casa Verde de Granada Outdoor Display, 130 Avenida Granada to the Planning Commission consistent with San Clemente Municipal Code §17.12.060(F)(2).

DRAFT
268
Minutes of the Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting September 4, 2025 Page 5

5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Tentative Future Agendas
No conflicts reported.

6. OLD BUSINESS
None.

7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. to the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Administrator, which will be held Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. at Community Development Department, City Hall, First Floor Community Room, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California.

Respectfully submitted,

SAN CLEMENTE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
_____________________________________
Adam Atamian, Zoning Administrator
DRAFT
269
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (6)
Submitted By: Choose an item.

Prepared By:

Subject:
..titl e
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 ..body Fiscal Impact:

Summary:

Background:

Council Options:

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
..end
Attachment:

Notification:
270

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 2025 @ 6:00 p.m.

San Clemente City Hall Council Chamber
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org
A. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Camp called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City’s YouTube Channel.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner McCaughan led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Gary P. McCaughan, M.D., Scott McKhann; Karen PrescottLoeffler; Brett Freeman; Patrick Griffin; Vice Chair M. Steven Camp; Chair Cameron Cosgrove
Commissioners Absent: Karen Prescott-Loeffler
Staff Present: Zach Rehm, Principal Planner
Christopher Wright, Senior Planner
Brendan Hanley, Planning Technician
Gena Burns, Deputy City Attorney
Tamara Tatich, Recording Secretary
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.

5. MINUTES
A. Receive and file Minutes from the Joint Special Meeting of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of August 17, 2025.

DRAFT
271
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 2025 Page 2

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRIFFIN, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER

PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER ABSENT, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2025.

B. Receive and file Minutes from Planning Commission Regular Meeting of August 20, 2025.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER

ABSENT, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2025.

6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-307, Discretionary Sign Permit (DSP) 25-337, Miramar Sign Program, 1700 El Camino Real
A request for the Planning Commission to approve a Master Sign Program on the historic Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley, currently being rehabilitated for use as an event venue and food hall. A Discretionary Sign Permit is required to allow a business in the Architectural Overlay to have more than 25 square feet of signage, a monument sign, and to allow channel letters with push-through face lighting.

The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and Section §15311 (Accessory Structures), for the installation of on-site signage.

Chair Cosgrove polled the commissioners for ex parte communications regarding this item. Having heard none, Chair Cosgrove opened the public meeting.

Senior Planner Wright summarized a staff presentation titled, “Signage for Miramar Events Center and Restaurants Item 8A, DSP 25-337,” that is available for public viewing by contacting the Planning Division. The presentation for the three signs being proposed by the applicant stated that the signage complements the building’s Spanish Colonial Revival architecture; the marquee sign is smaller than the original; the “Food Hall” sign was enlarged based on the DRSC recommendation; and that staff supports the proposed sign program.

DRAFT
272
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 2025 Page 3 Chair Cosgrove called upon Steve Emory with ADS, the sign fabricator and installer on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Emory shared the proposed signage is below the allowed square footage; the goal was to remain true to the existing sign; and only using LED lighting for illumination. Mr. Emory answered Commissioners’ questions on sign details that included illumination and color; that illumination could be controlled with a photocell or timer; letter color will appear black at night and brownish maroon during the day; the event center sign is LED-lit with Kelvin of 6500; monument lettering is black, set about half an inch off the wall, and up-lit from ground lighting in the landscaping.

Public Comment:

Scott Corell, neighboring resident expressed concern that the projecting sign would have light pollution impacts on his property, but was otherwise in support of the project.

Senior Planner Wright confirmed the projecting sign is proposed on front side of the building on the other side from Mr. Corell’s property to the rear. In response. Mr.

Corell noted that addressed his concerns.

Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing and expressed excitement for the proposed gateway opportunity, and recalled the compelling improvements made over the three years as the project concept evolved.

Commissioners expressed concerns with landscaping up-lighting, but agreed that an LED bar light juxtaposed to flood lighting is acceptable; suggested 4500 Kelvin for the illumination; and recommended a wider aperture for the light fixture on the gooseneck lamp illuminating the wall sign.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER

ABSENT, TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA §15311 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) AND ADOPT RESOLUTION PC25-014 APPROVING DISCRETIONARY SIGN PERMIT 25-337, MIRAMAR THEATER AND

BOWLING ALLEY, SUBJECT TO THE CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL, WITH CHANGES TO CONDITION 1.3:
• Insert “with modifications below,” following “the approved plans” • Insert “The plans will be modified to include the following: 1) the projecting sign illumination shall be adjusted to 4500 Kelvin, 2) the food hall sign shall employ a larger lamp to provide even illumination without glare, and 3) an LED light bar shall be used for the monument sign to provide broad illumination to ensure landscape does not obstruct lighting.”
DRAFT
273
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 2025 Page 4

9. NEW BUSINESS
A. SB 1425, Open Space Update
Staffs’ request for feedback on an approach to amend the General Plan in compliance with Senate Bill 1425.

Planning Technician Hanley summarized a staff report titled, “PHP 25-398, General Plan Update 25-399,” that is available for public review by contacting the Planning division. The presentation highlighted the year-end timeline for implementation; implementation strategies; supporting analysis; General Plan Amendment required Findings; Addition of the LHMP to the Safety Element to reduce hazards and improveme resiliency; and additional policies to the Coastal and Natural Resource Elements for public access and rewilding opportunities. .

The presentation concluded with staff’s request for the Commission to provide input on the implementation strategy and proposed policies, submit a Notice of Public Hearing for the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting to invite the public for their comments. The next step is for the Commission to adopt a Resolution with recommendations for an upcoming City Council meeting to approve.

10. OLD BUSINESS
None.

11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Commissioner Reports
Commissioner reported date ranges of unavailability.

Commissioner McCaughan reported on Senate Bill (SB) 79 that involves transportation zones and State Building Standards with three different definitions of transit within a specified radius. Staff will report specifics of SB 79 in a future meeting.

B. Tentative Future Agenda
A Study Session on the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Parking Study are scheduled before the October 8, 2025 meeting a 5:00 p.m. The Parking Survey is still available on the City website.

12. ADJOURNMENT

THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IT WAS MOVED

BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, SECONDED BY CHAIR COSGROVE AND CARRIED DRAFT
274
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 2025 Page 5 6-0, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER ABSENT TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:18 P.M. TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD INPERSON ON OCTOBER 8, 2025, AT 6:00 P.M., AT THE SAN CLEMENTE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 910 CALLE NEGOCIO, 2
nd FLOOR, SAN
CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA.

Respectfully submitted,
Cameron Cosgrove, Chair
Attest:

Zach Rehm, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission
DRAFT
275
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (1)
..ag endizedby
..end
Subject:
..titl e
Approve Warrant Nos.
607064 through 607193, paid on
9-12-25, in the amount of $4,256,403.21
..end
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (2)
..ag endizedby
..end
Subject:
..titl e
Approve Wire Transfer Nos.
3309 through 3315 and Warrant Nos.
607194 through 607308, paid on
9-19-25, in the amount of $1,794,554.86
..end
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: (3)
..ag endizedby
..end
Subject:
..titl e
Approve Warrant Nos.
607309 through 607423, paid on
9-26-25, in the amount of $1,059,558.21
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $7,110,516.28 ..end
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item:
..ag endizedby
..end
Subject:
..titl e
Automatic Deposit Advises 106353
through 106688, for the period
9-1-25 through 9-14-25, paid
on 9-19-25, in the amount of $575,950.32
TOTAL PAYROLL REGISTER $575,950.32 ..end
309
310
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11D.
311
Attachment 1
4912-8790-3335 v1
ORDINANCE NO. 1795

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL
SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH NO. 1995091037) PURSUANT

TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT AND APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT ZA25-
362 TO AMEND SECTION 502(V)(D) OF THE

MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW

A HOTEL WITH THE SAME HEIGHT EXCEPTION

GRANTED TO THE THEATER, FOR A MAXIMUM
BUILDING HEIGHT OF 55 FEET TO THE PLATE LINE
AND 62 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR

HIGHEST PROJECTION
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) (State Clearing House (SCH) No. 1995091037); and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 95-01, Specific Plan 95-02, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 8817, Site Plan Permit (SPP) 97-16, and a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the City Council approved Site Plan Permit 99-16, Conditional Use Permit 99-17, and Sign Exception Permit 99-18, revising the commercial portion of the project to consist of 700,140 gross square feet of commercial uses, including 443,860 SF of specialty retail, 176,232 SF of entertainment, and 80,048 SF of general retail; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) conditionally approved the Marblehead Coastal project, while acknowledging that most, but not all, of the property lies within the Coastal Zone. Land outside of the Coastal Zone, including the subject site (Building 15), does not fall under CCC jurisdiction. The plan approved by the CCC incorporated conditions that preserved additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas, set development back from preserved areas, required substantial restoration and enhancement of degraded open space, reduced the number of residential lots from 424 to 313, and approved 141,500 square feet of commercial space within the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the City Council approved an Amendment to TTM 8817 to reconcile differences between the CCC approval and the City’s prior approval; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-61, which certified Addendum No. 5 to FEIR 95-01 and approved an amendment to commercial Site 312
Ordinance No. 1795 Page 2
4912-8790-3335 v1
Plan Permit 99-16, including the addition of a hotel and conference center; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-085, which, among other things, directed staff to initiate an amendment to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan and carry out required environmental review to establish an additional height exception for the hotel building on the Outlets property consistent with height allowances for the other landmark structures, the theater building, clock tower, and the parking structure.

Resolution 25-085 further directed that the proposed amendment bypass the Planning Commission review process and be brought directly to the City Council for consideration and action; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance (Ordinance) amends Section 502 (V)(D) within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) to effectuate the Project and the Council’s directives on the same; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente has prepared Addendum No. 6 to the certified MCSP FEIR to evaluate the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) through Zoning Amendment ZA25-362, which would designate the hotel as eligible for the same maximum height exception currently provided for the theater, clock tower, and parking structure; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, the City as Lead Agency has determined that the proposed modification would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the certified FEIR, and no new information has been disclosed indicating the potential for new or more severe impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City has further determined that the Addendum demonstrates consistency with the Centennial General Plan, including policies that encourage visitorserving lodging near freeway interchanges, preserve public view corridors, and ensure compatibility with community character.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as fully set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that:

A. As demonstrated in the analysis of Addendum No. 6 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (SCH No. 1995091037), the proposed modification would not result in new significant environmental effects.

B. The proposed modification would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects.
313
Ordinance No. 1795 Page 3
4912-8790-3335 v1
C. No new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final Environmental Impact Report was certified as complete, has become available that shows the potential for any new or more severe impacts than those already analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

D. No new mitigation measures or alternatives are required.

E. An Addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

SECTION 3. Certification of Addendum No. 6. The City Council hereby certifies Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 1995091037).

SECTION 4. Based on the findings in the addendum and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required for the proposed modifications.

SECTION 5. Specific Plan Amendment Findings. With respect to ZA 25-362, the City Council finds the following with respect to the amendment to the MCSP in accordance with the required findings enumerated within SCMC 17.16.030(G):

A. The proposed specific plan or specific plan amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan, in that:

1. The General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element identify public views as resources of community importance, and Policy UD-2.05 and Policy UD-5.14 require new construction and building design to preserve designated public view corridors. The proposed hotel height exception does not alter public view corridors from West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, Camino Capistrano, or the El Camino Real Bluff trail, which remain the focus of the MCSP’s designated vista points. While some private views from inland neighborhoods may experience obstruction, the Final EIR’s aesthetics analysis prioritized public views, which remains consistent with City policies to preserve public view corridors.

2. The proposed height exception would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation, as described in the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element, and the modification would not alter a public view corridor.

3. The proposed modification would also remain consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Mobility and Complete Streets Element requiring new development to maintain adequate circulation and multimodal access (e.g., Policy M-1.01, M-1.19, M-1.25).

4. Development of an approved hotel utilizing the height exception would remain subject to the City’s standard noise control ordinances (i.e., San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 8.48), as well as General Plan Safety Element policies to control ambient and stationary noise 314
Ordinance No. 1795 Page 4
4912-8790-3335 v1
conditions, including entertainment-related noise on residential and other sensitive uses (i.e., Policy S-4.01 and Policy S-4.08) B. The uses proposed in the specific plan or specific plan amendment are compatible with adjacent uses and properties, in that:

1. No changes of use are proposed.

2. Hotels are an existing conditionally permitted use within the MCSP.

C. The proposed specific plan or specific plan amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare, in that:

1. Modification of MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) to allow the hotel (Approved Site Plan Building 15) to be permitted with an exception to the maximum building height, similar to the theater, would not result in any new or more severe significant Land Use impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR.

2. The proposed modification would stay consistent with the purpose and intended use of the Regional Commercial designation. The modification would not conflict with any of the goals and objectives of the MCSP. The additional proposed height for the hotel would be the same as the current allowable exception for a theater and clocktower.

This additional exception would support the City’s intent of having a theater and hotel as the landmark features of the MCSP’s regional commercial center.

3. Construction of the approved hotel under the proposed modification would continue to be subject to the City’s updated policies intended to minimize noise exposure. The project would not create any new significant noise impacts and would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts presented in the Final EIR.

4. The height exception for the hotel structure would not create any significant new aesthetic resource impacts or significant changes to the impact conclusions presented in the Final EIR. Impacts to viewsheds from the height exception would be of equivalent magnitude to those identified in the Final EIR.

D. The proposed specific plan amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the specific plan, in that:

1. Only MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) is being amended, and there are no further references to MCSP Regional Commercial development standards that would conflict with this Section.

SECTION 6. Approval of Zoning Amendment ZA25-362. The City Council hereby approves Zoning Amendment ZA25-362 to amend MCSP Section 502(V)(D) to read as follows (new text bolded and underlined):
“D. Maximum Height – The maximum height to the top of the roof or highest projection shall be 45 feet. The maximum average height to the plate line of a building shall be 37 feet. Exceptions to this maximum building height are permitted for a hotel [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 15], theater [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 22], and parking structure in the entertainment portion of the regional commercial center. The maximum average height to the plate line of a parking structure shall be 40 feet and to the plate line of a hotel and theater shall be 55 feet. The maximum height to the highest 315
Ordinance No. 1795 Page 5
4912-8790-3335 v1
projection of an architectural feature for a hotel, theater or clock tower is 62 feet.” SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not offset the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause the same to be published as required by law, and the same shall take effect as provided by law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______.

ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the
San Clemente, California City of San Clemente, California 316
Ordinance No. 1795 Page 6
4912-8790-3335 v1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, hereby certify that Ordinance No. 1795 having been regularly introduced at the meeting of _______________________, was again introduced, the reading in full thereof unanimously waived, and duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _____day of _____________, _______, and said ordinance was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
317
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11E.

Submitted By: Beaches, Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks & Recreation Director Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 25-152, APPROVING THE BEACHES, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FY 2025-26 WORK PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..body RELATED THERETO Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the creation of a Commission work plan. Staff would return to the City Council with appropriate budget approvals and additional recommendations before project implementation, as needed.

Summary:

At its August 26, 2025, regular adjourned meeting, the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission (“BPR”) reviewed and discussed potential projects and subject matters that could support the objectives of the Commission. The BPR Commission unanimously supported the work plan proposed in Attachment 1, Exhibit A, and summarized below.

Background:

The BPR Commission recommends the following items for approval on its work plan:

1. BPR Cost of Services Study

2. Playground Designs at Talega Park and Forster Ranch Community Park

3. New Dog Park Location and Design Review

4. Review of the design of the fields at Vista Hermosa Sports Park Meadows

5. Establish a subcommittee to partner with the North Beach Community Association

6. Review of parking experience at paid meters in the beach area(s)

7. Explore signage for “Sandcastles 4 Sloan” Initiative Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 25-152, which will approve the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission 2025-26 Work Plan and make findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
318
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11E.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
 Modify the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission 2025-26 Work Plan by either (a) removing proposed items or (b) adding items; and adopt Resolution No. 25-152.  Continue the item with further direction provided to staff and the Commission.  Deny the Work Plan.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Staff recommendations for findings under CEQA with respect to the items on the Committee Work Plan are summarized in the table below:

Work Plan Item Environmental Findings
BPR Cost of Services Study Preparation of a financial cost recovery and fee study is an administrative and fiscal activity that has no potential for environmental effect. This is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).

Playground Designs at Talega
Park and Forster Ranch
Community Park
Replacement of existing playgrounds and associated
design work involves improvements to existing public
facilities with negligible or no expansion of use. This activity is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301
(Existing Facilities).

New Dog Park Location and
Design Review
Evaluation of potential locations and conceptual design review for a new dog park is a feasibility and planning activity. This is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies). Any future
approval of a specific dog park site will require separate CEQA review.

Review of the design of the
fields at Vista Hermosa Sports
Park Meadows
Reviewing and evaluating potential design adjustments is a planning and feasibility activity and does not commit the City to a specific project. This is exempt under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15262. Any construction or redesign
will be subject to CEQA review at the appropriate time.

Establish a subcommittee to
partner with the North Beach
Community Association
The formation of a subcommittee to engage with a
community group is an organizational and administrative activity with no potential environmental impact. This is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

Review of parking experience
at paid meters in the beach
area(s)
Reviewing parking operations and user experience is a
policy and administrative study with no potential for direct or indirect physical changes. This is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

Explore signage for
“Sandcastles 4 Sloan”
Initiative
Exploration of signage opportunities is an administrative and planning activity. This is exempt under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning
Studies). Any future installation of signage will be subject to CEQA review at the appropriate time.
319
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11E.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff and the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-152, which would:

1. Make findings under the California Environmental Quality Act as to the items on the work plan; and

2. Approve the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission 2025-26 Work Plan. ..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 25-152
Notification:

Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission
320
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-152

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE BEACHES, PARKS &
RECREATION COMMISSION FY 2025-26 WORK PLAN AND

MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission is established to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to parks, beaches, recreation, parkways, street trees; and
WHEREAS, the San Clemente Municipal Code § 2.28.020(d) requires that the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission develop an annual work plan with specific goals and objectives for the coming year and submit it to the City Council for approval each year; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2025, the Beaches, Parks and Recreation Commission held an adjourned regular meeting to review and recommend approval of seven items to be included in its FY 2025-26 Work Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. Based on its review of the record as a whole, the items in the Beaches, Parks, and Recreation Commission Annual Work Plan are hereby determined to be not a project or exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as follows: the BPR Cost of Services Study, Review of Parking Experience at Paid Meters, and Establishment of a Subcommittee to Partner with the North Beach Community Association are not projects under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b); the Playground Designs at Talega Park and Forster Ranch Community Park are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities); and the New Dog Park Location and Design Review, Review of the Design of the Fields at Vista Hermosa Sports Park Meadows, Exploration of Signage for the “Sandcastles 4 Sloan” Initiative, and Development of a Long-term beach sand policy are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies). Any future projects identified in the Work Plan that may result in a physical change to the environment will be subject to separate CEQA review at the appropriate time.

SECTION 3. The Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission FY 2025-26 Work Plan shall consist of all items incorporated and included in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated fully herein.

SECTION 4. The Commission may review all additional items that require consideration through the course of the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Department’s routine functions, including but not limited to, fee waiver requests, partnership applications, and items directed for further 321
Resolution No. 25-152 Page 2
consideration of the Commission by vote of the Council.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______.

ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the City of San Clemente, California San Clemente, California
322
Resolution No. 25-152 Page 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-152 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
323
Exhibit “A”

ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Beaches, Parks, and Recreation Commission
FY 2025-2026
Project Name: (No. 1) Cost of services study review for the use of beaches, parks, and recreation facilities Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Update Recreation Fee Schedule to ensure adequate cost recovery of all parks and recreation services, including programs, events, facilities, and permits; Fees for Beaches, Parks, and Recreation facility rentals and services were last updated and approved in 2015. This project seeks to better align existing fees for facility rentals and services with industry standards and comparable agencies, as well as implement new fees that are relevant to current operations. Updated fee structures will likely deliver increased revenue; Final recommendations will be presented to the City Council for adoption.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? $40,000 included in City Budget Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): July 2024 – November 2025 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Staff hours
Is this a new project or an unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? Unfinished Project Name: (No. 2) Review of concept designs for the playground replacement projects at Forster Ranch Community Park and Talega Park.

Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Engage with the community to support the replacement of two playgrounds at City parks. These two playgrounds have been identified as the top replacement needs. Staff will work with the Commission to listen to public feedback to determine the best structures and surfacing. Final designs will be forwarded to the Council for the award of the contract and approval.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? $800,000 included in City Budget Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): June 2026 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Staff hours
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? Unfinished 324
Exhibit “A”

ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Arts and Culture Committee
FY 2025-2026
Project Name: (No. 3) Participation in and review of the conceptual designs for one new dog park.

Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

The Commission will review the conceptual designs for the new dog parks at the subject matter park sites. It will evaluate the layouts, amenities, and safety features. The review will ensure that the designs meet community expectations, promote safe and enjoyable environments for dogs and their owners, and optimize the use of space while maintaining harmony with the existing park facilities.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? $120,000 included in City Budget Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): December 2025 – May 2026 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Staff hours
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? Unfinished Project Name: (No. 4) Consideration and review of the designs of the meadow field space at Vista Hermosa Sports Park Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Provide the Commission with a comprehensive review of the designs for the Meadows field space at VHSP. The review will focus on assessing the conversion of the space into soccer fields, ensuring that the designs align with community needs, safety standards, and best practices for recreational spaces.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? $350,000 included in City Budget Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): January 2025 – December 2026 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Staff hours
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? Unfinished 325
Exhibit “A”

ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Beaches, Parks, and Recreation Commission
FY 2025-2026
Project Name: (No. 5) Establish a subcommittee to partner with the North Beach Community Association Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Establish a subcommittee to partner with the North Beach Community Association to develop a work plan to enhance North Beach - its beaches, parks, and recreation - that may serve as a model for other community partnerships in San Clemente.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? Unknown.

Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): October 2025-June 2026 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Unknown
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? New Project Name: (No. 6) Review of parking access at paid meters in the beach area Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Establish a subcommittee to review and provide recommendations to improve parking access and user experience, including evaluation of payment options and repainting of space numbers.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? None Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): October 2025-April 2026 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): None
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? New 326
Exhibit “A”

ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Beaches, Parks, and Recreation Commission
FY 2025-2026
Project Name: (No. 7) Explore signage and education for “Sandcastles 4 Sloan” Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Review a request to build awareness around sand entrapment prevention and digging holes while visiting the beach.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? Estimated: $100; unbudgeted Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): October 2025 - March 2026 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Staff hours: 5 hours Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? New Project Name: (No. 8) Development of a long-term beach sand policy Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Work with staff to establish a clear long-term beach sand policy.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? Unknown Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): Ongoing Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Unknown
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? New 327
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11F.

Submitted By: Beaches, Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks & Recreation Director Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 25-153, APPROVING THE GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE FY 2025-26 WORK PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..body
Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the creation of a committee work plan. Staff would return to the City Council with appropriate budget approvals and additional recommendations before project implementation, as needed.

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to present the Golf Course Committee’s Annual Work Plan for City Council consideration and approval. The Committee has reviewed and recommended a list of five projects for focus and consideration over the next year.

Background:

The Golf Course Committee serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council regarding policies, programs, and improvements related to the San Clemente Municipal Golf Course. Each year, the Committee develops a Work Plan identifying key priorities and projects to advance the quality, sustainability, and community benefit of the golf course.

At its August 7, 2025, meeting, the Golf Course Committee reviewed potential project opportunities and unanimously recommended a list of five priority projects for the upcoming year.

1. Golf Course Master Plan Update

2. Revision of course score cards

3. Review the urgent needs of the golf course

4. Review Green Fees

5. Form a Pro Shop operations subcommittee
Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 25-153, which will approve the Golf Course Committee 2025-26 Work Plan and make findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 328
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11F.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
 Modify the Golf Course 2025-26 Work Plan by either (a) removing proposed items or (b) adding items; and adopt Resolution No. 25-XX.
 Continue the item with further direction provided to staff and the Committee.  Deny the Work Plan.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Staff recommendations for findings under CEQA with respect to the items on the Committee Work Plan are summarized in the table below:

Item Number Environmental Findings
Golf Course Master Plan Update The updated master plan will be subject to environmental review at the appropriate time,
which staff currently anticipates will occur at the
time that the Committee makes
recommendations at the concept level to the
City Council. Anticipated planning and
feasibility activities by the Committee in the
work plan are exempt under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15262.

Revision of Course Scorecards Revising and reprinting golf course scorecards is an administrative activity with no potential for
direct or indirect environmental impacts. This
activity is not a project under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(2).

Review Urgent Needs of the
Golf Course
Reviewing and identifying maintenance
priorities is a planning and evaluation activity
that does not constitute approval of a project.

This is not a project under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(5). Any urgent physical
improvements subsequently proposed will be
subject to separate CEQA review.

Review Green Fees Reviewing and recommending adjustments to golf course fees is a financial and
administrative action that does not result in a
physical change in the environment. This
activity is not a project under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(4).

Form a Pro Shop Operations
Subcommittee
The formation of a subcommittee to evaluate
the future operations of the Pro Shop is an
administrative activity with no potential for
environmental effect. This activity is not a
project under CEQA Guidelines Section
15378(b)(5).
329
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11F.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff and the Golf Course Committee recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25- 153, which would:

1. Make findings under the California Environmental Quality Act as to the items on the work plan; and

2. Approve the Golf Course Committee 2025-26 Work Plan. ..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 25-153
Notification:

Golf Course Committee.
330
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-153

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FY 2025-26 GOLF

COURSE COMMITTEE WORK PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the Golf Course Committee is established to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in planning pertaining to the use and operation of the municipal golf course; and WHEREAS, the San Clemente Municipal Code § 2.36.020(e) requires that the Golf Course Committee develop an annual work plan with specific goals and objectives for the coming year and submit it to the City Council for approval each year; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2025, the Golf Course Committee reviewed and recommended approval of five items to be included in its FY 2025-26 Work Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. Based on a review of the record as a whole, the items in the Golf Course Committee Annual Work Plan are either not a project or exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as follows: the Committee’s work on the Golf Course Master Plan Update is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies); the Revision of Course Score Cards, Review of Green Fees, and Formation of a Pro Shop Operations Subcommittee are not projects under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b); and the Review of Urgent Needs of the Golf Course is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5). Any future projects identified in the Work Plan or as result of the Work Plan that may result in a physical change to the environment will be subject to separate CEQA review at the appropriate time.

SECTION 3. The Golf Course Committee FY 2025-26 Work Plan shall consist of all items incorporated and included in Exhibit A, attached hereto and fully incorporated herein.

SECTION 4. The Committee may review all additional items that require consideration through the course of the Golf Maintenance Division and Beaches, Parks & Recreation Department’s routine functions, including but not limited to house operations and greens oversight.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______. 331
Resolution No. 25-153 Page 2
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the City of San Clemente, California San Clemente, California

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-153 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
332
Exhibit “A”

ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Golf Course Committee
FY 2025-2026
Project Name: (No. 1) Golf Course Master Plan Update
Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

A master plan for the golf course would help prioritize and plan course improvements, ensuring the quality of play at the Course.

The Golf Course Committee would like a review of an updated master plan.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? $60,000 Budgeted FY 23-2024 Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): December 2025 Completion Resources Needed (including Staff hours): 25 hours
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? Unfinished
Project Name: (No. 2) Revision of score cards
Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Update the design and layout of the score card, while considering options for advertising and combo tee listings Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? $2,000 budgeted Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): November Resources Needed (including Staff hours): 10 hours
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? New 333
Exhibit “A”

ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Golf Course Committee
FY 2025-2026
Project Name: (No. 3) Review the urgent needs of the golf course Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Address matters as they arise related to the maintenance of the operations of the golf course Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? None Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): Ongoing Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Unknown
Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? Ongoing Project Name: (No. 4) Review Green Fees
Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Review and update the golf green fees to ensure financial recovery and market alignment.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? None Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): August – October 2025 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Staff hours: 8 hours Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? New 334
Exhibit “A”

ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Golf Course Committee
FY 2025-2026
Project Name: (No. 5) Form a pro shop operations subcommittee Purpose, Goals, and Deliverables of Project:

Review options and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the selection of a future Pro Shop Operator.

Estimated Project Costs. If cost is involved, is it included in the adopted City budget? None Project Timeline (Anticipated Start and End Dates): September 2025-November 2025 Resources Needed (including Staff hours): Staff hours: 10 hours Is this a new project or unfinished project from the prior fiscal year? New 335
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11G.

Submitted By: Public Works
Prepared By: Masako Hennequin, Associate Civil Engineer Subject:
..titl e

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE FY 2025 MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE, CIP PROJECT NO. 25303 ..body Fiscal Impact:

The total construction cost of $399,060 was under the approved construction budget of $471,094 from the General Fund, Account Number 001-416-45720-000-25303.

Summary:

Before the City Council is a Resolution and Notice of Completion for the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance (Attachments 1 and 3).

Background:

On May 6, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. for the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance (Attachment 4). The project consisted of crack filling, slurry sealing, and re-striping on various streets as listed in Attachment 2.

After construction After construction
A summary of the total construction expenditures is provided below:

Construction Management and Inspection $ 17,270
Construction 381,790
Total Project Construction Cost $ 399,060
336
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11G.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 25-154, which would accept the completed FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303.
 Modify and adopt Resolution No. 25-154.
 Continue the item with direction to provide additional information.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

This project was previously determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Recommended Actions:
..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 25-154, which will:

1. Accept the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303, from Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc.;

2. Authorize the City Clerk to execute and record the Notice of Completion for the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303;

3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the payment bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against the Contractor, Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc.; and

4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the performance bond for this project upon receipt of a warranty bond in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director in the amount of 25% of the total construction cost.
..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 25-154

2. Completed Slurry Seal Street List

3. Notice of Completion

4. Staff Report dated May 6, 2025 (without attachments) Notification:

None.
337
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-154

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING AS
COMPLETE THE FY 2025 MAJOR STREET
MAINTENANCE, CIP PROJECT NO. 25303
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. for FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303; and WHEREAS, the work consisted of asphalt pavement maintenance work on City streets; and
WHEREAS, Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. has completed the work to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and fully incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. That the City Council accepts as complete the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303.

SECTION 3. That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to execute and record a Notice of Completion for CIP Project No. 25303.

SECTION 4. That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to release the payment bond for this project 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against the contractor, Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc.

SECTION 5. That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to release the performance bond for this project upon receipt of a warranty bond in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director/City Engineer in the amount of 25% of the total construction cost.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, 2025. 338
Resolution No. 25-154 Page 2
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the
San Clemente, California City of San Clemente, California

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-154 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
339
APPENDIX 6

SLURRY SEAL LIST
Type I slurry seal (3%PMCQSh-1)
#'s Street Name From To Sq.Ft. E.L.T.
1 Via Socorro Camino San Clemente Via Ballena 64,400 32 2 Calle Guadalajara Calle Vallarta Calle Nuevo 109,260 55 3 Calle Doncella Calle Heraldo Calle Guadalajara 42,660 21 4 Calle Esteban Calle Doncella Calle Guadalajara 49,600 25 5 Calle Nuevo Cm. De Los Mares end of cul de sac 72,500 36 6 Via Morada Calle Nuevo end of cul de sac 18,500 9
7 Calle Piedras Guadalajara Via Amapola 8,800 4
8 Via Bellota Calle Piedras end of cul de sac 21,062 11 9 Via Amapola Calle Nuevo end of cul de sac 47,000 24
10 Calle Vallarta 856 Calle Vallarta Via Blanco 64,142 32 11 Calle Ancantilado Calle Vallarta end of cul de sac 7,970 4 12 Calle Amable Calle Vallarta end of cul de sac 16,000 8 13 Calle Brisa Calle Vallarta end of cul de sac 19,200 10 14 Calle Contenta Calle Vallarta end of cul de sac 20,800 10 15 Calle Dulce Calle Vallarta end of cul de sac 16,960 8 16 Calle Embocadura Calle Vallarta Calle Frontera 36,720 18 308
Type II slurry seal (3%PMCQS-1h-EAS) w/carbon black
#'s Street Name From To Sq.Ft. E.L.T.
1 Calle Saluda Ave. La Pata Ave. Talega 107,000 93
2 Ave. Vista Hermosa Via Turqueza Camino Vera Cruz 136,116 118 211
Note: Calle Saluda slurry seal proposed for only travel lanes, including the Sharrow lanes and intersections.

MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE - FY 2025, PROJECT NO. 25303
Attachment 2
340
Attachment 3
Recording Requested By:

City of San Clemente
When Recorded, Mail To:

City Clerk Department
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
Recorded for the benefit of the City of San
Clemente and exempt from recording fees
pursuant to Government Code Section 27383.

Space above this line is for Recorder’s Use Only

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice is hereby given by the City of San Clemente, a Municipal Corporation, that a public work of improvement has been completed as follows:

1. Project title or description of work: FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303.

2. Date of completion: August 22, 2025.

3. Street address or legal description of the project site: Various streets.

4. Name of owner: City of San Clemente.

5. Interest or estate of owner: Public Facility; Owned in Fee.

6. Address of owner: 910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100, San Clemente, CA 92673

7. Name and address of contractor: Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc., 12643 Emmens Way, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
I am the City Clerk for the City of San Clemente, a Municipal Corporation, the owner of the indicated interest or estate in the property described above. I make this verification on behalf of the City of San Clemente. I have read this Notice of Completion and know its contents. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on __________________________ in San Clemente, California. _________________________________
Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk
City of San Clemente
341
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 10H.

Submitted By: Public Works
Prepared By: Masako Hennequin, Associate Civil Engineer Subject:
..titl e

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ROY ALLAN SLURRY SEAL, INC. FOR FY 2025 MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE, CIP PROJECT NO. 25303, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $370,517, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, APPROVING A 15% PROJECT

CONTINGENCY, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ..body ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Fiscal Impact:

The estimated total construction cost of $471,094 is within the approved budget of $550,000 from the General Fund, Account No. 001-416-45720-000-25303, Major Street Maintenance Program.

Summary:

Before the City Council is the award of a construction contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $370,517 and approval of a 15% project contingency for the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance.

Background:

The FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance project includes slurry sealing, crack filling, and restriping on various streets as shown on the Location Map (Attachment 2).

Existing Street Existing Street
1 Attachment 4
342
Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 10H.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
On March 20, 2025, staff contacted local contractors, published a notice inviting bids for this project in the SC Times, and published a bid solicitation on PlanetBids. Bids were opened on April 10, 2025, and the results are presented in the table below. Bids ranged from $370,516.83 to $546,000.00. There were no bidders from businesses based in San Clemente.

The lowest responsive and responsible bidder is Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. of Santa Fe Springs, California, with a total bid of $370,516.83.

Table 1. Bid Summary
Company Name Company Location Amount
Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. Santa Fe Springs, CA $370,516.83 American Asphalt South, Inc. Riverside, CA $444,158.06
Pavement Coatings Co. Jurupa Valley, CA $456,281.33
All American Asphalt Corona, CA $496,404.00
Union Pavement Services, Inc. Jurupa Valley, CA $546,000.00 Based on the lowest bid, the total estimated project construction cost is $471,094, as summarized below in Table 2:

Table 2. Cost Summary
Construction Management and Inspection $ 45,000
Construction $ 370,517
Contingency (15%) $ 55,577
Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 471,094
As required by state law and City policy, Roy Allan Slurry Seal will be required to provide performance and payment bonds simultaneously with the execution of the construction contract (Attachment 3). Project plans and specifications are on file in the City Clerk’s office.

Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 25-52 (Attachment 1), awarding the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc., authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract an amount not to exceed $370,517, approving a 15% project contingency of $55,577, and finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
 Modify and adopt Resolution No. 25-52.
 Continue the item and direct staff to provide additional information.  Do not award the contract or construct the street maintenance. 3432
Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 10H.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Environmental Review/Analysis:

This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it consists of repairs to existing City facilities, involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use, and has no possibility of a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect effect on the environment.

Recommended Actions:
..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-52, which will:
..recommendation

1. Find the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303, categorically exempt from the CEQA under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines;

2. Award the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303, contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc.;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $370,517, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. 25-18 (Attachment 3), for the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303; and

4. Approve a 15% construction contingency of $55,577 for this project. ..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 25-52

2. Location Map

3. Contract No. C25-18 (without attachments)
Notification:

All bidders.
3443
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11H.

Submitted By: Public Works
Prepared By: Zak Ponsen, Assistant City Engineer
Dave Rebensdorf, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 2025-109, 214

WEST MARIPOSA DUPLEX
..body CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION
Fiscal Impact:

None.

Summary:
214 Mariposa LLC, a California limited liability company and its managing member, Harold L.

Alzate, the property owner and Subdivider of Final Parcel Map 2025-109, has submitted the Final Parcel Map for City Council approval. Staff has confirmed that the proposed Final Parcel Map is in conformance with the approved Tentative Parcel Map. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, a legislative body shall not deny approval of a Final Parcel Map if it has previously approved a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed subdivision and if it finds that the Final Parcel Map is in substantial compliance with the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map. Thus, while the Subdivision Map Act and San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 16 require City Council action to approve the Final Parcel Map, that action is ministerial.

Background:

Parcel Map 2025-109 contains two residential condominium dwelling units on one 4,024 squarefoot lot. The California Coastal Commission approved a Coastal Development Permit (5-25-0015- W) on March 19, 2025.
345
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11H.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project have been reviewed by the City Attorney, and minor corrections are still pending. The proposed Resolution includes a condition that the City Engineer is not to execute the Final Parcel Map until verification that the CC&Rs and payment of the review fees have been completed and approved by the City Attorney and City Planner. The City Engineer has reviewed and is satisfied with the quitclaims in favor of the City that the Subdivider obtained from all persons having any interest in existing rights-of-way for pipelines for the conveyance of water, and for all rights to all underground water. The Subdivider has satisfied all other Conditions of Approval that are required prior to Final Parcel Map approval. The only remaining action for satisfying the Conditions of Approval is for the Subdivider to record the CC&Rs in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, which will be recorded immediately after the Final Parcel Map. Copies of the proposed Final Parcel Map and approved Tentative Parcel Map are available for review at City Hall in the Public Works, Engineering Division.

Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 25-155 (Attachment 2), approving Final Parcel Map 2025-109, accepting the water rights as dedicated.
 Modify and adopt Resolution 25-155.
 Continue the item and direct staff to provide additional information.  Deny Resolution No. 25-155 until the CC&Rs have been finalized or pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Municipal Code Chapter 16, Final Parcel Maps require City Council action for approval, denial, or modifications. Per Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66474.1), a legislative body shall not deny approval of a Final Parcel Map if it has previously approved a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed subdivision and if it finds that the Final Parcel Map is in substantial compliance with the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map. The Tentative Parcel Map 2025-109 was approved by the Zoning Administrator on October 17, 2024 through Resolution ZA 24-019. See Attachment 3.

Unless the City Council finds that the Final Parcel Map is not in substantial compliance with the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map, approving the Final Parcel Map is a ministerial action.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

This project was previously found Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions) and 15301.k (Class 1: Existing Facilities) in connection with the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map. The approval of a Final Parcel Map is a ministerial action and not a “project” under CEQA.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 25-155, which would:
346
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11H.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3

1. Approve the Final Parcel Map 2025-109 as it conforms to the requirements set forth in the Subdivision Map Act and the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map;

2. Accept on behalf of the City of San Clemente the water rights as dedicated;

3. Authorize and direct the Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute the Final Parcel Map upon verification that the CC&Rs and payment of the review fees have been completed and approved by the City Attorney and City Planner, respectively; and

4. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to execute and submit the Final Parcel Map for recordation with the County of Orange Recorder’s Office. ..end
Attachment:

1. Final Parcel Map Resolution No. 25-155

2. Zoning Administrator Staff Report, dated October 17, 2024 Notification:

Bryce Bragger, beneficiary/representative
Harold L. Alzate, property owner
347
Attachment 1
4860-5047-5367 v1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-155

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL
PARCEL MAP 2025-109, LOCATED AT 214 WEST

MARIPOSA
WHEREAS, the property owner and subdivider, 214 Mariposa LLC, a California limited liability company and its managing member, Harold L. Alzate, owns a two-unit apartment building located at 215 West Mariposa; and
WHEREAS, the subdivider applied for a Tentative Parcel Map in order to subdivide the two-unit apartment building into two condominiums; and WHEREAS, the Tentative Parcel Map 2025-109 was approved by the Zoning Administrator on October 17, 2024 through Resolution ZA 24-019; and WHEREAS, Resolution ZA 24-019 included Conditions of Approval for the subdivider to obtain California Coastal Commission approval for the proposed Final Parcel Map, City Attorney approval of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and obtain from all persons having any interest in existing rights of way for pipelines for the conveyance of water and the rights to all underground water; and WHEREAS, the CC&Rs have been reviewed by the City Attorney and are not finalized at this time; and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfied all other Conditions of Approval and offered to the City all water rights as dedicated; and
WHEREAS, this project was previously found Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions) and 15301.k (Class 1: Existing Facilities) in connection with the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Municipal Code Chapter 16, Final Parcel Maps require City Council action for approval, denial, or modifications; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2025, at a regular meeting of the City Council, the City Council considered approval for Final Parcel Map 2025-109.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein.
348
Resolution No. 25-155 Page 2
SECTION 2. That the City Council finds that, except for payment of review fees and finalization of CC&Rs in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, Final Parcel Map 2025-109 conforms to the requirements set forth in the Subdivision Map Act and the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map.

SECTION 3. The San Clemente City Council approves Final Parcel Map 2025- 109, effective upon completing the actions and obtaining the approvals set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution.

SECTION 4. The San Clemente City Council accepts on behalf of the City of San Clemente the water rights as dedicated effective upon completing the actions and obtaining the approvals set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution.

SECTION 5. That the Public Works Director/City Engineer is authorized to execute the Final Parcel Map upon verification that the CC&Rs and payment of the review fees have been completed to the satisfaction of and approved by the City Attorney and City Planner, respectively.

SECTION 6. That the City Clerk is authorized to sign and submit the Final Parcel Map for recordation with the County of Orange Recorder’s Office.

SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of October, 2025.
____________________________
Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the City
of San Clemente, California
ATTEST:
__________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
349
Resolution No. 25-155 Page 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-155 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on _______ day of October, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of ________________, ________. _______________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
350

STAFF REPORT

SAN CLEMENTE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Meeting Date: October 17, 2024
PLANNER: David Carrillo, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Project (PHP) 24-304, Mariposa Duplex Condominium Subdivision, a request to approve
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 24-314 allowing a duplex
condominium subdivision for individual ownership of two dwelling units, and finding that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
under Sections 15301 (14 CCR § 15301, Class 1: Existing Facilities) and 15315 (14 CCR § 15315, Class 15: Minor
Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines.

LOCATION: 214 W. Mariposa (APN 692-073-06)

ZONING/GENERAL
PLAN:

Residential Medium Zoning District and Coastal Zone Overlay District (RM-CZ)
PROJECT SUMMARY:
• Background:
o The site is a 4,051 square-foot interior lot, currently undergoing construction of a two-story duplex building, under Building Permit B21-2554. The site abuts a historic resource at 212 W. Mariposa to the east. Surrounding land uses include single- and multi-family residences to the north, east, south, and west. o The RM Zone permits one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area, so two dwelling units are the maximum that may be authorized on the subject site. • Proposed Project: The applicant requests to subdivide the airspace of the lot to allow for two condominium units. The proposal would allow for separate ownership of each condominium unit and a portion of common areas.
• Approval Authority: Municipal Code Section 16.04.015(G)(1) requires Zoning Administrator approval of Tentative Parcel Map applications for condominium subdivisions.
• Project Findings: The project meets required findings and staff supports the proposed request based on the following:
`t
Attachment 2
351
Mariposa Duplex Condominium Subdivision Page 2
o The project is limited to subdividing the lot’s airspace to allow for separate ownership of two condominium units and does not have any potential environmental impacts.
o The City limits the number of annual condominium conversions that can occur; however, per SCMC 16.14.010, that restriction “shall not apply to condominium projects involving buildings which have not been previously occupied or buildings for which the City has not issued a final inspection or certificate of occupancy for a use other than condominiums”. As the duplex at this property is still under construction, these units are not subject to (and do not count towards) the annual limit on conversions.
o Conditions of approval are included requiring Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to establish maintenance responsibilities over all common areas, including driveways, parking, landscaped areas, walls, private accesses, and drainage. The CC&R’s may include the creation of an Association. o The proposal complies with the Municipal Code, building, health, and safety codes, and other applicable regulations and policies. This includes, but is not limited to, parking and density requirements for condominium subdivisions in the Municipal Code (Title 16).
• Public Comment: Public comments have not been received on this item. o Coastal Act: The site is within the Coastal Zone, within the Categorical Exclusion Order Area, but subdivisions/parcel maps are not an excluded category of development; therefore, the project requires review and approval by the California Coastal Commission. The project is not subject to the Mello Act in that there are no occupied residences at the subject site. The approved duplex under construction improves a vacant lot, and the condominium subdivision does not remove or convert any occupied housing units, including affordable units, within the Coastal Zone. o CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions):
o The project involves the subdivision of airspace for two condominium units in an urbanized area zoned for multi-family residential use.
o The project conforms to the San Clemente General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and no variances or exceptions are required.
o All public services and access to the project site are available. o The site was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the last two years. o The parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information in the staff report and subject to the required findings and conditions of approval, staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator:

352
Mariposa Duplex Condominium Subdivision Page 3

1. Determine the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions); and

2. Adopt Resolution ZA 24-019, approving Public Hearing Project (PHP) 24-304 for Tentative Parcel Map 24-314, Mariposa Duplex Condominium Subdivision, subject to conditions of approval.

Attachments:

1. Resolution ZA 24-019
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval

2. Location Map

3. Tentative Parcel Map
353
RESOLUTION NO. ZA 24-019

A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF

THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 24-314, MARIPOSA

DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, A REQUEST TO

ALLOW A DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR

INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF TWO DWELLING UNITS ON A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 214 WEST MARIPOSA, AND

FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT SECTIONS 15301 (14 CCR § 15301, CLASS
1: EXISTING FACILITIES) AND 15315 (14 CCR § 15315,
CLASS 15: MINOR LAND DIVISIONS) OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES.

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024 an application was submitted by Harold Alzate, for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 24-030, and deemed complete on September 16, 2024; a request to allow a duplex condominium subdivision for individual ownership of two dwelling units. The subject site is under construction for a duplex permitted by Building Permit B21-2554, located in the Residential Medium Zoning District and Coastal Zone Overlay District (RM-CZ). The site’s legal description is N TR 793 BLK 20 LOT 6 and the Assessor’s Parcel Number is 692-073-06; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division has completed an initial environmental assessment of the above matter in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends the Zoning Administrator determine the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions). This is recommended because the project involves a two-unit condominium subdivision of a duplex in an urbanized area and no exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are applicable; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2024 the City's Development Management Team (DMT) reviewed the proposed project to ensure compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City ordinances and codes; and WHEREAS, in accordance with City and State requirements, notice of the public hearing was published in the San Clemente Times newspaper on October 3, 2024, posted at the project site, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2024, the Zoning Administrator of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Zoning Administrator of the City of San Clemente does hereby resolve as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1
354
Resolution No. ZA 24-019 Page 2
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.

The Zoning Administrator hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the Zoning Administrator as fully set forth in this resolution.

Section 2. CEQA Findings.

Based upon its review of the entire record, including the Staff Report, any public comments or testimony presented to the Zoning Administrator, and the facts outlined below, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions).

The project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions) because the project involves the subdivision of two dwelling units, for individual ownership, in an urbanized area zoned for residential use. The airspace subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan, Subdivision Map Act, and zoning; no variances or exceptions are required, all public services and access to the proposed condominium units to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.

Section 3. Tentative Parcel Map Findings
With respect to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 24-314, the Zoning Administrator finds as follows:

A. The site is physically suitable for the type of development, in that:

1. The project is limited to subdividing the airspace of a duplex into two condominium units for individual ownership purposes; and

2. There is an active building permit at the site to construct a new duplex. The building permit has been reviewed to ensure that the development complies with the Zoning Ordinance, building, health, and safety codes, and other applicable regulations and policies. This includes but is not limited to policies and regulations on land use, setbacks, utility connections, easement access, traffic design standards, et al.

B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development, in that:

1. The proposed density on the site complies with the maximum allowed for properties in the RM zoning district. The zoning district allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The subject site is 4,051 square feet, with an allowed density of two units. 355
Resolution No. ZA 24-019 Page 3
C. The design of the condominium conversion or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that:

1. The project is limited to subdividing airspace into two condominiums to allow for separate ownership of each dwelling unit; and

2. The site is in a developed residential area served by existing utilities and public services.

D. The design of the condominium subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that:

1. The project is limited to subdividing the airspace of a duplex into two condominiums to allow for separate ownership of each dwelling unit; and

2. The site is in a developed residential area served by existing utilities and public services.

E. The condominium subdivision, with its provisions for any design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, in that:

1. The project is limited to subdividing the airspace of a duplex into two condominium units for individual ownership purposes. The project is consistent with the Residential Medium General Plan Land Use Classification of the site; and

2. There is an active building permit at the site to construct a new duplex. The building permit has been reviewed to ensure that the development complies with the Zoning Ordinance, building, health, and safety codes, and other applicable regulations and policies. This includes but is not limited to policies and regulations on land use, setbacks, utility connections, easement access, traffic design standards, et al; and

3. The City limits the number of annual condominium conversions that can occur; however, per SCMC 16.14.010, that restriction “shall not apply to condominium projects involving buildings which have not been previously occupied or buildings for which the City has not issued a final inspection or certificate of occupancy for a use other than condominiums”. As the duplex at this property is still under construction, these units are not subject to (and do not count towards) the annual limit on conversions.

F. The design of the condominium subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision in that:

1. The proposed project is limited to subdividing a duplex into two condominium units for individual ownership purposes; and 356
Resolution No. ZA 24-019 Page 4

2. There is an active building permit at the site to construct a new duplex. The building permit has been reviewed to ensure that the development complies with the Zoning Ordinance, building, health, and safety codes, and other applicable regulations and policies. This includes but is not limited to policies and regulations on land use, setbacks, utility connections, easement access, traffic design standards, et al.

Section 4. Zoning Administrator Approval.

Based on the foregoing recitals and findings above, and the written and oral comments, facts, and evidence presented, the City of San Clemente Zoning Administrator approves Tentative Parcel Map 24-314, Mariposa Duplex Condominium Subdivision, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of San Clemente Zoning Administrator on October 17, 2024.
______________________________________
Adam Atamian, Zoning Administrator
357
Resolution No. ZA 24-019 EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 24-314

MARIPOSA DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION

1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1.1 Within 30 days of receipt of the signed conditions of approval, the applicant shall submit to the City Planner a signed
acknowledgement concurring with all conditions of approval on a form to be provided by the City. Failure to submit this acknowledgement may be grounds to revoke this approval.

Planning

1.2 The applicant shall defend (with council acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Clemente and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, proceeding, fines, damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, against the City, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or City employees or
environmental finding. Applicant shall pay all costs, The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter at the applicant’s cost. If the applicant fails to so defend the matter, the City shall have the right, at its own option, to do so and, if it does, the applicant shall promptly pay the City's full cost of the defense.

Planning

1.3 Use and development of this property shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, material boards and other applicable information submitted with this application, and with these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the project shall be reviewed by the City Planner in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12.180.

Planning

1.4 The applicant shall comply with all applicable current and future provisions of the San Clemente Municipal Code, adopted
ordinances, and state laws.

All

1.5 Use of the subject property shall conform to all occupancy requirements, including posting of signs related to the maximum occupancy limitations.

Code
Comp

1.6 TPM 24-314 shall be deemed to have expired if within three years of approval the project is not commenced, or the project permitted Planning
358
Resolution No. ZA 24-019, Exhibit A Page 2
by the approved application has lapsed, as defined by Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12.150.

1.8 The Applicant (including any property owners and managers, and their designees) shall use her/his best judgment and best management practices to ensure residential activities on the premises will be conducted in a manner that will not be disruptive to neighbors. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC), and all conditions of approval contained herein. The Applicant (including any property owners and managers, and their designees) hereby understands that noncompliance with
regulations and conditions of approval, shall be immediate grounds for citation pursuant to SCMC Section 8.52.030(Y), which states, “It is declared a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any premises in this City to maintain such premises in such manner that … A structure, improvement, property, and/or land use is not in compliance with terms and/or conditions of any City of San Clemente issued permit or approval,” and any subsequent revision of this section of the code. [Citation - Section 8.52.030(Y) of the SCMC]
Code
Comp**

2.0 PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP

2.1 2.2
Prior to final Parcel Map approval, the owner shall obtain final approval of all building permits, including, but not limited to, B21- 2554, required for the development of the duplex.

Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer evidence that the County Surveyor has approved a digitized tract/parcel map pursuant to Orange County Ordinance No. 3809 dated January 28, 1991. The owner or designee shall pay for all costs of said digital submittals, including supplying digital copies to the City of the final, County Surveyor-approved digital map in DXF format.

Planning
**
Public
Works

2.3 The applicant shall ensure the final map and construction drawings have consistent information between both documents, in areas such as, but not limited to, length and location of property lines, easements, building footprint and setbacks, and location and height of all walls.

Planning
**
Buyer Notification

2.4 A buyer's notification disclosure form shall be given to all potential buyers of the lots/units, which indicates the existence, operations, characteristics, and potential exposure to nuisance/objectionable odors/risk of upset/hazards of the following:

Planning
359
Resolution No. ZA 24-019, Exhibit A Page 3
United States Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
City of San Clemente Wastewater Treatment Plant
Orange County Flood Control Channel
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs)

2.6 The applicant shall submit to the City Planner, and must obtain approval from the City Attorney’s Office, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) which shall include the following provisions:

A. Creation of a Master Association and/or a Sub-association for the purpose of providing for control over the uniformity of boundary fencing, and the perpetual maintenance
responsibility of areas including, but not limited to, (delete or add as appropriate) all common areas, open space,
slopes, fuel modification zones, private medians and
greenbelts, arterial highway parkway landscaping, irrigation systems, landscaped areas, walls, driveways, parking
areas, trash areas, structures, private streets, street lights, and drainage. All streets, drainage, street lights, street signage and striping improvements within the interior of the subdivision designated as private shall remain private and shall be maintained by the Master Association and/or Subassociation, or such other provision for maintenance which may be subsequently approved by the City Council. In
addition, the CC&R's shall indicate all other areas to be owned and maintained by the Master Association and/or
Sub-association and that maintenance of all private
drainage facilities shall be in conformance with NPDES
requirements.

B. Within 15 days of the establishment of the homeowners association and/or the commercial property owners
association, the owner or designee is required to furnish the Board or Officers of each association a copy of each
approved tract map, a copy of the approved site and fencing plan, copies of all approved landscaping plans, a complete set of construction plans for the various residential model types, and approved plans indicating the locations and
characteristics of all major project components, utilities, and related data.

C. Following recordation of each final tract map, each Master Association of this tract shall submit to the City Planner, for distribution to the Fire and Beaches, Parks and Recreation Departments, and shall re-submit annually, a list of all current Property Owner Association officers of the
Association.

Planning
360
Resolution No. ZA 24-019, Exhibit A Page 4
D. A statement indicating that any dedicated open space shall be retained by deed restriction as designated open space in perpetuity and maintained by a Master Association and/or the Sub-association, and that no development or encroachment shall be permitted within the designated open space.

E. A statement indicating that proposed amendments to any of the CC&R's shall be submitted for review to the City
Planner, and shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office, prior to the amendments being valid.

F. A statement indicating that the City has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any of the provisions of the CC&R's.

G. A statement indicating that storm drain facilities shall be inspected regularly as follows:
1) Open channels, catch basins and pipelines inspected
annually before storm season and removal of debris as
necessary.
2) All facilities shall have debris and sediment removed either manually or by mechanical methods. Flushing
shall be used in emergency situations only.

H. A statement obligating the Association(s) to provide to the Utilities Director annual reports in the month of June in compliance with the reporting requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City with respect to the NPDES program.

I. Identification of all fire prevention and defense provisions including: a) a fire lane map; b) provisions which prohibit parking in fire lanes and a method of enforcement; and c) provisions for maintenance of fuel modification zones
including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation and the inspection and correction of any deficiencies in the irrigation system three times a year; and a method for
keeping fire protection access easements unobstructed. A statement shall acknowledge that approval of the Chief of Fire Protection Services shall be required for any
modifications such as speed bumps, control gates, or
parking changes.

2.7 The applicant shall reimburse the City all costs associated with review of the project CC&Rs, Disclosure Statements, and any other applicable documents by the City Attorney’s Office.

Planning
Easements

2.8 The final map shall depict the location of all easements for open space, trails, water and sewer easements, storm drains and storm drain maintenance access, public street lights, utilities, reciprocal access, emergency access, slopes and slope maintenance, and landscaping. All drainage easements shall be a minimum of 15 Public
Works
361
Resolution No. ZA 24-019, Exhibit A Page 5
feet. No drainage facilities accepted for dedication or maintenance by the City shall be located within slopes. (SCMC Section

16.28.030)

2.9 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that quitclaims in favor of the City have been obtained from all persons having any interest in existing rights of way for pipelines for the conveyance of water, and for all rights to all underground water. The right to all underground water, but without right of entry to the surface thereof, shall be conveyed to the City.

No easements shall be granted nor recorded over any portion of the property shown on the submitted record map between the date the tentative map is approved by the Planning Commission and the date the final or record map is recorded by the County Recorder. (SCMC Section 13.04.500)
Public
Works

2.24 2.36

7.0 7.17
Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the owner shall provide independent water meters and separate services for each unit in the common area. All water meters shall be located in the public right of way or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (SCMC Section 16.32.010)
Prior to final parcel map approval, the owner shall pay or reimburse the City all costs associated with City Attorney review of the project CC&Rs, Disclosure Statements, and any other applicable
documents. In addition, the owner shall pay all applicable development and final map fees for each unit, which may include, but are not limited to, park acquisition and development impact fees. [Citation - S.C.M.C. Title 15, Building and Construction, Sections 15.52, 15.56, 15.60, 15.64, 15.68, 15.72].

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Applicant (including any property owners and managers, and their designees) shall ensure that discharge of washwater and other pollutants is prohibited from entering the storm drain system.

Applicant must prevent pollutants (e.g. sediment, trash, food waste etc.) and any washwater used during cleanup from entering the storm drain system.

Public
Works
Public
Works
**
Code
Comp
WQ
**
* Denotes a modified Standard Condition of Approval
** Denotes a project-specific Condition of Approval
362
RESOLUTION NO. ZA 24-019

A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF

THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 24-314, MARIPOSA

DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, A REQUEST TO

ALLOW A DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR

INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF TWO DWELLING UNITS ON A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 214 WEST MARIPOSA, AND

FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT SECTIONS 15301 (14 CCR § 15301, CLASS
1: EXISTING FACILITIES) AND 15315 (14 CCR § 15315,
CLASS 15: MINOR LAND DIVISIONS) OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES.

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024 an application was submitted by Harold Alzate, for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 24-030, and deemed complete on September 16, 2024; a request to allow a duplex condominium subdivision for individual ownership of two dwelling units. The subject site is under construction for a duplex permitted by Building Permit B21-2554, located in the Residential Medium Zoning District and Coastal Zone Overlay District (RM-CZ). The site’s legal description is N TR 793 BLK 20 LOT 6 and the Assessor’s Parcel Number is 692-073-06; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division has completed an initial environmental assessment of the above matter in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends the Zoning Administrator determine the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions). This is recommended because the project involves a two-unit condominium subdivision of a duplex in an urbanized area and no exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are applicable; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2024 the City's Development Management Team (DMT) reviewed the proposed project to ensure compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City ordinances and codes; and WHEREAS, in accordance with City and State requirements, notice of the public hearing was published in the San Clemente Times newspaper on October 3, 2024, posted at the project site, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2024, the Zoning Administrator of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Zoning Administrator of the City of San Clemente does hereby resolve as follows:
363
Resolution No. ZA 24-019 Page 2
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.

The Zoning Administrator hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the Zoning Administrator as fully set forth in this resolution.

Section 2. CEQA Findings.

Based upon its review of the entire record, including the Staff Report, any public comments or testimony presented to the Zoning Administrator, and the facts outlined below, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and 15315 (Class 15: Minor Land Divisions).

The project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions) because the project involves the subdivision of two dwelling units, for individual ownership, in an urbanized area zoned for residential use. The airspace subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan, Subdivision Map Act, and zoning; no variances or exceptions are required, all public services and access to the proposed condominium units to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.

Section 3. Tentative Parcel Map Findings
With respect to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 24-314, the Zoning Administrator finds as follows:

A. The site is physically suitable for the type of development, in that:

1. The project is limited to subdividing the airspace of a duplex into two condominium units for individual ownership purposes; and

2. There is an active building permit at the site to construct a new duplex. The building permit has been reviewed to ensure that the development complies with the Zoning Ordinance, building, health, and safety codes, and other applicable regulations and policies. This includes but is not limited to policies and regulations on land use, setbacks, utility connections, easement access, traffic design standards, et al.

B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development, in that:

1. The proposed density on the site complies with the maximum allowed for properties in the RM zoning district. The zoning district allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The subject site is 4,051 square feet, with an allowed density of two units. 364
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11I.

Submitted By: City Manager
Prepared By: Brian Brower, Chief Administrative Officer Matthew Schmelzel, Senior Management Analyst
Subject:
..titl e

CONSIDERATION OF NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH

DEFENDANTS ALVOGEN, AMNEAL, APOTEX, HIKMA, INDIVIOR, MYLAN, SUN, AND ZYDUS AND ..body AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE FUTURE SIMILAR AGREEMENTS Fiscal Impact:

Abatement funds will be allocated to the County and subdivision funds will be utilized for legal costs.

Summary:

Before the City Council is consideration of Resolution No. 25-156, authorizing participation in the Secondary Manufacturers Settlement agreements and future similar opioid settlement agreements in the nationwide litigation (Case Name: MDL No. 2804 National Prescription Opiate Litigation); and allocating the City's designated share of settlement funds to the County of Orange for more impactful opioid abatement initiatives.

Background:

Litigation brought by states, local political subdivisions, and special districts across the United States has resulted in successive opioid settlement agreements. These settlements aim to resolve claims against entities involved in the production and distribution of opioids. While some of the defendants have settled out, litigation is ongoing requiring the City’s ongoing commitment to opt into new settlement agreements as they are reached to support the nationwide opioid abatement effort.

The City has previously entered into various settlement agreements, collectively the “National Settlement Agreements”, which include the following:
 The 2021 National Settlement agreements with the three largest pharmaceutical distributors of opioid painkillers, Amerisource Bergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson (the "Distributors"), and the opioid painkiller manufacturer, Janssen (owned by Johnson & Johnson) ("Janssen").

As of September 30, 2025, direct funds from these settlements to the City totaled approximately $28,051.78.
 The Mallinckrodt bankruptcy proceedings consisting of claims against Mallinckrodt for contributions to the opioid epidemic. As of September 30, 2025, direct funds from these settlements totaled $747.72.
365
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11I.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
 The Kroger National Settlement agreement. As of September 30, 2025, direct funds totaled $91.54.
 The 2025 National Settlement agreements with three pharmacy chains and two additional manufactures, Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart. As of September 30, 2025, direct funds from these settlements totaled $588.40.
 The Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings consisting of claims against the Sacklers and other parties (referred to as the “Estate Settlement”), and a settlement of direct claims against the Sacklers. The settlement anticipates that the Sacklers will be paying an aggregate of $6.5 billion over 15 years and the Purdue estate is expected to pay $900 million. The settlement also contains injunctive relief governing opioid dispensing practices and requires the successor-in-interest of Purdue Pharma L.P. to implement safeguards to prevent diversion of prescription opioids, and also restrict certain parties from directly or indirectly engaging in the manufacturing or sale of opioids. The City just recently opted into this settlement (which was reported out of closed session on August 19, 2025) and has not received any direct funds. (See Attachment 2 for a list of direct settlement payments received.) In addition to these settlements, before the City Council are proposed settlements with the following defendants that requires City Council authorization to participate: Eight opioid manufacturers, specifically, Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus (the “Secondary Manufacturers”).

The settlements are on terms similar to the previous settlements and require the settling Secondary Manufacturers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to abate the opioid epidemic, providing a maximum of approximately $720 million in cash to participating states and subdivisions to remediate and abate the impacts of the opioid crisis. Ultimately, like the other settlements, payments will depend on the participation by states and subdivisions. The settlements also contain injunctive relief governing opioid marketing, sale, distribution, and/or distribution practices and require the Secondary Manufacturers to implement safeguards to prevent diversion of prescription opioids. (See Settlement Agreements and related documents at Attachment 3 and 4. Additional information is available at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/additional-settlements/.) Discussion:

Similar to the previous National Settlement Agreements, the proposed Secondary Manufacturers settlement has specific requirements for the use of abatement and subdivision funds, which include certain eligible categories for opioid-remediation and legal expenditures. However, the funds allocated to the City are negligible and insufficient to support meaningful opioid abatement and recovery programs and activities. Redirecting these resources to the County will leverage greater scale, coordination, and impact. Given the uncertainty of the number of jurisdictions opting in, limited funding, program development and staffing, the City cannot reliably finance or administer these robust abatement initiatives. Reallocating funds to the County enable comprehensive programs, consistent administration and a broader reach that will maximize opportunities for members of the community that can benefit from these opioid abatement and recovery programs. The funding is better spent at the County level, where broader infrastructure 366
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11I.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
and cross jurisdictional efforts can maximize program benefits and cost efficiency, rather than fragmenting funds at the municipal level.

The following is an overview of the Orange County Health Care Agency opioid programs and remediation activities:
 Core aim: Reduce opioid harm through prevention, treatment linkage, overdose response, and data driven oversight.
 Naloxone and Overdose Response: Expand naloxone access, distribute kits, and train communities and first responders to recognize and reverse overdose.  Medication Assisted Treatment Access and Care Linkage: Connect individuals to evidence based treatments with coordinated supported services (counseling, housing, peer support).  Prescription Monitoring and Prescribing Practices: Use prescription drug monitoring program data to identify high risk prescribing, educate providers, and trigger targeted interventions.  Public Education and Prevention: Run awareness campaigns and promote safe storage/dispensing.
 Surveillance and Data: Maintain dashboards and reports on overdoses, emergency department visits, mortality, and treatment engagement guide actions.

Each county and city that receives payment of funds from the settlements will have to annually track and report use of funds. As it has done with past settlement, the City of San Clemente may continue the practice of allocating settlement funds to the County of Orange for more impactful abatement initiatives.

States and local governments that intend to participate in these forthcoming settlements have the opportunity to "opt in." The greater the level of subdivision participation, the more funds will ultimately be paid out for abatement. The City must opt into the Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus settlements by October 8, 2025 to participate.

Additionally, because to date all settlements in the national opioid litigation have been of similar form, staff is recommending authorizing the City Manager to enter into future similar settlements as they are reached.

Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 25-156, which would approve the settlement agreement with Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus, and authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to opt into the settlement, execute any and all documents necessary to implement the action (including Attachments 3 and 4) and, when possible (i.e., after payment to special counsel) allocate the City's designated share of settlement funds to the County of Orange; and authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to opt into future settlements on similar terms in this case, execute any documents necessary to 367
Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Agenda Item: 11I.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
implement the action and, when possible (i.e., after payment to special counsel) allocate the City's designated share of settlement funds to the County of Orange.  Modify and adopt Resolution No. 25-156.
 Continue the item and provide staff with alternative direction.  Do not opt into the proposed settlement agreement and provide staff direction.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation
..recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-156, which would:

1. Approve the settlement agreements with Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus.

2. Authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to opt into the settlements, execute any and all documents necessary to implement the action (including Attachments 3 and 4) and, when possible (i.e., after payment to special counsel) allocate the City's designated share of settlement funds to the County of Orange; and

3. Authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to opt into future settlements on similar terms in this case, execute any documents necessary to implement the action and, when possible (i.e., after payment to special counsel) allocate the City's designated share of settlement funds to the County of Orange.
..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 25-156

2. List of Direct Opioid Settlement Payments Received

3. Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus Participation Package

4. Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus Settlement Agreements available at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/additional-settlements/ Notification:

None.
368
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-156

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO OPT INTO THE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH ALVOGEN, AMNEAL,
APOTEX, INDIVIOR, MYLAN, SUN, AND ZYDUS; AND

FUTURE SETTLEMENTS ON SIMILAR TERMS IN THE MDL
NO. 2804 NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE
LITIGATION; AND ALLOCATE THE CITY’S DESIGNATED

SHARE TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
WHEREAS, United States is facing an ongoing public health crisis of opioid abuse, addiction, overdose, and death. The state of California and local governments spend billions of dollars addressing the crisis; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously entered into settlement agreements with opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacy chains collectively “The National Settlement Agreements,” which include: Amerisource Bergen, Cardinal Health, McKesson, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, Kroger, Teva, Allergen, CVS, Walgreens, Walmart and Purdue Pharma in the MDL No. 2804 National Prescription Opiate Litigation; and WHEREAS, the proposed settlement agreements include eight opioid manufacturers, specifically, Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus (the “Secondary Manufacturers”) providing a maximum of approximately $720 million to participating subdivisions to remediate the abatement impacts of the opioid crisis; and WHEREAS, the City desires to opt into the settlement agreements with the Secondary Manufacturers and future settlements to support maximum opioid abatement funding; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that direct funding from the National Settlement and Manufactures Agreements are negligible and insufficient to support meaningful opioid abatement and recovery program activities at the municipal level; and WHEREAS, the allocation of direct funding to the County of Orange ensures opioid abatement efforts are comprehensive and available to San Clemente residents and in the best interests of the City and the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and fully incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to opt into the settlements with Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus, execute any and all documents necessary to implement the action, and when possible (i.e., after payment to special counsel) allocate 369
Resolution No. 25-156 Page 2
4867-3182-8585 v1
the City’s designated share of settlement funds to the County of Orange; and SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby approves and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to opt into future settlements on similar terms in the MDL No. 2804 National Prescription Opiate Litigation, execute any documents necessary to implement the action and, when possible (i.e. after payment to special counsel) allocate the City’s designated share of settlement funds to the County of Orange.

SECTION 4. That City staff is authorized and directed to execute such other documents and take such other and further actions as are necessary and proper to accomplish the purposes of this resolution.

SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of October, 2025.

ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the City San Clemente, California of San Clemente, California
370
Resolution No. 25-156 Page 3
4867-3182-8585 v1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-156 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of October 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
371
Attachment 2
Settlement Fund Payment Amount Fiscal Year Accrued
Distributors Abatement $4,558.95 2023
Distributors Subdivision $1,195.08 2023
Distributors Abatement $4,791.23 2023
Distributors Subdivision $1,255.97 2023
Distributors Subdivision $1,058.38 2024
Distributors Abatement $4,037.46 2024
Mallinckrodt Bankruptcy Abatement $747.72 2023
Janssen Abatement $1,623.01 2023
Janssen Subdivision $425.46 2023
Janssen Abatement $3,786.53 2023
Janssen Subdivision $992.60 2023
Janssen Abatement $2,848.81 2023
Janssen Subdivision $746.79 2023
Walgreens Subdivision $109.86 2025
Janssen Subdivision $359.65 2026
Kroger Subdivision $46.91 2026
Kroger Subdivision $44.63 2026
CVS Subdivision $222.24 2026
Teva Subdivision $122.16 2026
Allergan Subdivision $134.14 2026
Distributors Subdivision $371.86 2026
Total $ 29,479.44
Direct Opioid Payments Received By
The City of San Clemente
372
New National Opioids Settlement: Secondary Manufacturers Opioids Implementation Administrator
[email protected]
San Clemente city, CA
Reference Number: CL-1762544
TO LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS:

THIS PACKAGE CONTAINS DOCUMENTATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW NATIONAL OPIOIDS SECONDARY MANUFACTURERS SETTLEMENTS. YOU MUST TAKE ACTION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE.

Deadline: October 8, 2025
A new proposed national opioids settlement (“Secondary Manufacturers Settlements”) has been reached with eight opioids manufacturers: Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus (“Settling Defendants”). This Combined Participation Package is a follow-up communication to the Notice of National Opioids Settlement recently received electronically by your subdivision.

You are receiving this Combined Participation Package because California is participating in the Secondary Manufacturers Settlements.

If a state is not eligible to or does not participate in the settlement with a particular manufacturer, the subdivisions in that state are not eligible to participate in that manufacturer’s settlement.

This electronic envelope contains nine attachments:
 A Combined Participation Form for the Secondary Manufacturers Settlements that your subdivision is eligible to join, including a release of any claims.  California State-Subdivision Agreements for Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus (“California State-Subdivision Agreements”).

The Combined Participation Form and all eight California State-Subdivision Agreements must be executed, without alteration, and submitted on or before October 8, 2025, in order for your subdivision to be considered for initial participation calculations and payment eligibility under the Secondary Manufacturers Settlement.

Based upon Combined Participation Forms received on or before October 8, 2025, the subdivision participation rate will be used to determine whether participation is sufficient for each settlement to move forward and whether a state earns its maximum potential payment under each settlement. If a settlement moves forward, your release will become effective. If a settlement does not move forward, that release will not become effective.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 Attachment 3
373
Any subdivision that does not participate cannot directly share in the settlement funds, even if the subdivision’s state is settling and other participating subdivisions are sharing in settlement funds. Any subdivision that does not participate may also reduce the amount of money for programs to remediate the opioid crisis in its state.

Please note, a subdivision will not necessarily directly receive settlement funds by participating; decisions on how settlement funds will be allocated within a state are subject to intrastate agreements or state statutes.

You are encouraged to discuss the terms and benefits of the Secondary Manufacturers Settlements with your counsel, your Attorney General’s Office, and other contacts within your state. Many states are implementing and allocating funds for this new settlement the same as they did for the prior opioids settlements but states may choose to treat this settlement differently.

Information and documents regarding the Secondary Manufacturers Settlements, implementation in your state, and how funds will be allocated within your state can be found on the national settlement website at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/ and the California Attorney General’s website at https://oag.ca.gov/opioids. These websites will be supplemented as additional documents are created.

This Participation Packet is different than the participation packet you recently received from Rubris concerning a settlement with Purdue Pharma, L.P, and the Sackler Family. The Secondary Manufacturers Settlements discussed in this Participation Packet are different than the settlement with Purdue and the Sacklers, and you may participate in the Secondary Manufacturers Settlements regardless of whether you join the Purdue and Sackler settlement.

How to return signed forms:

There are three methods for returning the executed Combined Participation Form, the eight California State-Subdivision Agreements, and any supporting documentation to the Implementation Administrator:
(1)Electronic Signature via DocuSign: Executing the Combined Participation Form electronically through DocuSign will return the signed form to the Implementation Administrator and associate your form with your subdivision’s records. Electronic signature is the most efficient method for returning the Combined Participation Form, allowing for more timely participation and the potential to meet higher settlement payment thresholds, and is therefore strongly encouraged.
(2)Manual Signature returned via DocuSign: DocuSign allows forms to be downloaded, signed manually, then uploaded to DocuSign and returned automatically to the Implementation Administrator. Please be sure to complete all fields. As with electronic signature, returning a manually signed Combined Participation Form via DocuSign will associate your signed forms with your subdivision’s records.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 374
(3)Manual Signature returned via electronic mail: If your subdivision is unable to return an executed Combined Participation Form using DocuSign, the signed Combined Participation Form may be returned via electronic mail to [email protected]. Please include the name, state, and reference ID of your subdivision in the body of the email and use the subject line Combined Settlement Participation Form – [Subdivision Name, Subdivision State] – [Reference ID].

Detailed instructions on how to sign and return the Combined Participation Form and eight California State-Subdivision Agreements, including changing the authorized signer, can be found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/additionalsettlements/. You may also contact [email protected].

The sign-on period for subdivisions ends on October 8, 2025.

If you have any questions about executing the Combined Participation Form, please contact your counsel, the Implementation Administrator at [email protected], or the California Attorney General’s Office at [email protected].

Thank you,
Secondary Manufacturers Settlements Implementation Administrator The Implementation Administrator is retained to provide the settlement notice required by the Secondary Manufacturers Settlements and to manage the collection of the Combined Participation Form.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 375

EXHIBIT K
Secondary Manufacturers’ Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form (“Combined Participation Form”)
Governmental Entity: San Clemente city State: CA
Authorized Official: /officialname_som/
Address 1: /address1_som/
Address 2: /address2_som/
City, State, Zip: /cit_sm/ /state_sm/ /zi_sm/
Phone: /phone_som/
Email: /email_som/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to each of the settlements which are listed in paragraph 1 below (each a “Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement” and collectively, “the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, and agrees as follows.

1. The Participating Entity hereby elects to participate in each of the following Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements as a Participating Entity:
a. Settlement Agreement for Alvogen, Inc. dated April 4, 2025. b. Settlement Agreement for Apotex Corp. dated April 4, 2025. c. Settlement Agreement for Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC dated April 4, 2025. d. Settlement Agreement for Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. dated April 4, 2025. e. Settlement Agreement for Indivior Inc. dated April 4, 2025. f. Settlement Agreement for Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”) dated April 4, 2025. g. Settlement Agreement for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. dated April 4, 2025. h. Settlement Agreement for Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. dated April 4, 2025.

2. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, understands that all capitalized terms not defined in this Combined Participation Form have the meanings defined in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, and agrees that by executing this Combined Participation Form, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements and become a Participating Subdivision as provided in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.

3. The Governmental Entity shall promptly, and in any event no later than 14 days after the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed against any Released Entity in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity K-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 376
authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice for each of the manufacturers listed in paragraph 1 above substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/additional-settlements/.

4. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements pertaining to Participating Subdivisions as defined therein.

5. By agreeing to the terms of each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.

6. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements solely for the purposes provided therein.

7. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court and agrees to follow the process for resolving any disputes related to each Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement as described in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.1

8. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements as provided therein.

9. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, including without limitation all provisions related to release of any claims,2 and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in his or her official capacity whether elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released 1 See Settlement Agreement for Alvogen, Inc. Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Apotex Corp. Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Indivior Section VI.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Mylan Section VI.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. Section VII.F.2. 2 See Settlement Agreement for Alvogen, Inc. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC Section X; Settlement Agreement for Apotex Corp. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Indivior Section X; Settlement Agreement for Mylan Section X; Settlement Agreement for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. Section XI.

K-2
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 377
Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. Each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim against that manufacturer’s Released Entities.

10. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision as set forth in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.

11. In connection with the releases provided for in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:

General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.

A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.

12. The Governmental Entity understands and acknowledges that each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements is an independent agreement with its own terms and conditions. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of any of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees, aside from the exceptions in paragraph 13 below. To the extent this Combined Participation Form is interpreted differently from any of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements in any respect, the individual Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement controls.

13. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that some but not all of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements proceed past their respective Reference Dates, all releases and other commitments or obligations shall become void only as to those Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements that fail to proceed past their Reference Dates. All releases and other commitments or obligations (including those contained in this Combined Participation Form) shall remain in full effect as to each Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement that proceeds past its Reference Date, and this Combined Participation Form need not be modified, returned, or destroyed as long as any Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement proceeds past its Reference Date.

K-3
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 378
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Combined Participation Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity.

Signature: /signer_1_som/
Name: /name_1_som/
Title: /title_1_som/
Date: /date_1_som/
K-4
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 379
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Alvogen Settlement

1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Alvogen Settlement Agreement, dated as of April 4, 2025, and any revision thereto (the “Alvogen Settlement Agreement”), including Section VI and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Section X of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement. b) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California.
c) 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. d) Opioid Defendant means any defendant including but not limited to Alvogen, Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Apotex Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Indivior Inc.; Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Kroger Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Dr.

Richard S. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, David Sackler, Marianna Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Mortimer D.A. Sackler) 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 380
2 3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Alvogen Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Alvogen Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section VI(D)(1) of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VI(B)(2) of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.

This Agreement does not apply to funds received by California1 pursuant to Section X of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement, including payments for Private Attorney Fees and the Additional Remediation Amount.

4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California, pursuant to the Alvogen 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 Alvogen 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 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 381
3 litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Alvogen 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 the county is a CA Participating Subdivision; provided, however, that if a city currently receives direct payment of its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors Cencora, Inc. (f/k/a AmerisourceBergenCorporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”), that city’s Local Allocation amount will be paid directly to the city. If a city later changes or has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement administrator 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 Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement and this CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 382
4 Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State.
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 Alvogen 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;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
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 Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement and this CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 383
5 agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Alvogen Settlement Agreement and this CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Alvogen Settlement Agreement or this CA Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement or this CA Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement and this CA Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 384
6 Alvogen Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation.

However, in no event shall more than one third (5% out of the 15%) of CA Subdivision Funds be used for litigation-related fees and expenses.

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 settlement agreements with other Opioid Defendants.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use up to one-third (5% out of the 15%) of its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, provided that: (1) such payments, together with any payments to contingency-fee counsel from the Private Attorneys Fee amount related to such Plaintiff Subdivision, do not exceed 15% of a Plaintiff Subdivision’s total gross recovery under this Alvogen Settlement Agreement; and (2) the Plaintiff Subdivision certifies that any payments made under a State Back-Stop agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section VI.B.1 of the Alvogen Settlement 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 Alvogen 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 2 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 2. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 385
7 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement and this CA Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement and this CA Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Alvogen. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.

6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement, this CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 386
8 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 Alvogen 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 387
9 The undersigned, San Clemente city, CA, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Alvogen Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Alvogen Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Alvogen Settlement.

Signature: /signer_1_som/
Name: /name_1_som/
Title: /title_1_som/
Date: /date_1_som/
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 388
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—Alvogen Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to onehundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 389

APPENDIX
1 1of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 390

APPENDIX
1 2of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 391

APPENDIX
1 3of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 392

APPENDIX
1 4of15
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%
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 Canada 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 393

APPENDIX
1 5of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 394

APPENDIX
1 6of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 395

APPENDIX
1 7of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 396

APPENDIX
1 8of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 397

APPENDIX
1 9of15
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% 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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 398
APPENDIX 1
10of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 399

APPENDIX
1 11of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 400

APPENDIX
1 12of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 401
APPENDIX 1
13of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 402
APPENDIX 2

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 Alvogen 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 BackStop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Alvogen Settlement Agreement and CA Alvogen Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Alvogen Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL] from [SUBDIVISION’S] CA Subdivision Fund allocation will not exceed [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OR 5% OUT OF THE 15%] out of the [SUBDIVISION’S] 15% CA Subdivision Fund allocation; provided further that such payments, together with any contingency-fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the 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 Alvogen Settlement Agreement. [COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Alvogen 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 BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Alvogen 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]
1 Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 403
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Amneal Settlement

1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Amneal Settlement Agreement, dated as of April 4, 2025, and any revision thereto (the “Amneal Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Amneal Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Amneal Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections IX or XIV of the Amneal Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Amneal Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Amneal 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement. b) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Central California Alliance for Health, Health Plan of San Joaquin, Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority d/b/a Cencal Health, and Ventura County Medi-Cal Managed Care Commission d/b/a Gold Coast Health Plan.
c) 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. d) Opioid Defendant means any defendant including but not limited to Alvogen, Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Apotex Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Indivior Inc.; Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Kroger Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Dr.

Richard S. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, David Sackler, Marianna Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Mortimer Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 404
2 D.A. Sackler) 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Amneal Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Amneal Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Amneal Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Amneal Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Amneal Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Amneal Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.

This Agreement does not apply to funds received by California1 pursuant to Sections IX or XIV of the Amneal Settlement Agreement, including payments for Private Attorney Fees, the Additional Remediation Amount, and the Settlement Product Cash Conversion Amount.2

4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California, pursuant to the Amneal 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 Amneal 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.
///
1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit. 2All Settlement Product Cash Conversion Amounts paid to California pursuant to Section XIV of the Amneal Settlement Agreement shall be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 405
3 B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Amneal 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 the county is a CA Participating Subdivision; provided, however, that if a city currently receives direct payment of its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors Cencora, Inc. (f/k/a AmerisourceBergenCorporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”), that city’s Local Allocation amount will be paid directly to the city. If a city later changes or has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement administrator 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 Amneal Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 406
4 e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Amneal Settlement Agreement and this CA Amneal 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..
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 Amneal 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;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
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 Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 407
5 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 Amneal 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement and this CA Amneal Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Amneal Settlement Agreement and this CA Amneal Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Amneal Settlement Agreement or this CA Amneal 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement or this CA Amneal 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 408
6 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement and this CA Amneal Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioidrelated expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation However, in no event shall more than one third (5% out of the 15%) of CA Subdivision Funds be used for litigation-related fees and expenses.

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 settlement agreements with other Opioid Defendants.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use up to one-third (5% out of the 15%) of its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Amneal Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, provided that: (1) such payments, together with any payments to contingency-fee counsel from the Private Attorneys Fee amount related to such Plaintiff Subdivision, do not exceed 15% of a Plaintiff Subdivision’s total gross recovery under this Amneal Settlement Agreement; and (2) the Plaintiff Subdivision certifies that any payments made under a State Back-Stop agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section VI.B.1 of the Amneal Settlement 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 Amneal 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 2 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 2. The California Office of the Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 409
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 Amneal Settlement Agreement and this CA Amneal 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement and this CA Amneal 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Amneal. 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.
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 410
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 Amneal 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement, this CA Amneal 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 Amneal 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 411
The undersigned, San Clemente city, CA, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Amneal Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Amneal Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Amneal Settlement.

Signature: /signer_1_som/
Name: /name_1_som/
Title: /title_1_som/
Date: /date_1_som/
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 412
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—Amneal Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to onehundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 413

APPENDIX
1 1of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 414

APPENDIX
1 2of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 415

APPENDIX
1 3of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 416

APPENDIX
1 4of15
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%
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 Canada 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 417

APPENDIX
1 5of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 418

APPENDIX
1 6of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 419

APPENDIX
1 7of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 420

APPENDIX
1 8of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 421

APPENDIX
1 9of15
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% 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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 422
APPENDIX 1
10of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 423

APPENDIX
1 11of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 424

APPENDIX
1 12of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 425
APPENDIX 1
13of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 426
APPENDIX 2

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 Amneal 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 BackStop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Amneal Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Amneal Settlement Agreement and CA Amneal Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Amneal Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL] from [SUBDIVISION’S] CA Subdivision Fund allocation will not exceed [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OR 5% OUT OF THE 15%] out of the [SUBDIVISION’S] 15% CA Subdivision Fund allocation; provided further that such payments, together with any contingency-fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the 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 Amneal Settlement Agreement. [COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Amneal 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 BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Amneal 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]
1 Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 427
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Apotex Settlement

1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Apotex Settlement Agreement, dated as of April 4, 2025, and any revision thereto (the “Apotex Settlement Agreement”), including Section VI and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Apotex Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Apotex Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Section X of the Apotex Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Apotex Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement. b) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California.
c) 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. d) Opioid Defendant means any defendant including but not limited to Alvogen, Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Apotex Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Indivior Inc.; Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Kroger Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Dr.

Richard S. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, David Sackler, Marianna Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Mortimer D.A. Sackler) 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 428
2 3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Apotex Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Apotex Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Apotex Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Apotex Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Apotex Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section VI(D)(1) of the Apotex Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VI(B)(2) of the Apotex Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.

This Agreement does not apply to funds received by California1 pursuant to Section X of the Apotex Settlement Agreement, including payments for Private Attorney Fees and the Additional Remediation Amount.

4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California, pursuant to the Apotex 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 Apotex 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 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 429
3 Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Apotex 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 the county is a CA Participating Subdivision; provided, however, that if a city currently receives direct payment of its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors Cencora, Inc. (f/k/a AmerisourceBergenCorporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”), that city’s Local Allocation amount will be paid directly to the city. If a city later changes or has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement administrator 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 Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement and this CA Apotex 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 430
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 Apotex 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;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
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 Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement and this CA Apotex 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 Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 431
5 Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Apotex Settlement Agreement and this CA Apotex Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Apotex Settlement Agreement or this CA Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement or this CA Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement and this CA Apotex Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioidrelated expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 432
6 However, in no event shall more than one third (5% out of the 15%) of CA Subdivision Funds be used for litigation-related fees and expenses.

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 settlement agreements with other Opioid Defendants.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use up to one-third (5% out of the 15%) of its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Apotex Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, provided that: (1) such payments, together with any payments to contingency-fee counsel from the Private Attorneys Fee amount related to such Plaintiff Subdivision, do not exceed 15% of a Plaintiff Subdivision’s total gross recovery under this Apotex Settlement Agreement; and (2) the Plaintiff Subdivision certifies that any payments made under a State Back-Stop agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section VI.B.1 of the Apotex Settlement 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 Apotex 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 2 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 2. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 433
7 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement and this CA Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement and this CA Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Apotex. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.

6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement, this CA Apotex Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 434
8 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 Apotex 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 435
9 The undersigned, San Clemente city, CA, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Apotex Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Apotex Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Apotex Settlement.

Signature: /signer_1_som/
Name: /name_1_som/
Title: /title_1_som/
Date: /date_1_som/
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 436
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—Apotex Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to onehundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 437

APPENDIX
1 1of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 438

APPENDIX
1 2of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 439

APPENDIX
1 3of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 440

APPENDIX
1 4of15
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%
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 Canada 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 441

APPENDIX
1 5of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 442

APPENDIX
1 6of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 443

APPENDIX
1 7of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 444

APPENDIX
1 8of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 445

APPENDIX
1 9of15
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% 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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 446
APPENDIX 1
10of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 447

APPENDIX
1 11of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 448

APPENDIX
1 12of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 449
APPENDIX 1
13of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 450
APPENDIX 2

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 Apotex 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 BackStop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Apotex Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Apotex Settlement Agreement and CA Apotex Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Apotex Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL] from [SUBDIVISION’S] CA Subdivision Fund allocation will not exceed [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OR 5% OUT OF THE 15%] out of the [SUBDIVISION’S] 15% CA Subdivision Fund allocation; provided further that such payments, together with any contingency-fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the 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 Apotex Settlement Agreement. [COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Apotex 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 BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Apotex 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]
1 Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 451
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Hikma Settlement

1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Hikma Settlement Agreement, dated as of April 4, 2025, and any revision thereto (the “Hikma Settlement Agreement”), including Section VI and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Hikma Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Hikma Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections X or XV of the Hikma Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Hikma Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement. b) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California.
c) 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. d) Opioid Defendant means any defendant including but not limited to Alvogen, Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Apotex Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Indivior Inc.; Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Kroger Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Dr.

Richard S. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, David Sackler, Marianna Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Mortimer D.A. Sackler) 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 452
2 3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Hikma Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Hikma Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Hikma Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Hikma Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Hikma Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section VI(D)(1) of the Hikma Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VI(B)(2) of the Hikma Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.

This Agreement does not apply to funds received by California1 pursuant to Sections X or XV of the Hikma Settlement Agreement, including payments for Private Attorney Fees, the Additional Remediation Amount, and the Settlement Product Cash Conversion Amount.2

4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California, pursuant to the Hikma 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 Hikma 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 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit. 2All Settlement Product Cash Conversion Amounts paid to California pursuant to Section XV of the Hikma Settlement Agreement shall be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 453
3 negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Hikma 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 the county is a CA Participating Subdivision; provided, however, that if a city currently receives direct payment of its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors Cencora, Inc. (f/k/a AmerisourceBergenCorporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”), that city’s Local Allocation amount will be paid directly to the city. If a city later changes or has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement administrator 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 Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement and this CA Hikma Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 454
4 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..
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 Hikma 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;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
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 Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement and this CA Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 455
5 Hikma Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Hikma Settlement Agreement and this CA Hikma Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Hikma Settlement Agreement or this CA Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement or this CA Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement and this CA Hikma Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 456
6 Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioidrelated expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation However, in no event shall more than one third (5% out of the 15%) of CA Subdivision Funds be used for litigation-related fees and expenses.

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 settlement agreements with other Opioid Defendants.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use up to one-third (5% out of the 15%) of its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Hikma Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, provided that: (1) such payments, together with any payments to contingency-fee counsel from the Private Attorneys Fee amount related to such Plaintiff Subdivision, do not exceed 15% of a Plaintiff Subdivision’s total gross recovery under this Hikma Settlement Agreement; and (2) the Plaintiff Subdivision certifies that any payments made under a State Back-Stop agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section VI.B.1 of the Hikma Settlement 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 Hikma 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 2 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 2. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 457
7 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement and this CA Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement and this CA Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Hikma. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.

6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement, this CA Hikma Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 458
8 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 Hikma 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 459
9 The undersigned, San Clemente city, CA, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Hikma Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Hikma Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Hikma Settlement.

Signature: /signer_1_som/
Name: /name_1_som/
Title: /title_1_som/
Date: /date_1_som/
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 460
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—Hikma Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change.

Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 461

APPENDIX
1 1of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 462

APPENDIX
1 2of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 463

APPENDIX
1 3of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 464

APPENDIX
1 4of15
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%
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 Canada 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 465

APPENDIX
1 5of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 466

APPENDIX
1 6of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 467

APPENDIX
1 7of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 468

APPENDIX
1 8of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 469

APPENDIX
1 9of15
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% 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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 470
APPENDIX 1
10of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 471

APPENDIX
1 11of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 472

APPENDIX
1 12of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 473
APPENDIX 1
13of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 474
APPENDIX 2

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 Hikma 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 BackStop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Hikma Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Hikma Settlement Agreement and CA Hikma Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Hikma Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL] from [SUBDIVISION’S] CA Subdivision Fund allocation will not exceed [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OR 5% OUT OF THE 15%] out
of the [SUBDIVISION’S] 15% CA Subdivision Fund allocation; provided further that such payments, together with any contingency-fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the 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 Hikma Settlement Agreement. [COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Hikma 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 BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Hikma Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 475
1 Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 476
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Indivior Settlement

1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Indivior Settlement Agreement, dated as of April 4, 2025, and any revision thereto (the “Indivior Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Indivior Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Indivior Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections IX or XIV of the Indivior Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Indivior Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement. b) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California.
c) 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. d) Opioid Defendant means any defendant including but not limited to Alvogen, Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Apotex Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Indivior Inc.; Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Kroger Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Dr.

Richard S. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, David Sackler, Marianna Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Mortimer D.A. Sackler) 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 477
2 3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Indivior Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Indivior Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Indivior Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Indivior Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Indivior Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Indivior Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Indivior Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.

This Agreement does not apply to funds received by California1 pursuant to Sections IX or XIV of the Indivior Settlement Agreement, including payments for Private Attorney Fees, the Additional Remediation Amount, and the Settlement Product Cash Conversion Amount. 2

4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California, pursuant to the Indivior 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 Indivior 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 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit. 2All Settlement Product Cash Conversion Amounts paid to California pursuant to Section XIV of the Indivior Settlement Agreement shall be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 478
3 negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Indivior 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 the county is a CA Participating Subdivision; provided, however, that if a city currently receives direct payment of its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors Cencora, Inc. (f/k/a AmerisourceBergenCorporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”), that city’s Local Allocation amount will be paid directly to the city. If a city later changes or has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement administrator 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 Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement and this CA Indivior Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 479
4 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..
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 Indivior 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;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
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 Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement and this CA Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 480
5 Indivior Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Indivior Settlement Agreement and this CA Indivior Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Indivior Settlement Agreement or this CA Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement or this CA Indivior 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, Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 481
6 subject to any limits imposed by the Indivior Settlement Agreement and this CA Indivior Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioidrelated expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation However, in no event shall more than one third (5% out of the 15%) of CA Subdivision Funds be used for litigation-related fees and expenses.

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 settlement agreements with other Opioid Defendants.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use up to one-third (5% out of the 15%) of its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Indivior Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, provided that: (1) such payments, together with any payments to contingency-fee counsel from the Private Attorneys Fee amount related to such Plaintiff Subdivision, do not exceed 15% of a Plaintiff Subdivision’s total gross recovery under this Indivior Settlement Agreement; and (2) the Plaintiff Subdivision certifies that any payments made under a State Back-Stop agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section V.B.1 of the Indivior Settlement 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 Indivior 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 2 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 2. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 482
7 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement and this CA Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement and this CA Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Indivior. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.

6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement, this CA Indivior Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 483
8 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 Indivior 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 Indivior Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 484
9 The undersigned, San Clemente city, CA, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Indivior Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Indivior Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds –Indivior Settlement.

Signature: /signer_1_som/
Name: /name_1_som/
Title: /title_1_som/
Date: /date_1_som/
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 485
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—Indivior Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to onehundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 486

APPENDIX
1 1of15
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%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 487

APPENDIX
1 2of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 488

APPENDIX
1 3of15
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% 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 489

APPENDIX
1 4of15
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%
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 Canada 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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 490

APPENDIX
1 5of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 491

APPENDIX
1 6of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 492

APPENDIX
1 7of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 493

APPENDIX
1 8of15
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%
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%
Docusign Envelope ID: 3367917C-BDC8-4019-849C-E318FF33AF88 494