Public Comments — Costa Mesa City Council, September 2, 2025

From: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: City Council, an opinion in the Daily Pilot
Date: Friday, August 29, 2025 11:29:59 AM
City Council,
Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed. My letter to the LA Times/Daily Pilot was published and should be in the print edition of the paper this weekend:
“Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” is the latest community outreach by the Costa Mesa City Council. Unfortunately the title is as misleading as the council’s efforts. The state wants 40% of the 11,760 (RHNA) units built in our city to be very-low, or low-income affordable housing, which is exactly what 47% of Costa Mesa residents prefer, as they are low-income working families.

The City Council said in 2022 that these goals would require residents relinquish their votes on building projects, giving the council their power to negotiate (Measure K). The council would then write a strong inclusionary housing ordinance. Instead of affordable units in every build, the council turned requirements into suggestions. A few dollars of in-lieu fees paid to the city, and developers are free from providing affordable housing, open space, parks, or amenities. And for more accommodations, developers can secure a personal developer agreement with the city, and density bonuses from the state. Together, the council has ensured that we all will never have to be neighbors.

The majority of the poor will be restricted to converted motels or high-rise tenements overlooking the Emergency Operations Center at the former Fairview Developmental Center. With each iteration of that plan, the parkland shrinks as the concrete tenements rise. Golf course views and parks for the rich, all concrete all the time for the poor. And just so private equity has room at the troth, the City Council has approved many more luxury rental projects than for-purchase housing. The city is already 60% rentals and 40% owners.

Despite the exercises of residents putting dots on the roof-lines they prefer, the City Council offers no guarantees to them on what’s built, where, affordable housing, or what will be done with the money paid to the city as in-lieu fees. However, the City Council has guaranteed developers a 16.7% return on investment, which is used in calculating the density of units-per- acre they are allowed to build.
“Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” is a good marketing slogan, but an unforgivable lie.

Priscilla Rocco
Costa Mesa
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. 1 Sept. 2, 2025
Dear Mayor Stephens and City Council Members,
Fairview Park Alliance is writing to you concerned that the Mesa Restoration agenda item has been pushed back again. I sent this letter to you on Aug. 19th and never heard anything from any of you. I am sending it to you again to be part of the record for city council meeting Sept. 2, 2025. Restoration of the mesa is under a time constraint not only with the grant but with mother nature. By putting off the restoration for another month means not being able to start the clearing of the site to be ready for planting at the best time.

When this item does come before you, please pass it. Here are some good reasons to pass it:

1. It would allow an update to the 1997 Study acknowledging the Crotch’s Bumble Bee and Western Burrowing Owl’s existence in Fairview Park.

2. It would finally start the long-term restoration that the community has been waiting for in the Fairview Park Master Plan since 1998. (FPMP p.38,42) (see FPMP link below)

3. It would provide a designated trail system. (see FPMP link below)

4. It would allow the cultural resources to be protected. (see FPMP link below)

5. It would meet the city’s obligation to OCTA and its Environmental Mitigation Program. (see staff report link below)

6. It is exactly what Measure AA was written for and complies fully with Measure AA. (see Measure AA (Ordinance 16-17) link below

7. It acknowledges the unique natural and archaeological park that only Costa Mesa has.

I saw an email sent to all of you dated Aug. 4, 2025 by the president of the gliderplane club, Mr. Garcia. There were many inaccuracies in it. I will address these inaccuracies and hope you consider them and verify them by doing your own investigating.

1. One inaccuracy in Mr. Garcia said was that the only people out there helping to restore Fairview Park’s habitats are “conservationists” and not the community. This is a false dichotomy. The volunteers ARE the community. They are all residents of the community who mostly are local Costa Mesa residents but some come from Santa Ana or other

2 neighboring cities. Most of them walk, run, or bicycle in Fairview Park on a regular basis.

Fairview Park is their get away from their loud and busy lives. • The majority of the community has said many times over the years at EVERY community outreach, at every community meeting for the master plan update, that they want Fairview Park to be a passive nature park. It should matter that 70.9% of Costa Mesa voters passed Measure AA.

2. Another inaccuracy - Mr.Garcia suggests that the mesa restoration is not in accordance with Measure AA. That is not true either. This mesa restoration project is in total compliance with Measure AA. Restoration is not a ‘Significant Change’ like Mr. Garcia claims. • Please read for yourselves in Measure AA Section 6 “Exceptions” It says that “Exceptions” This ordinance shall not apply to any Significant Changes to Fairview Park that are made for:

1. Restoration purposes, or;…

3. Mr. Garcia then has the audacity to say he knows the intentions of the authors of Measure AA! I was one of the authors and he got it wrong again! He says the authors only wanted “small” restoration projects, not “large” ones.
• As a contributing writer of Measure AA, I can say that is not correct and I refer you to Section 3 of Measure AA, the definition of “Restoration” (which would be exempt as a Significant Change)says:
“Restoration” means any act or activity whose purpose is to restore any part of Fairview Park to the natural non-developed state.”
There is no language about a “large” vs. “small” restoration project in Measure AA.

Measure AA also says activities that would be allowed without an election included “Restoring Fairview Park to its natural non-developed state”. (Please see Measure AA attachment)

4. Mr. Garcia also claimed in his email that restoration would keep seniors, children, and the public from using that area. That is not correct either. • The public doesn’t use that area in the first place. It has nonnative prickly tocolate brush on it. It is also a core archaeological site to be protected so the public shouldn’t be on it anyway. (See Cogstone Report). I am attaching a photo of the area. I suggest you go and look for yourselves.
3 5. Mr. Garcia also claimed that this mesa restoration was a premature action and overreaching a restoration area. This is not true because this restoration has been in the Fairview Park Master Plan since 1998 but there were no funds to start it. Now there is. • What is true is that by passing this mesa restoration you will be allowing a long-awaited restoration objective to begin and at the same time fulfilling an obligation by the city to OCTA. This is a smart and efficient way of utilizing funds for two projects at once.

I imagine a high-impact activity like gliderplane flying in a vernal pool watershed has forced Mr. Garcia to attack restoration.

I encourage you all to read:
• Staff report on this agenda item City staff has done a good job showing the background and all aspects of the project.
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14556932&GUID=D2710338-B8A9- 4F90-BC10-7E30267659ED
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14494250&GUID=FC044DE9-B223- 4028-B71B-AF692A854306

• Technical Reports on the city’s website under ‘Fairview Park Master Plan’. There are three technical reports about the biological resources and archaeological resources. https://www.costamesaca.gov/community/fairview-park/fairview-park-master-plan

• Fairview Park Master Plan (2008) “The overwhelming consensus is to continue a park for passive use by individuals and small groups and to enhance the natural environment of the park for those uses and as a habitat preserve.” (FPMP p.25) http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/parksandrecreation/fairviewpark/FairviewPar kMasterPlanSept2008Update.pdf

• Measure AA
https://weblink.costamesaca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83110&dbid=0&repo=C ityofCostaMesa&cr=1

4 If you read all of these documents, then you will understand Mr. Garcia’s inaccuracies and why the plants and animals that live there are unique, essential for biodiversity, and important to protect for our very own well being. You would also see why this mesa restoration project is a good thing to happen to Fairview Park and the community. But after that, you need to go for a walk in Fairview Park.

You need to experience Fairview Park.

You need to smell the coastal sage scrub
You need to hear the different bird calls
You might even listen to your thoughts
You need to experience the difference between only using Fairview Park and appreciating Fairview Park. Flying gliderplanes uses Fairview Park by degrading and damaging sensitive habitat, kicking the birds out, and stressing the natural resources. Gliderplanes can fly elsewhere. In fact, they have better amenities for their planes less than 20 miles away.

Vernal pools can’t be moved. Extinct species can’t be brought back. The vernal pools, their watersheds, and the grass/flower fields that surround them are all interconnected. They contain endangered and threatened plants and animals that rely on each other for their survival. You can’t move them. Please pass this agenda item and start restoring the mesa.

If you have any questions or would like to comment on anything I’ve written, please do not hesitate to email me. FPA is more than willing to give any of you a guided tour of the different habitats that Fairview Park offers the community.

Sincerely,
Kim Hendricks
Fairview Park Alliance - President
19 August 2025
Dear Honorable Mayor Stephens and City Councilmembers,
As Chair and Vice Chair of the Parks and Community Services Commission (PACS), we would like to take the opportunity to provide you brief updates on our monthly meetings. As part of these monthly memos, we plan to include suggested action items–particularly on important topics where your awareness and support would be especially valuable. What follows is a report on our August 14th meeting:

1. Fairview Park Master Plan (FPMP) Draft
In Director Gruner’s monthly Director’s Report we learned more about the process for the FPMP presentation, and are concerned that the draft is scheduled to move forward to Council without first being presented to PACS for review and formal feedback. Given the years of work and significant public resources invested in this plan, it seems essential that our commission–whose purpose is to advise Council on such matters–have the opportunity to weigh in.

We were informed that we could review the draft “like any member of the public,” which was surprising, especially considering that we are asked to vote on every single bench or tree donation to city parks. Given your direction–and the very purpose of our commission to provide you with informed feedback–it feels counterintuitive and frustrating that we must continually push to be included in significant processes like the FPMP. A note that Chair Brown, in whose district Fairview Park resides and on whose steering committee she served as the liaison for over 3 years, specifically requested at the June PACS meeting (when this issue was also part of the Director’s report) that the process formally include our Commission.

At our most recent meeting, we proposed (with broad Commission support) either:

A joint FPMP presentation that includes both Council and the Commission, or Agendizing the FPMP draft for our September 11 meeting.

Action item: We would appreciate support in ensuring the commission’s role in this process.

2. Commission Values & Decision-Making Framework
We have been working diligently to develop a framework that clearly outlines our commission’s values and priorities, and how these should be applied to recurring processes such as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), budget development, master plan drafts, and other key planning documents. This effort stems from our belief that the commission has not been fully utilized during the CIP and budget cycles in recent years.

Action item: We would like to agendize a presentation to City Council in which we present the finalized values and principles document to help guide future decision-making.

3. Ad Hoc Committees
Director Gruner raised the issue of subcommittees in his closing remarks, informing PACS that we “bypassed” attorney approval in our constitution of a subcommittee. These remarks were framed as part of a larger directive intended to formalize the process with city attorney approval in the future; the subtext of these remarks, however, seem to discourage future subcommittees.

The City’s ordinance clearly grants PACS the authority to initiate its own studies, investigations, and hearings “by its own motion” (Section 12-71(b)) and to report findings and recommendations directly to Council, the City Manager, and relevant department directors. This means we are not limited to only the matters referred to us by staff or Council–we have the right to proactively explore issues, develop action plans, and bring them forward.

Given this mandate, the creation of ad hoc committees to support these efforts is well within our purview, and the ordinance reinforces our ability to set our own agendas when addressing matters related to parks, recreation, community services, and open space.

In terms of timing, we would respectfully ask that staff notify the commission in advance when substantial topics such as the role or scope of ad hoc committees will be discussed–especially during summer meetings when attendance can be challenging. Holding the City Council study session in June, without much notice, did not well position us to advocate on behalf of Costa Mesa residents.

Action item: We would like some clarification from Council as to the best process for moving forward with any potential future subcommittees, if and when they become necessary.

4. Park Ranger Data Reporting
In this past meeting we had an excellent biannual report from Lt. Diaz on the state of our parks.

The report was comprehensive in that it addressed issues that ranged from safety to conservation. With just 7 rangers for Costa Mesa, we are always continuously impressed with what our park rangers can manage to do on incredibly lean staffing.

We have repeatedly requested that Park Ranger data reports be provided to us in their raw form rather than in aggregated or modified presentations. For the past 6+ months, however, we have not received any data from park rangers. We believe that a revised form of data presentation is important for public transparency and accountability.

Action item: We would appreciate Council’s support in facilitating park ranger data reports.

Thank you for your time and continued support of our work we do on behalf of Costa Mesa residents. We look forward to working closely with you on these matters.

Sincerely,

Kelly Anne Brown, PhD | Chair, District 5 and Shayanne Wright | Vice Chair, At-Large

From: Russell Toler
To: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Cc: SETHURAMAN, RAJA; MARTIN, PAUL; THOMAS, BRETT ATENCIO; NIKOUI, RAMIN Subject: Santa Ana Bike Lanes
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:32:04 AM
Attachments: image.png
Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
If you were out and about this past weekend—or anytime this summer—you likely noticed something increasingly common: more and more people riding bikes. I regularly marvel at the full spectrum of people trying to get around Costa Mesa safely on two wheels: young and old, commuters and couples, families with kids, solo riders, people with beach chairs, grocery bags, backpacks—some just out for a ride, others clearly on their way somewhere. Despite our less-than-perfect infrastructure (we do have perfect terrain and weather), many people are nonetheless choosing to be out there on their bikes.

I'm writing because I wanted to share a development that you might not be aware of.

Last August, the City closed a critical gap in the heavily-used southbound bike lane on Santa Ana Avenue right in front of Kaiser Elementary School. As you may remember, students biking to Woodland, Kaiser, Ensign and Newport Harbor used to be forced to merge with 30mph traffic between 22nd and 21st Streets. That design preserved parking on both sides—unlike the rest of Santa Ana Avenue, which (mostly) has parking only on one side to allow for bike lanes in both directions.

This simple change in design has led to such an increase in young riders (specifically those coming from the north and benefitting from the newly completed lane) that Kaiser Elementary is now facing the challenge of how to manage so many of them.

Parents received a notice from the principal that a new arrival protocol will be tested this week so that they can gauge the viability of, and best location for, an entire new bike corral (bike cage).

I wanted to let you know about this, because despite the grumbling when the new lane was going in, it did not in fact make the street more dangerous, it did not result in a "parking nightmare," nor any of the other doomsday predictions we always hear.

This is not to say that any/all street improvement that is geared towards pedestrian or bicyclist safety is going to be a home run by default—accommodating slow and fast things in the same spaces is very tricky and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

But this one worked well—it enables kids to get to/from school by bike, which comes with a host of developmental benefits. We should all celebrate that and be thinking of how to enable more of that across the city.

One of the reasons it works so well is because it closed a gap—the bike lane continues for many blocks on either end. Connectivity is something we need to really focus on when it comes to making biking more viable in Costa Mesa. I am always reminded of the way the former Chief Planner of Vancouver once explained the issue:

One of the mistakes we made with our infrastructure for bikes in Vancouver is how slowly we’ve done it, one bike lane at a time, pulling the Band-Aid off slowly. Every time we did one, I would have to go to the media and answer questions:
“Why aren’t there more cyclists?” Because there isn’t a complete network. “Are you done yet?” Of course we’re not done yet — we don’t have a complete network.

Now Vancouver’s gotten to the point where there’s enough of a protected bike lane network that real biking gains are happening, but we went through about almost 10 years of unnecessary pain because we pulled the Band-Aid off too slowly.

If you want to get serious about mode share for cycling, you’re going to need a much faster and more robust approach to building separated, protected bike lanes.

Just glance inside your neighbors’ garages—nearly everyone has bikes. People buy them because they want to ride. They enjoy it. They want to use them to get places.

In fact, many people pay a premium to live in neighborhoods where walking and biking is relatively easy and pleasant. That’s why half of the goals in our Circulation Element—Goals 7 through 12—are focused specifically on improving conditions for biking and walking. These goals were written into the General Plan to reflect a clear community vision: a safer, more pleasant, more bikeable Costa Mesa.

I would specifically ask that you give attention to the blocks of Santa Ana Ave. between Broadway and E. 17th St., which currently have parking on both sides or a center turn lane—taking up the space that might otherwise go towards the completion of the bike lanes. This is another critical gap in our bike network —one that actively
discourages people from biking (or letting their kids bike) to 17th Street, Ensign, Harbor, Mariners Mile, or the Peninsula. And it's not just those on the eastside that depend on or benefit from this bike route—many people come from the west side of the 55 and bike through the eastside to get to these places. It’s a small but high- impact improvement that would benefit residents across the city.

Thanks for all you do, and thanks for reading!
Russell Toler
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Avinash Apte
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: A request
Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 9:19:36 AM
Dear Manager,
On paularino street between Babb street until end of school, southbound side never gets swept because there are no parking restrictions sign. Vehicles remain parked for ever. The street is very dirty with litter, Please do whatever ir takes to clean the southbound side. We appreciate it.

From: W Lewis
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: PAPL-25-0003
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:31:13 AM
I own several residential rental properties in Costa Mesa and I oppose this cannabis application. The properties I own include 280 Del Mar Ave and 414 Hamilton. Glenda Lewis
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

September

2024

Costa

Mesa

City

Council

77 Fair

Drive

Costa

Mesa,

92626

Re:

3150

Bear

St.

Screening

Mr.

Mayor

and

the

City

Council,

Thanks

for

all

the

work

you

for

the

city.

Here

are

humble

reactions

the

conceptual

plans

for

the

Trinity

Broadcasting

site

that

want

with

you.

would

say

these

things

about

any

large

site

development.

The

reason

I’m

bringing

this

help

you

think

through

some

the

aspects

that

maybe

you

aren’t

typically

focused

on,

with

the

goal

getting

any

changes

that

you

might

deem

appropriate

directed

the

applicant

now–
before

any

expensive

design

work

that

may

the

screening.

Site

Design

The

primary

thing

that

want

get

across

staﬀ

and

the

city

council

that

possible

build

146

units

without

the

dreaded

“townhome

community

site

plan
”
1 that

makes

all

squirm.

It’s

been

done

many

times

before,

and

still

done

many

places

across

the

world.

The

townhome

community

site

plan

one

that

criss-crossed

with

driveways

because

each

unit

needs

parking

directly

below.

This

leaves

little-to-no

room

the

site

for

anything

resembling

“public

realm”–the

element

that

buildings

traditionally

front

onto.

simple

principle

that

our

city

should

insist

that

new

buildings

front
2 a

public

realm
–whether

the

existing

sidewalks

the

edge(s)

the

site

(necessary

regardless),

new

public

realm

that

extends

into

(and

through

where

possible)

the

site

from

the

existing

sidewalk

the

form

new

streets

(
not

driveways),

paseos,

and/or

open

spaces.
3 These

spaces

should

generous

size,

contiguous

with

each

other,

and

connected

the

actual,

existing

public

realm–not

islands

within

inside-out

blocks,

ﬂoating

sea

driveways/alleys.

Please

see

letter

3 I’m

using

this

term

describe

the

shared-ness

space,

not

the

ownership

the

space.

2 The

verb

front

implies

that

the

building

has

front.

garage

door

with

inconspicuous

auxiliary

entrance

for

humans

the

side

would

not

considered

front

any

reasonable

person.

That’s

back.

1 The

townhome

community

site

plan

not

necessarily

limited

townhome

projects,

though

that

what

they

are

most

the

time.

these

sorts

projects.

It’s

opinion

that

would

better

allow

units

and

require

less

parking

means

better

design.

could

collect

units

eﬃciently

and

reasonably

into

buildings,

perhaps

could

pull

all

new

buildings

away

from

the

existing

neighbors,

rendering

the

“need”

provide

SFHs

transitions

unnecessary.

know

that

these

are

ridiculous

images

share,

but

think

they’re

useful

reminding

ourselves

that

density

not

the

enemy.

Rather,

bad

urbanism

the

enemy.

Buildings

and

neighbors

are

good,

and

urban

living

can

green

and

quiet

and

beautiful

and

economically

productive–the

things

all

want.

Note

that

part

what

feels

“right”

about

all

these

that

buildings

front

and

frame

car-lite

public

realm.

It's

key

ingredient

livable

cities

that

people

want

in.

The

Units

Themselves

There

nothing

wrong

with

ﬂats.

People

live

them

all

over

the

world.

Ironically,

everyone

this

particular

design

living

above

the

ground

ﬂoor

(which

nearly

entirely

devoted

parking),

making

puzzling

why

such

tortured

ﬂoor

plans

that

are

awkwardly

trying

approximate

townhomes

are

necessary.

The

multiplex

buildings

each

contain

something

12 to

18 units

each.

Why

not

build

simple

12-plexes

18-plexes

then?

Façades

Not

only

are

the

ﬂoorplans

tortured,

the

façades

are

tortured.

Part

this

the

fault

our

design

guidelines,

which

beg

for

much

variety

possible–gratuitous

not.

believe

that

most

people’s

preferences–whether

they

can

articulate

not–is

simplicity
,

with

tasteful

ornamentation,

regardless

style.

should

update

our

guidelines

reﬂect

this.

larger

buildings

were

included,

and

they

were

brought

Bear

St.,

this

would

provide

least

some

bit

framing

the

street,

well

some

“eyes

the

street”

that

could

only

make

Bear

St.

little

pleasant.

Parking

precludes

good

design.

This

especially

true

when

each

space

needs

connected

each

unit

dense

site
.

embarrassing

that

still

have

not

managed

lower

our

parking

minimums

this

point,

such

that

477

spaces

would

required

were

not

for

density

bonus

law.

This

forces

admit

something

that

many

don’t

want

to:

thank

God

for

state

usurping

local

control.

The

provision

288

parking

spaces

still

lot.

Not

only

does

degrade

urban

design,

but

ﬂoods

our

streets

with

cars

(exacerbating

traﬃc

and

parking

problems

elsewhere)

and

generally

contributes

car-dependent

density
–something

not

want.

Regardless

what

the

developer

thinks

the

right

number

is,

city

should

pushing

for

developers

embrace

Costa

Mesa

walkable

and

bike-able

city,

and

should

commit

continue

our

part

make

such

risk

worth

for

them.

Context

Although

this

site

butts

against

the

405,

not

terrible

location

for

new

residents:

10-minute

walk

Metro

Pointe

and

South

Coast

Plaza

and

ﬁve-minute

bike

ride

the

heart

SoBECA.

What

the

city

doing

ensure

that

Bear

St.

safe

and

pleasant

place

and

cross?

Same

with

Paularino

and

Baker.

Would

you

want

walk

SCP?

the

park

across

the

street?

Would

you

want

bike

brewery

Randolph?

shouldn’t

take

project

this

size

make

consider

these

things,

but

would

remiss

entertain

this

project

without

having

serious

discussion

about

whether

are

doing

everything

reasonably

can

ensure

that

this

neighborhood

great

place

for

people

live

and

where

car-lite

living

possible.

Car-lite

living

the

ultimate

win-win

scenario

for

housing

projects.

Regarding

the

emergency

access

from

Olympic

Ave.,

should

never

pass

opportunity

create

pedestrian

connectivity

the

city.

But

the

connection

should

provided

via

the

public

realm

(see

above)–not

through

people’s

private

car-alleys.

This

really

our

only

opportunity

integrate

this

site

into

the

fabric

the

existing

neighborhood,

unless

are

ambitious

and

are

able

provide

another

pedestrian

access

point

further

north

Bear

St.

That’s

all–thanks

for

reading!

Russell

Toler

From: rick bkguru.com
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Lake at Tewinkle Park
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 5:12:52 PM
It’s time to change course and stop spending significant funds on fixing a very old and crumbling pond. The proposed fixes are only temporary and additional funds will be needed in the future.

The money the staff wants to spend could be much more effectively utilized for replacing the pond with something much nicer.

Please stop this wasteful spending on a temporary fix.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks
Rick Kapko
1992 Balearic Dr.
40 year resident.

From: [email protected]
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fw: Please stop wasting monies
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:47:07 AM
Please do not waste our tax payer monies on awarding contracts which are know to be over inflated. Please wait until you can get a competitive bid to fix the park lakes.

Thanks in advance for the consideration.

Best,
Monica Khanna
181 Del Mar Ave,
Costa Mesa, CA
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 06:46:07 AM PDT
Subject: Please stop wasting monies
Please do not waste our tax payer monies on awarding contracts which are know to be over inflated. Please wait until you can get a competitive bid to fix the park lakes.

Thanks in advance for the consideration.

Best,
Monica Khanna
181 Del Mar Ave,
Costa Mesa, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Erin Gonzalez
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Opposition to TeWinkle Park Lake Repair Contract - Agenda Item 2 (9/2 Meeting) Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:45:30 AM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I write as a millennial resident of Eastside Costa Mesa to strongly oppose the approval of the proposed multi million dollar contract to repair the lakes at TeWinkle Park. This figure is far above the fair market cost for the work required, and it forces the citizens of Costa Mesa to bear an unnecessary financial burden.

I humbly request that this item should be tabled until the Project Workforce Agreement (PWA) expires in January 2026. Delaying the project until then would save taxpayers hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. The PWA has created a non-competitive bidding environment, driving costs up and leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

I urge the Council to hold off on this vote until the new year and to refrain from renewing the PWA. The current structure benefits a small group of corporations that exploit the lack of competition at the expense of the community. Costa Mesa deserves a system that reflects true capitalism and fosters a competitive market that serves both taxpayers and the integrity of the project.

Thank you for your consideration.
--
Erin Gonzalez
(714) 743-4397
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025

Dear Mayor and City Council,

We write to express our support of Item 2 on the New Business calendar (rental registry for tracking evictions). Rental registries

are

not

something

new,

they

have

been

implemented

cities

across

the

state

and

they

help

create

better

levels

communication

and

transparency

between

landlords

and

tenants.

While Costa Mesa has its own tenant protection ordinance to track no-fault evictions, not all evictions are being tracked

and

some

continue

ﬂy

under

the

radar.

Recently, 6 Costa Mesa families were evicted from their homes in District 2. These families received a 60-day eviction notice

that

was

rescinded

due

not

being

ﬁled

properly.

The

City

only

was

able

step

and

inform

the

landlord

that

the

original

eviction

notice

served

was

not

valid

only

after

one

the

families

reached

out

city

staﬀ.

The

landlord

then

informed

the

tenants

that

were

served

with

evictions

that

their

original

notice

was

rescinded.

This

was

19 days

after

the

original

60-day

notice

was

served,

that

point

many

the

families

had

already

begun

look

for

new

housing.

August

some

families

had

already

begun

leave

and

some

remaining

families

still

did

not

understand

that

their

original

eviction

notice

had

been

rescinded

and

therefore

invalid

and

unenforceable.

It is for this reason that we urge the Mayor and City Council to create a rental registry to better track and enforce existing

state

and

local

tenant

ordinances.

Thank

you.

Sincerely,
Christian Lopez
Tenant Rights Organizer
Resilience Orange County Email: [email protected]

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-1-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO
(SBN 106866)
City Attorney
[email protected]
VALERIE L. FLORES (SBN 138572)
[email protected]
MICHAEL J. DUNDAS (SBN 226930)
[email protected]

MARIA LOUISE COUSINEAU (SBN
122280)
[email protected]
RANDALL G. SOMMER (SBN
214099)
[email protected]
SHUBHRA SHIVPURI (SBN 295534)
[email protected]

OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES

CITY ATTORNEY
City Hall, 200 N. Spring St., 21st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4130
Tel.: 213-922-8382; Fax: 213-978-7957

Attorneys for Intervenor
City of Los Angeles

E. MARTIN ESTRADA (SBN 223802)
[email protected]
DANIEL B. LEVIN (SBN 226044)
[email protected]
JOHN L. SCHWAB (SBN 301386)
[email protected]
V. GRACE DAVIS (SBN 336732)
[email protected]
V. ROMAN LEAL (SBN 348892)
[email protected]
WENDY QIUYU XIAO (SBN 342702)
[email protected]

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Tel.: 213-683-9100; Fax: 213-687-3702

Attorneys for Intervenors Cities of Los
Angeles, Anaheim, Bell Gardens,
Beverly Hills, Carpinteria, Culver City,
Huntington Park, Long Beach, Lynwood,
Montebello, Monterey Park, Oxnard,
Paramount, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Santa
Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica,
South Gate, and West Hollywood

NICOLE DAVIS TINKHAM
(SBN 229592)
Chief Deputy
[email protected]
LILIANA CAMPOS (SBN 255753)
Assistant County Counsel
[email protected]

BRIGIT GREESON ALVAREZ
(SBN 237301)
Deputy County Counsel
[email protected]

OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES

COUNTY COUNSEL
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Admin.
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012-2713
Tel.: 213-808-8736; Fax: 213-633-1915

Attorneys for Intervenor
County of Los Angeles

MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS
(SBN 115423)
City Attorney
[email protected]
ARNOLD F. LEE (SBN 278610)
Chief Assistant City Attorney
[email protected]
ANDREW AARONIAN (SBN 318245)
Deputy City Attorney
[email protected]

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

OF PASADENA
100 N Garfield Ave, Rm N-210
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel.: 626-744-4141; Fax: 626-744-4190

Attorneys for Intervenor
City of Pasadena
Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 1 of 68 Page ID #:2307
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-2-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

NORMAN L. EISEN*
[email protected]
STEPHEN A. JONAS (SBN 542005)
Steve @democracydefenders.org
JOSHUA G. KOLB*
[email protected]

DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS FUND
600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 15180
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: (202) 594-9958

*PHV Forthcoming

Attorneys for Intervenor City of Los
Angeles

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 2 of 68 Page ID #:2308
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-3-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Pedro VASQUEZ PERDOMO; Carlos
Alexander OSORTO; and Isaac
VILLEGAS MOLINA; Jorge
HERNANDEZ VIRAMONTES; Jason
Brian GAVIDIA; LOS ANGELES
WORKER CENTER NETWORK;
UNITED FARM WORKERS;

COALITION FOR HUMANE
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS; IMMIGRANT

DEFENDERS LAW CENTER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Kristi NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security; Todd M. LYONS, in his official
capacity as Acting Director, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Rodney S. SCOTT, in his official capacity
as Commissioner, U.S. Customs and
Border Patrol; Michael W. BANKS, in his
official capacity as Chief of U.S. Border
Patrol; Kash PATEL, in his official
capacity as Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Pam BONDI, in her official
capacity as U.S. Attorney General;
Ernesto SANTACRUZ JR., in his official
capacity as Acting Field Office Director
for Los Angeles, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Eddy WANG,
Special Agent in Charge for Los Angeles,
Homeland Security Investigations, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Gregory K. BOVINO, in his official
capacity as Chief Patrol Agent for El
Centro Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol;
Jeffrey D. STALNAKER, in his official
capacity as Acting Chief Patrol Agent,
San Diego Sector of the U.S. Border
Patrol; Akil DAVIS, in his official
capacity as Assistant Director in Charge,
Los Angeles Office, Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Bilal A. ESSAYLI, in his
official capacity as U.S. Attorney for the
Central District of California,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN

INTERVENTION FOR

DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OF

INTERVENORS THE CITY OF

LOS ANGELES, THE COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES, THE CITY OF

ANAHEIM, THE CITY OF BELL

GARDENS, THE CITY OF

BEVERLY HILLS, THE CITY OF

CARPINTERIA, THE CITY OF

CULVER CITY, THE CITY OF

HUNTINGTON PARK, THE CITY

OF LONG BEACH, THE CITY OF

LYNWOOD, THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, THE CITY OF

MONTEREY PARK, THE CITY OF

OXNARD, THE CITY OF

PARAMOUNT, THE CITY OF

PASADENA, THE CITY OF PICO

RIVERA, THE CITY OF POMONA,

THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, THE

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, THE

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, THE

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, AND THE

CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

Judge: Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 3 of 68 Page ID #:2309
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-4-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 15(a) and 24(b), Plaintiffs- Intervenors (“Intervenors”) the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Anaheim, the City of Bell Gardens, the City of Beverly Hills, the City of Culver City, the City of Huntington Park, the City of Long Beach, the City of Lynwood, the City of Montebello, the City of Monterey Park, the City of Oxnard, the City of Paramount, the City of Pasadena, the City of Pico Rivera, the City of Pomona, the City of Santa Ana, the City of Santa Barbara, the City of Santa Monica, the City of South Gate, and the City of West Hollywood allege as follows:

1. Since at least June 6, 2025, armed and masked individuals, often without visible credentials or other identification, have conducted unprecedented, illegal, and unconstitutional searches and seizures across the Los Angeles area and neighboring regions within the Central District of California.

2. Defendants have conducted these illegal raids purportedly in support of the federal government’s immigration enforcement goals. Yet the sweeping raids are conducted without warrants, without probable cause, and without reasonable suspicion.

3. Eyewitness accounts reveal a disturbing pattern of racial profiling. As one observer described, “They don’t care if you have papers, as long as you look like what they want you to look like, they’ll take you.”1 A witness to another raid similarly recounted that “if you looked Hispanic in any way, they just took you.”2 Indeed, federal officials have admitted their profiling practices. See Aaron Rupar, 1 Travis Schlepp, ICE agents make arrest at Los Angeles area church, KTLA 5 (June 11, 2025), https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ice-agents-make-arrest-at-los- angeles-area-church/#:~:text=Community%20members%20and%20religious% 20leaders,in%20the%20church%20parking%20lot.
2 Jasmine Mendez et al., Immigration raids continue as Trump appears to soften on targeting some workplaces, L.A. Times (June 15, 2025), https://www.latimes.com /california/story/2025-06-15/los-angeles-immigration-raids-continue.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 4 of 68 Page ID #:2310
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-5-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Bluesky (July 11, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/pw3cusdc (“Border Czar” Tom Homan asserting that federal agents may detain individuals based on “the location, their occupation, their physical appearance, their accent”).

4. Defendants’ pattern of arresting people merely because they appear to be immigrants also reaches U.S. citizens. In one recent example, immigration officers violently arrested a U.S. citizen and Army veteran—spraying him with pepper spray and kneeling on his neck and back—and then held him in custody for three days without offering any explanation for his arrest.3 Defendants arrested U.S. citizen Andrea Velez during another raid, forcibly “lifting [her] off the ground and carrying her away” without explanation; Ms. Velez’s only apparent offense was “the color of her skin.”4 Yet another encounter, shared on social media, showed an ICE agent repeatedly asking Plaintiff Brian Gavidia, a U.S. citizen: “What hospital were you born at?” while detaining him.5

5. Community leaders who have witnessed Defendants’ operations have described them as “kidnapp[ings]” and “disappear[ances]” evocative of “a totalitarian regime.”6

6. The daily onslaught of armed, unidentified, often masked, and openly hostile forces appearing at workplaces, schools, courthouses, churches, parks, 3 Daniel Trotta, US citizen says he was jailed for three days after California immigration raid, Reuters (July 16, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/legal/ government/us-citizen-says-he-was-jailed-three-days-after-california-immigration- raid-2025-07-17.
4 Dani Anguiano, US citizen arrested during ICE raid in what family describes as ‘kidnapping,’ The Guardian (June 26, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2025/jun/26/immigration-ice-raid-andrea-velez.
5 Jennifer Medina, ‘I’m an American, Bro!’: Latinos Report Raids in Which U.S.

Citizenship Is Questioned, N.Y. Times (June 15, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/ 2025/06/15/us/hispanic-americans-raids-citizenship.html. 6 Martin Kaste, As courts review military in LA, immigration enforcement accelerates, NPR (June 19, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/06/19/g-s1-73569/as- courts-review-military-in-l-a-immigration-enforcement-accelerates.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 5 of 68 Page ID #:2311
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-6-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

homes, baseball games, neighborhoods, and other public and private places where families and other residents live, work, worship and recreate has reverberated across the region. This has left many of Intervenors’ residents, regardless of immigration status, frightened to go to work, shop, visit, recreate, pray, study, seek Intervenors’ services, or even venture outside or engage in normal daily activity.

7. There is good reason for such fear. Defendants’ choice to appear on city streets or in other public spaces in force, visibly armed, in masks and driving unmarked vehicles, radically increases the chance of violent encounters, whether with frightened residents, including citizens, or local law enforcement called to the scene. Even federal actions that have not ended with arrest or detention have resulted in physical harm to citizens from tear gas, physical force, and battery.

8. The primary goal of Defendants’ campaign is not immigration enforcement. Defendants have been crystal clear that they seek to make an example of Intervenors for implementing policies that President Donald J. Trump dislikes.

The President announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, that he was calling on federal immigration officials “to do all in their power” to effect “the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History” in “Democratic Power Center[s]” “such as Los Angeles.”7 As Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem put it: “We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and burdensome leadership that this Governor Newsom and this mayor placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into this city.”8 7 Camilo Montoya-Galvez, Trump directs immigration authorities to prioritize deportations in Democratic-run cities, CBS News (June 16, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-directs-ice-deportations-democratic-run- cities.
8 Helen Jeong, Kristi Noem blames Democratic officials for making ICE raids in LA harder, NBC Los Angeles (June 12, 2025), https://www.nbclosangeles.com/ news/local/kristi-noem-blames-democratic-officials-for-making-ice-raids-in-la- harder/3722800.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 6 of 68 Page ID #:2312
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-7-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9. Defendants have shown no intention of stopping their unlawful assault.

Defendant Noem responded to the District Court’s July 11 Temporary Restraining Order with open defiance, describing the District Court as an “idiot” and declaring that “none of our operations are going to change.”9 Indeed, on August 6, 2025, Defendants executed a “Trojan Horse” raid in which a driver drove a Penske truck to a Home Depot, asked for workers, and then had several agents descend from the back of the truck and sweep up 16 individuals.10 One Defendant bragged about the operation, saying: “For those who thought Immigration enforcement had stopped in Southern California, think again.”11

10. Defendants’ agents also recently marched through MacArthur Park in tactical gear, including past a playground filled with children at a summer day camp.12 “Better get used to us now, cause this is going to be normal very soon,” Defendant Gregory Bovino told a reporter.13 “We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.”14 Defendant Bovino suggested Defendants “may well go 9 NBC News, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem calls California judge an ‘idiot’ over immigration detention ruling (July 12, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ 8iuX7hhiJMc.
10 Nathan Solis et al., Federal agents use Penske rental truck as ‘Trojan Horse’ to raid Los Angeles Home Depot, L.A. Times (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.latimes.com /california/story/2025-08-06/more-raids-home-depot-in-macarthur-park-raided. 11 Id.
12 Michelle Krupa et al., Tensions are rising in Southern California over immigration raids. Here’s what we know, CNN (July 13, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/11/us/california-immigration-raids-la-wwk. 13 Jill Cowan & Mimi Dwyer, Federal Agents March Through L.A. Park, Spurring Local Outrage, N.Y. Times (July 7, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/ us/la-macarthur-park-immigration.html.
14 Id.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 7 of 68 Page ID #:2313
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-8-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

back to MacArthur Park or other places in and around Los Angeles,” as “[i]llegal aliens had the opportunity to self deport, now we’ll help things along a bit.”15

11. Defendants’ unwarranted and unlawful actions have severely impacted the ordinary functioning of Intervenors’ communities, with serious consequences for Intervenors’ ability to maintain law and order. Defendants are carrying out the roving immigration raids without any notice to local law enforcement, thus forcing Intervenors’ law enforcement officers to divert their limited resources to determine whether armed individuals exiting unmarked vehicles are masked, unidentified federal agents—or masked, unidentified criminals. 16 And when the federal agents are gone, law enforcement is left to “deal with the aftermath” of raids, “including protests and questions from residents about what exactly happened.”17

12. The trust and relationships that Intervenors and local law enforcement agencies have built with local communities, and immigrant communities in particular, have been deeply undermined by Defendants’ unlawful raids, especially when impacted residents confuse the unlawful conduct of Defendants’ agents with the conduct of local first responders.18 Protestors and people subject to Defendants’ unlawful raids have mistaken not only Intervenors’ police officers, but also social workers, firefighters, and building inspectors, for federal agents and have confronted them with accusations, threats, and non-cooperation. And local prosecutors have reported having difficulties prosecuting cases because undocumented immigrant 15 See Melissa Gomez et al., Heavily armed immigration agents descend on L.A.’s MacArthur Park, L.A. Times (July 7, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/ story/2025-07-07/immigration-agents-descend-on-macarthur-park. 16 Nathan Solis & Richard Winton, ‘Who are these people?’ Masked immigration agents challenge local police, sow fear in L.A., L.A. Times (June 24, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-24/masked-immigration-agents- local-law-enforcement-tension.
17 See id.
18 See id.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 8 of 68 Page ID #:2314
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-9-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

witnesses are afraid to appear in county courthouses, which Defendants are using as staging grounds for federal immigration enforcement.

13. Beyond the direct impacts on local law enforcement, Defendants’ illegal activities have broadly harmed Intervenors’ economies and financial health.

Local businesses in Intervenors’ jurisdictions have been devastated because their employees and their customers are afraid to leave their homes. Intervenors have lost and are continuing to lose meaningful tax revenue, in addition to bearing the increased costs resulting from the increased demands on local law enforcement.

Intervenors have also incurred tens of millions of dollars in direct, additional costs, including overtime and other unanticipated expenses resulting from Defendants’ unlawful activities.

14. Intervenors have sole responsibility for local affairs and certain core public functions, including providing for public safety, public services, and the health and welfare of the residents within their municipal boundaries. Defendants’ actions are a direct attack on, and an impediment to, each Intervenor’s ability to carry out those duties.

15. Each Intervenor is a local jurisdiction with compelling interests in the subject matter of this litigation. Nine Intervenors are charter cities (Anaheim, Culver City, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Pomona, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, and Santa Monica). Twelve are general law cities (Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, Carpinteria, Huntington Park, Lynwood, Montebello, Monterey Park, Oxnard, Paramount, Pico Rivera, South Gate, and West Hollywood). Most of the cities are located within the jurisdiction of Intervenor the County of Los Angeles, which is the most populous county in the United States. Anaheim is the most populous city and Santa Ana is the third most populous city within Orange County, Oxnard is the most populous city within Ventura County, and Carpinteria and Santa Barbara are located within Santa Barbara County.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 9 of 68 Page ID #:2315
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-10-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The Court also has authority to award declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202.

17. Defendants do not have immunity. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 702; Larson v.

Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689–90 (1949); Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 1989).

18. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because Defendants are officers or employees of the United States and at least one Plaintiff resides in this District; a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District; and/or because at least one Defendant resides in this District.

PARTIES IN INTERVENTION

19. Allegations regarding the parties in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition and Complaint (the “Lead Complaint”), ECF No. 16, ¶¶ 12–32, are incorporated herein by reference.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Los Angeles

20. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution.

21. The principal law enforcement agency of the City of Los Angeles is the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). The mission of the LAPD is to safeguard the lives and property of the people it serves, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the diverse communities of Los Angeles to improve Angelenos’ quality of life. LAPD works in partnership with the people and organizations within Los Angeles to solve local problems that affect public safety.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 10 of 68 Page ID #:2316
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-11-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

22. Historically, LAPD has received notice of large-scale, federal immigration enforcement efforts.

23. Defendants launched the current immigration raids without notice to, or coordination with, the LAPD.

24. As a result, LAPD officers have experienced confusion as to whether an individual conducting a raid is, in fact, a federal agent.

25. LAPD has had to divert resources to responding to and managing the fallout from federal enforcement efforts. Since June 6, 2025, LAPD has devoted more than 10,000 personnel (measured in days of deployment) and has spent more than $27.8 million in total costs in responding to and managing the fallout from Defendants’ actions, including in receiving and responding to numerous 911 calls or other reports about federal raids or other reports of “crimes” that turned out to be federal immigration enforcement actions.

26. The relationships that LAPD has built with Angeleno communities, including immigrant communities, have been and continue to be harmed by Defendants’ unlawful enforcement actions. LAPD officers have been confused for federal agents, and accused by Angelenos of aiding federal agents. Victims of crimes are hesitant to speak to local law enforcement investigators due to fears that investigators knocking on their doors may actually be federal agents.

27. The warrantless arrests of individuals in Los Angeles, including in and around courthouses, interferes with Los Angeles’ ability to protect and to obtain cooperation from its immigrant communities. For example, victims of crimes have reported being afraid to come to court or otherwise cooperate with law enforcement due to concerns about federal immigration enforcement.

28. Defendants’ actions have also chilled economic activity in Los Angeles. Ridership for DASH, Los Angeles’ public bus service, has declined across the City, with downtown DASH ridership for June 2025 down 35% from the prior year. Restaurants, retail businesses have emptied out. Owners report declines in Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 11 of 68 Page ID #:2317
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-12-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

sales and employees who are not showing up for work. Some businesses are reporting up to 75% declines in foot traffic and sales. Los Angeles has lost both sales and business tax income as a consequence.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the County of Los Angeles

29. Los Angeles County is a subdivision of the State of California, and one of its original 27 counties, ratified under the first County Charter in 1912. It has the largest population of any county in the United States at over 10 million residents— who comprise more than one quarter of California’s population—and is the nation’s largest county government, with more residents than most states. The County covers 4,084 square miles, and more than one million residents live in unincorporated areas outside of the County’s eighty-eight cities. Close to 49% of County residents are of Hispanic or Latino origin, with another 16.4% of Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander origin, 9% Black, and 25.3% of White or Non- Hispanic origin. As of February 2025, the County budget exceeds $49 billion in federal, state, and local funds to support a range of vital commitments including, but not limited to, healthcare, public safety, public benefits, workforce development, foster care, child support, housing and emergency management.

30. Since June 7, 2025, federal immigration agents have conducted large- scale and frequent raids across the County in public parks and streets, hospitals, private homes, businesses, swap meets, parking lots, and in front of courthouses, among a multitude of other locations that impact virtually every facet of life for County residents.

31. Video footage and eyewitness accounts of these raids reveal that federal immigration agents typically have not shown judicial, or even administrative, warrants when conducting their operations. Some of the individuals detained, questioned, and arrested in these operations are U.S. citizens or hold valid immigration status; federal agents presumably did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect immigration violations in at least these cases, and perhaps Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 12 of 68 Page ID #:2318
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-13-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

even in many cases of those without legal status. One such encounter, which was shared in social media, included an ICE agent repeatedly asking a twenty-nine-year- old Hispanic man, who is a U.S. citizen: “What hospital were you born at?” while temporarily detaining him.

32. Video footage and eyewitness accounts also indicate that federal immigration agents often wear masks and plainclothes and do not identify themselves during these raids, heightening fear and tension among County residents who are investigated or detained, as well as bystanders and others who learn of these raids through the media accounts, word of mouth, and social media posts.

33. The vast majority of County residents targeted by these raids are of Hispanic or Latino origin, followed by members of the Asian and Pacific Islander communities.

34. As a result of the federal immigration raids, large numbers of Latino and other residents have become fearful of leaving their homes to go to work, take public transportation, access County services including medical services, access open public programs and resources, and even attend appointments with immigration lawyers and legal service providers funded by the County.

35. The masked, unidentified federal agents have created such a climate of fear, mistrust, and suspicion that County employees ranging from Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department’s deputies to social workers have been mistaken for federal agents and confronted with vandalism of their vehicles, verbal accusations, harassment, and threats, as well as non-cooperation.

36. This confusion and mistrust also impacts public safety because victims and witnesses are unwilling to cooperate with Sheriff’s deputies. In addition, due to its expanded duties resulting from the public outcry against the large-scale federal immigration raids, the Sheriff’s Department has incurred over $9 million in additional costs since Defendants’ immigration raids began in June.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 13 of 68 Page ID #:2319
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-14-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

37. Public fear of federal immigration agents also has disrupted the work of social workers in the County’s Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) and Department of Aging & Disabilities, preventing them from protecting the County’s most vulnerable residents: children and elders. As one example, DCFS operates a Multi-Agency Response Team (“MART”) that helps provide emergency protective services to children in imminent danger from illegal gangs, guns, and drugs. In cooperation with local law enforcement, MART protects children in “intelligence sensitive” child endangerment cases. On June 16, 2025, the Sheriff’s Department requested MART’s presence in executing a warrant. During the execution of the warrant, a crowd gathered and shouted profanities at the DCFS MART social worker, making statements showing that they believed DCFS workers were, or were helping, federal immigration enforcement agents. Despite the social worker’s showing a DCFS identification card, several individuals in the crowd continued to mistakenly believe that MART staff were associated with federal immigration authorities. Following those events, to reduce the risk to DCFS staff, DCFS altered its procedures and began instructing its staff to meet law enforcement at their precincts, instead of meeting them in the community. These changes in protocol have resulted in delays in services and greater trauma to children served by DCFS.

38. These fears have forced other County departments, including but not limited to the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs and the Department of Public Health, to shift resources away from established priorities to assist County employees and affected residents attempting to navigate the current climate. County officials have had to dedicate limited resources to reestablish trust with the community and to create events that address the current fears in the community.

This has resulted in fewer resources being dedicated to various programs and strategic plans benefiting the public.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 14 of 68 Page ID #:2320
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-15-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

39. These fears have also curtailed usual services to residents from County field workers deterred from carrying out their services by the prospect of being subject to the improper immigration enforcement tactics themselves.

40. Furthermore, the current climate of fear instilled on the immigrant community has resulted in fewer people willing to file formal complaints with County officials including those relating to instances of fraud and abuse.

41. These fears pose significant personal and public health risks, with the cancellation and no-show rates across the County’s health systems increasing after June 8, 2025 for a wide range of critical health services, and the number of patients seen at County public health clinics falling year-over-year in June 2025 by 25%. As a result, low-level health problems may become severe if left untreated, with individuals, families, and their wider communities ultimately paying the price in communicable diseases and chronic health conditions. Not only do such widespread negative health consequences threaten all of us, but they strain a health care safety net already under threat.

42. The federal immigration raids’ disregard for probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and warrant requirements have also had a chilling effect on the economic life of the County, similar to the impact of the COVID-19 shutdown in 2020, and have affected County tax revenues accordingly.19

43. Immigration raids in Los Angeles County have occurred at a clothing wholesaler where individuals were shopping, at a taco stand, and on County streets.

Many immigration raids have been recorded and shared on social media, heightening the fear in Latino communities in particular of participating in regular day-to-day activities.20 As a result, food vendors, retailers, and even historic 19 Jesus Jiménez et al., ‘Completely Disrupted’: Fear Upends Life for Latinos in L.A., N.Y. Times (June 30, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/30/us/latinos- los-angeles-immigration.html.
20 Id.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 15 of 68 Page ID #:2321
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-16-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

landmarks and tourist sites have seen decreases in business. Some residents no longer shop at corner stores and stay holed up in their homes. In addition to the public safety, public health, and economic impacts, civic life and activities throughout the County have also been diminished as a result of the raids. Because of the pervasive fear and insecurity the raids have engendered, the County’s Department of Parks and Recreation has had to cancel multiple concerts and events, including its Fourth of July celebration.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Anaheim

44. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Anaheim is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution, and is located in Orange County. It has a population of approximately 360,000 residents. Over 50% of the City’s population is Hispanic/Latino.

45. Unlawful immigration enforcement activities have occurred at locations within Anaheim, destabilizing local families, neighborhoods and the City’s economic activity. Local business owners have been impacted when unlawful immigration enforcement operations detain employees or frighten employees away from their jobs and stores.

46. Some community members are afraid to leave their homes, take their children to school, go to medical appointments, or visit businesses to buy groceries and household items. As such, residents’ fear of unlawful enforcement and arbitrary detention negatively affects businesses in Anaheim and depresses tax revenue derived from such activities.

47. The illegal enforcement also wastes and misdirects other city investments in the community. For example, Anaheim operates three Family Resource Centers, at which staff assess the family needs of local residents, coordinate human services, distribute food and other necessities, and provide bilingual programs and supportive services for local families. Anaheim has Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 16 of 68 Page ID #:2322
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-17-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

observed a significant reduction in the number of residents using the resource centers after commencement of Defendants’ unlawful immigration enforcement activities. City resources go unused and are wasted because residents are fearful of seeking them.

48. Anaheim has also observed that fear of unlawful immigration enforcement has motivated some residents to avoid public transportation, which further inhibits their access to services and participation in the City’s economy.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Bell Gardens

49. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Bell Gardens is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. It has a population of approximately 38,000 residents. Approximately 96% of the population is Latino.

50. Federal immigration raids have occurred throughout Bell Gardens by masked, armed agents in unmarked vehicles. As a result, the Bell Gardens Police Department has had to monitor suspected federal immigration activity and attempt to confirm the legitimacy of individuals in masks, unmarked vehicles, and in plain clothes.

51. The relationship between the Bell Gardens Police Department and the community has suffered due to the federal immigration raids, as there are community concerns that the Bell Gardens Police Department is cooperating with federal immigration agencies. At times, Bell Gardens Police Department officers have been mistakenly identified as federal immigration enforcement officers.

52. Significant Bell Gardens resources have been diverted as a result of the raids. The Bell Gardens Police Department expended approximately $25,000 to address resident protests of the raids at a major intersection in Bell Gardens, Eastern Avenue and Florence Avenue Other Bell Gardens resources, including the City Manager’s Office, City Council, City Attorney, City Clerk, Public Works, and Finance/Administration have been diverted to develop and promote material that Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 17 of 68 Page ID #:2323
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-18-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

presents facts and resources and eases community fears. The expenditure of those resources has led Bell Gardens to incur additional expenses of approximately $60,000.

53. After the federal immigration raids began in Bell Gardens and the greater Los Angeles region, the Bell Gardens Recreation/Community Services Department saw a 70% decline in attendance at City events. The decline led Bell Gardens to cancel all public events during the month of July, including a large-scale Independence Day Celebration. Deposits have been lost for multiple vendors.

54. Bell Gardens has also experienced decreased revenue as a result of the federal immigration raids. As just one example, the Parkwest Bicycle Hotel and Casino experienced a monthly revenue decline of 10% in June 2025 compared to May 2025, resulting in a corresponding decrease in City General Fund revenues of $148,000. Additionally, the Bell Gardens trolley service ridership decreased by approximately 40% and the dial-a-ride program ridership decreased by 14% in June 2025 compared to June 2024.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Beverly Hills

55. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Beverly Hills is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles.

56. Beverly Hills is a global destination and premier destination for travel and tourism, attracting more than five million visitors a year. It is known domestically and internationally for its hotels, retail shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. Iconic destinations in Beverly Hills include Rodeo Drive, the Beverly Hills Hotel, and flagship luxury boutiques. Beverly Hills hosts one of the largest concentrations of Forbes Five-Star and AAA Five-Diamond properties in the United States.

57. Federal immigration raids in the region, including in the neighboring cities of West Hollywood and Los Angeles, have economically impacted Beverly Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 18 of 68 Page ID #:2324
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-19-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Hills. International visitors and hotel occupancy have decreased compared to last year. The General Manager of one of Beverly Hills’ Forbes Five-Star hotels informed attendees at a media event in New York that its hotel was seeing cancellations of bookings after mass protests against the federal immigration raids across Los Angeles in June. Beverly Hills has experienced a loss of sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenue as a result of the federal immigration raids.

58. Tourism is not the only industry impacted in Beverly Hills.

Construction contractors have informed the City that some workers are not coming to work due to concerns of being detained or physically injured by federal agents.

The federal immigration raids have also impacted the operations of Beverly Hills’ Building and Safety Department, as Building Inspectors have experienced delays on inspections, including delays caused by laborers fleeing construction sites after mistaking the Building Inspectors for federal agents.

59. Beverly Hills has deployed significant numbers of Beverly Hills Police Department and Department of Public Works personnel to respond to public demonstrations, including a June 14, 2025 demonstration along one of Beverly Hills’ major corridors, Santa Monica Boulevard.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Carpinteria

60. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Carpinteria is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Santa Barbara.

61. In July 2025, federal agents conducted three separate enforcement actions in Carpinteria, resulting in the arrest of at least a dozen individuals. These operations, often conducted by plains clothes agents in unmarked vehicles, have raised serious concerns about the legality and conduct of federal agents operating in the city and created a pervasive sense of fear in the community.

62. Residents across the City have reported that individuals of Latino or Hispanic heritage have been stopped and detained during the series of raids that Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 19 of 68 Page ID #:2325
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-20-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

have occurred, regardless of citizenship or legal immigration status. Specifically, at least two people were detained at the parking lot of Carpinteria’s Smart & Final on July 7. One person was also detained in a residential neighborhood near El Carro Park on July 8. In the July 8 instance, videos show one of the alleged ICE agents breaking the driver's side window of a landscaping truck when the man inside did not roll down the window. In both the July 7 and July 8 instances, the alleged agents were wearing plain clothes with tactical vests labeled “POLICE” and/or “ERO” and were in unmarked vehicles. These encounters appear to have been conducted without any clear or individualized suspicion, suggesting that agents lacked the specific, articulable facts required to justify such seizures.

63. The most aggressive action occurred on July 10, 2025, when at least 10 farmworkers were detained during a raid on Glass House Farms, a cannabis operation on Casitas Pass Road right outside City limits in Ventura County.

According to witnesses at the scene, including State Senator Monique Limón and Congressman Salud Carbajal, the agents included a mix of National Guard and ICE agents, with some wearing military-style camouflage uniforms and bulletproof vests, and others wearing t-shirts and jeans under tactical vests. Vehicle checkpoints with armored vehicles were also set up at Casitas Pass Road and Highway 192/Foothill Road, and at Highway 150 and Foothill Road/Highway 192, further escalating the sense of militarized enforcement. Agents—many of whom wore face coverings—deployed flash-bang and smoke gren ades indiscriminately at a crowd of peaceful civilian protesters gathered near the greenhouses. Carpinteria City Councilwoman Mónica Solórzano said she was injured when agents deployed flash- bang grenades and pushed back the crowd without warning.

64. During this federal immigration raid, which occurred in Ventura County just outside Carpinteria City limits, one farmworker, Jaime Alanis, fell over 30 feet from a greenhouse roof, broke his neck and skull, and later died in the Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 20 of 68 Page ID #:2326
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-21-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

hospital where he was being treated. As a result of the July 10 actions, several children—some as young as 10 months old—ha ve been left without their parents.

65. The economic and social consequences of these raids have been immediate and severe. Residents have reported being afraid to go to work, shop for groceries, or even put gas in their cars within Carpinteria. Residents have also reported a sense of community distrust of law enforcement due to these raids, making it more difficult for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office (which contracts with the City to provide law enforcement services) to perform their duties. This climate of fear is not only disrupting daily life but also threatening the stability of the region’s $4 billion agricultural industry.

66. After receiving a multitude of anecdotal evidence suggesting that these raids have disrupted business operations, workforce availability, and customer activity across the region to the detriment of commerce and community well-being, the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce and Visit Santa Barbara released a survey in late July to better understand the economic impact of the raids.

The results of this survey show that, of the 31 business respondents that identified as operating within the City of Carpinteria, 39% have been directly impacted by recent immigration enforcement to a “significant” or “moderate” degree, with 23% of respondents having experienced a “significant decrease” in customer traffic, revenue, or sales believed to be a result of immigration enforcement activity.

Twenty-three of the 31 business respondents reported impacts including drops in customer activity, revenue loss, increased employee anxiety, or cancelled contracts or projects, and 5 of the 31 business respondents reported losing between 10 and 40 employee hours as a result of immigration enforcement activity.

67. Community participation has also declined sharply. Attendance at public events and festivals has dropped significantly in the last month. For example, the annual three-day St. Joseph Church Festival, which drew approximately 10,000 attendees last year, saw only about 8,000 attendees this year. This drop reflects a Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 21 of 68 Page ID #:2327
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-22-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

broader erosion of public trust and safety, as residents increasingly avoid public spaces out of fear of arbitrary detention. If allowed to continue, this erosion of public trust will continue to damage the region’s economy, diminish use of public services, and jeopardize the ability of local law enforcement to protect public safety.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Culver City

68. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Culver City is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution.

69. Federal immigration raids have occurred throughout Culver City since late May 2025, including at Culver City Express Hand Car Wash21 and on Culver City’s streets by masked individuals who lack arrest warrants.22

70. As a direct result of federal agents using unmarked vehicles, masks, tactical gear, and personnel without visible identification or federal markings, Culver City has been forced to divert resources to address community safety concerns. For example, the Culver City Police Department now must monitor any suspected federal enforcement activity in the City and, when possible, confirm the identity and legitimacy of individuals claiming to act as federal agents.

71. Culver City businesses have experienced significant negative economic impacts due to federal immigration enforcement activities. For example, the week of June 23, 2025 was the first week in 2025 where visits to the Culver City Westfield Mall were down all seven days of the week, across all hours of the day. 21 Suhauna Hussain, “They are grabbing people.” LA and Orange County car wash workers targeted by federal immigration raids, L.A. Times (June 11, 2025) https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-06-11/l-a-orange-county-car-washes- hit-by-ice-raids.
22 Vivian Chow, Community outraged after ice cream vendor detained by immigration agents in Culver City, KTLA News (June 25, 2025). https://ktla.com/news/local-news/community-outraged-after-ice-cream-vendor- detained-by-immigration-agents-in-culver-city/.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 22 of 68 Page ID #:2328
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-23-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The Westfield Mall generates a significant portion of Culver City’s retail sales tax revenue.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Huntington Park

72. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Huntington Park is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. It has a population of approximately 58,000. More than 97% of the City’s residents identify as Hispanic or Latino, and approximately half were born outside of the United States.

Huntington Park prides itself on its longstanding connection to the Hispanic/Latino community.

73. Huntington Park has been a hotbed for unlawful immigration enforcement activities, often carried out without warrants. To name just a few examples, on June 9, 2025, federal agents conducted a raid in the parking lot of a Huntington Park Home Depot, during which they arrested approximately ten day laborers. Agents wore masks and failed and/or refused to identify themselves during the course of the arrests. 23

74. On June 12, 2025, federal agents, accompanied by Defendant Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, TV personality Dr. Phil, and a film crew, raided the home of a pregnant U.S. citizen and her children with guns drawn. While this raid was in progress, federal agents simultaneously raided another house across the street.24
23 Jory Rand, Demonstrators protest after raid at Huntington Park Home Depot, ABC7 (June 10, 2025), https://abc 7.com/post/demonstrators-protest-raid-huntington-park- home-depot/16711032/; Tyler Shaun Evains, Southeast LA officials denounce ICE raids after arrests at H untington Park Home Depot , Daily Breeze (June 9, 2025), https://www.dailybreeze.com/2025/06/09/southeast-la-officials-denounce-ice-raids- after-arrests-at-huntington-park-home-depot/.
24 Ruben Vives, Huntington Park resident describes illegal immigration enforcement operation, L.A. Times (June 12, 2025),
https://www.latimes.com/00000197-66a1-df7d-a7ff-f7fd577c0000-123; Mekahlo Medina * Helen Jeong, How U.S. citizen in Huntington Park found DHS Sec. Kristi Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 23 of 68 Page ID #:2329
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-24-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

75. On June 27, 2025, masked federal agents destroyed a wrought iron door and window while forcibly entering a residence. The agents used a “flash bang” in the course of their entry and failed and/or refused to identify themselves. The only occupants present when approximately nine federal agents entered the home with their rifles drawn were a young mother and her two children. No arrests were made.25

76. The unlawful federal enforcement actions have been detrimental to the relationship of trust, respect and communication between the Huntington Park Police Department and Huntington Park residents. That relationship is essential to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. On information and belief, there has been an overall reduction in crime reporting throughout the City since the federal immigration raids began, undermining local law enforcement efforts.

77. Further undermining local law enforcement efforts, the Huntington Park Police Department has also been required to expend resources investigating individuals impersonating federal officers. In one instance, City police officers arrested an individual whom they initially believed to be an undercover federal agent but later learned to be a member of the public posing as a border patrol agent Noem at her door, NBC Los Angeles, (June 12, 2025),
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/how-u-s-citizen-in-huntington-park- found-dhs-sec-kristi-noem-at-her-door/3722903/.
25 Amy Powell, Federal agents blast door off, shatter window during raid in Huntington Park, ABC7 (June 27, 2025), https://abc7.com/post/federal-agents-blast- door-off-shatter-window-during-raid-huntington-park-home-children-inside/ 16867990/; Lauren Coronado & Jonathan Lloyd, Video shows federal agents blast their way into Huntington Park home, NBC Los Angeles, (June 27, 2025), https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/huntington-park-border-patrol-agents- door-explosion/3734095/.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 24 of 68 Page ID #:2330
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-25-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

in possession of formal border patrol documents, a list of purported illegal immigrants, and loaded firearms and ammunition.26

78. Huntington Park has also received an influx of reports of unmarked vehicles and suspicious persons believed to be federal agents, each requiring an otherwise unnecessary expenditure of resources in the form of a police response and/or investigation, all of which revealed no criminal activity. To restore public trust, the Huntington Park Police Department now requires that: (1) officer(s) and a supervisor be dispatched to any request for assistance with validating the official status of federal agents; (2) officers attempt to verify the official status of apparent federal agents any time they are observed in public; and (3) a formal report be made about any interaction with federal agents. The Huntington Park Police Department has further been required to develop policies specifically designed to protect ICE agents in the event of an unruly or hostile crowd.

79. The federal immigration raids have resulted in mass hysteria, panic, and fear amongst Huntington Park’s residents. Numerous businesses have shuttered and/or started operating on an “appointment only” basis. Participation in community events, including City-sponsored gatherings, has also diminished, as has City residents’ use of public facilities and transportation services. Among other things, the City was forced to cancel its planned Independence Day celebration due to a lack of attendance, including a celebratory drone show. The City has also been forced to cancel its weekly community movie nights and regularly scheduled, city- sponsored yard sale, which required the City to refund each of the vendors that had committed to participate.

80. This severe reduction in commerce and palpable increase in residents staying home has diminished business revenue, employment, and overall economic 26 Lily Dallow, L.A. Man with previous human smuggling arrest may have been impersonating ICE agent, KTLA (June 27, 2025), https://ktla.com/news/local-news /l-a-man-arrested-in-huntington-park-for-possibly-impersonating-federal-agent/.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 25 of 68 Page ID #:2331
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-26-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

growth in Huntington Park. In turn, Huntington Park has been deprived of monies upon which it depends to meet its municipal obligations, including but not limited to sales tax revenue.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Long Beach

81. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Long Beach is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution.

82. Federal immigration actions have taken place in areas frequented by Long Beach residents, including Home Depots, transit stops, churches, and parking lots. Long Beach has received multiple reports of increased community fear, deterrence from reporting crimes, and avoidance of public spaces and municipal services by Long Beach’s large immigrant population.

83. The Long Beach Police Department’s law enforcement efforts have been undermined by the widespread fear in immigrant communities caused by the federal immigration actions. Residents hesitate to contact the Long Beach Police Department to report crimes, act as witnesses, or seek help. This erosion of trust hinders community policing efforts and directly threatens public safety.

84. Long Beach has diverted staff and resources from the City Manager’s Office, the Office of Equity, and the City Prosecutor’s Office to conduct public education, host multilingual “know your rights” workshops, and facilitate coordination with legal service providers and community-based organizations to protect residents from unlawful stops, arrests, and removals.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Lynwood

85. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Lynwood is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. Over 88% of the City’s population is Latino.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 26 of 68 Page ID #:2332
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-27-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

86. Unlawful immigration enforcement activities have occurred at numerous locations throughout Lynwood. Defendants’ unlawful federal immigration enforcement has spread fear, confusion, and distress across the Lynwood community. Lynwood residents—even those that have lived in the city for decades—feel unsafe going outside to engage in everyday activities, such as commuting to work, taking their children to school, and attending community events due to concerns that they could be arbitrarily confronted and assaulted by federal agents.

87. Federal immigration actions have occurred at various commercial and residential locations within Lynwood. Lynwood depends on local taxes to fund its municipal operations. Federal immigration enforcement has harmed and produced chilling effects on Lynwood businesses. Businesses are experiencing declines in sales or simply shutting down, which affects Lynwood’s tax revenues.

88. Lynwood contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services and is responsible for costs associated with the Sheriff Department’s presence within the City.

89. Lynwood’s relationship with its community has suffered because of the unlawful immigration enforcement activity. According to the Sheriff’s Department, its deputies have been erroneously accused on social media of cooperating with federal agents, thus eroding trust in the Department. Lynwood staff resources, including its Department Directors, Senior Management Analyst, and City Manager, as well as contract communications support, have been diverted to develop and promote material that presents facts and eases community fears regarding the federal immigration enforcement actions.

90. Since the events and subsequent unlawful immigration activities throughout the region, fearful residents have held protests and appeared at Lynwood City Council meetings to share their sincere fear for the safety of the immigrant community in Lynwood. These events require Sheriff’s deputies to be diverted Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 27 of 68 Page ID #:2333
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-28-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

from their normal assignments to provide protection and to ensure general community safety.

91. Lynwood prides itself on providing a range of first-class recreational, social, and civic resources to its residents. These include, among other things, a senior center, youth programs, and other community events. Participation in City events has decreased since the recent events conducted by federal agents and personnel, including an annual City-sponsored Independence Day celebration and Movies in the Park activities. The drop in attendance in these Lynwood events is attributable to fears of unlawful immigration enforcement activity at these public locations.

92. In an effort to counter the harm caused by the unlawful immigration enforcement activities, Lynwood’s City Council has publicly condemned the activities by way of a resolution and appropriated funds to create the City of Lynwood Justice Fund to support legal aid and resources for immigrants within the Lynwood community.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Montebello

93. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Montebello is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. It has a population of approximately 60,015 residents. Over 78% of the City’s population is Latino.

94. Unlawful immigration enforcement activities have occurred at numerous locations throughout Montebello. Of note is the violent and unjustified arrest of a U.S. citizen on June 13, 2025, at his tow truck place of employment in Montebello.

95. There have been numerous federal immigration actions throughout Montebello at various commercial and residential locations within the city.

Businesses are shutting down because of these federal immigration activities.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 28 of 68 Page ID #:2334
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-29-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Protests of the federal immigration activities have occurred, which have impacted both businesses and Montebello Police Department resources.

96. Montebello maintains its own Police Department for law enforcement services. Montebello is responsible for costs associated with the Montebello Police Department’s services and law enforcement activities. The recent events and federal immigration actions throughout Montebello have caused a significant diversion of public safety resources to address the resulting protests.

97. Montebello’s relationship with its community has suffered because of the unlawful immigration enforcement activity. Montebello Police Department officers have been erroneously accused on social media of cooperating with federal agents, thus eroding trust in the Department. Staff resources, including the Montebello Police Chief and City Manager, as well as other Montebello city staff and personnel, have been diverted to develop and promote material that presents facts and eases community fears.

98. Following unlawful immigration activities throughout the region, fearful residents have held protests and appeared at Montebello City Council meetings to share their sincere fears for the safety of the immigrant community in Montebello. These events required Montebello officers to be diverted from their normal assignments to provide protection and general community safety.

99. Montebello prides itself on providing a range of first-class recreational, social, and civic resources to its residents. These include, among other things, a senior center, youth programs, and other community events. Since the recent federal immigration actions, participation in Montebello events has decreased, including at the annual City-sponsored Independence Day celebration and concerts in the park activities. On information and belief, the drop in attendance at these Montebello events is attributable to fears of unlawful immigration enforcement activity at these public locations.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 29 of 68 Page ID #:2335
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-30-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

100. In an effort to counter the harm caused by the unlawful immigration enforcement activities, Montebello’s City Council has publicly condemned the activity by way of a resolution and is using City funds to create a humanitarian assistance program for immigrants within the Montebello community. 101. Defendants’ federal immigration enforcement has spread fear, confusion, and distress across the Montebello community. Montebello residents, even those that have lived in the city for decades, feel unsafe going outside to engage in everyday activities, such as commuting to work, taking their children to school, and attending community events due to concerns that they could be arbitrarily confronted and assaulted by federal agents. 102. In addition to harming Montebello residents, the federal immigration enforcement inflicts concrete and particularized injury to Montebello as a municipal entity, including injury to the operations of its police department, management of its community programs, and production of its tax revenue.
103. Defendants’ federal immigration enforcement has forced Montebello to divert its limited police resources to address public safety issues that would not have arisen absent these unlawful enforcement practices.
104. Montebello depends on local taxes to fund its municipal operations.

The unlawful federal immigration enforcement has produced chilling effects on Montebello businesses, causing declines in businesses’ sales and tax revenues to the City.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Monterey Park
105. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Monterey Park is a municipal corporation and general law city organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. It has a population of approximately 61,096 residents. Over half of the city’s population, approximately 51.6%, is foreign-born. It serves as a significant immigrant gateway, especially for Asian and Hispanic communities.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 30 of 68 Page ID #:2336
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-31-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

106. Monterey Park is notable for having one of the highest concentrations of Asian Americans in the United States, with approximately 64-66% of the population being Asian, predominantly of Chinese descent. Monterey Park also has a longstanding Mexican-American community; the Latino population makes up approximately 27–28% of City residents. Monterey Park is also home to historic enclaves of Japanese-American, Armenian, and Jewish residents. 107. Federal immigration activities within the Los Angeles region have cultivated a culture of fear and distrust within the Monterey Park community. On July 2, 2025, community members provided public comment to the Monterey Park City Council regarding their experiences with recent federal raids and inquired about the City’s response to immigrant rights and protection. 108. Multiple speakers expressed fear among immigrant communities due to reports of masked, unidentified individuals (allegedly federal agents or vigilantes) detaining people without due process. The speakers’ shared personal and family experiences highlighted the fear and anxiety within the community relating to federal agents’ racial profiling and abductions, and underscored the perceived need to keep documentation on hand at all times to prove legal status. Their emotional testimony underscored the psychological toll on the residents of Monterey Park, including U.S. citizens mistaken for undocumented immigrants. 109. Residents requested clear communication and proactive measures from the Monterey Park Police Department to verify the identity of enforcement agents and ensure public safety.
110. In response to community member concerns, Monterey Park has expended public resources to provide information to residents including “Know Your Rights” cards available in multiple languages at community centers, the library, and online. It has ongoing efforts to expand outreach and make information more accessible at public events and locations, develop clear protocols for local police involvement during federal immigration activities, and provide assurances Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 31 of 68 Page ID #:2337
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-32-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

that local law enforcement stands with and protects all residents, regardless of immigration status.
111. The fear resulting from the unlawful federal immigration activity has also harmed local law enforcement efforts. For example, while executing inspection warrants in June 2025, the Monterey Park Police Department and Monterey Park Fire Department were erroneously identified as federal immigration agents on social media despite Monterey Park’s extra efforts to inform residents regarding the legitimate law enforcement activities occurring at the site. 112. Fostering a relationship of trust, respect, and open communication between Monterey Park officials and residents is essential to the City’s mission of delivering efficient public services in partnership with the community, ensuring public safety, and promoting a prosperous economic environment, opportunities for Monterey Park’s youth, and a high quality of life.
113. The federal government’s activities are interfering with Monterey Park’s crucial role in protecting the public health, safety, and well-being of its residents. Such activity is also resulting in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Oxnard
114. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Oxnard is a municipal corporation organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California.
115. Since June 2025, Oxnard has experienced unlawful federal immigration enforcement activity within its jurisdictional borders, as well as in neighboring municipalities. Oxnard maintains its own Police Department (“OPD”) for law enforcement services and Fire Department for public safety services. Both departments have responded to incidents stemming from immigration enforcement activity. Responding to those incidents has diverted resources away from vital community needs, which would not have been affected in the absence of the Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 32 of 68 Page ID #:2338
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-33-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

activity, and has negatively impacted Oxnard’s relationship with its residents, fostering a culture of fear and distrust within the community that has led to a decline in participation in public services.
116. On June 18, 2025, the OPD expended its resources to respond to a vehicular collision that occurred on Vineyard Avenue in Oxnard involving a woman and federal immigration agents. The collision took place when the woman was following the agents’ vehicle, and the agents suddenly applied the brakes.

Following the collision, the masked agents immediately exited their vehicle and drew a firearm on the woman.
117. On July 10, 2025, OPD expended significant resources responding to St. John’s Regional Medical Center following a large-scale immigration raid that took place at Glass House Farms. During that raid, vehicles from Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection blocked a road lined with fields and greenhouses as military-style vehicles and a helicopter flew overhead.27 Video footage and eyewitness accounts show federal agents dressed in military garb, clothing, and carrying military grade weapons.28 This raid prompted tense confrontations between federal agents and hundreds of protesters, including those who are Oxnard residents and elected officials. Some of the protesters were exposed to and injured by gas used by federal immigration agents to disperse the crowds. 118. The tense confrontations between federal agents and protesters caused OPD to utilize its personnel, equipment, and resources, dispatching to St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Oxnard, where some protesters were being treated for injuries from the gas used by federal immigration agents.

27 Amy Taxin, Protesters and federal agents clash during raid at Southern California farm, AP News (July 10, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/california- farm-immigration-raid-d58bb572cd1638c2c4b8d3ef26c2b430. 28 Michelle Krupa et al., Tensions are rising in Southern California over immigration raids. Here’s what we know, CNN (July 13, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/11/us/california-immigration-raids-la-wwk.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 33 of 68 Page ID #:2339
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-34-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

119. The Oxnard Fire Department (“OFD”) also expended its resources responding to the raid that took place on July 10, 2025, which it would not have done absent the unlawful immigration enforcement activity. The OFD initially dispatched two units in response to a medical call at the Glass House Farms facility, which cleared within 22 minutes of arriving at the scene. Shortly after the incident escalated, OFD contributed resources to expand the Multi-Causality Incident (“MCI”). That MCI response included an engine on scene for over eight hours, a Battalion Chief on scene for over eight hours, and an Assistant Chief on scene for nearly two hours. The OFD also responded to the St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Oxnard shortly after the immigration raid at Glass House Farms. At the hospital, the emergency room went on diversion, and two ambulances with patients that would have been treated at St. John’s hospital were diverted to hospitals further away.
120. The Oxnard City Attorney’s Office and City Manager’s Office also expended their resources responding to unlawful federal immigration enforcement within Oxnard by implementing a city-wide protocol and training to prepare staff for potential encounters with federal immigration enforcement officials. 121. In addition to the diversion of significant city resources to responding to federal immigration enforcement, federal immigration activities within Oxnard have cultivated a culture of fear and distrust within the community. For example, on June 15, 2025, OPD discovered that a federal immigration enforcement vehicle was parked in the public parking lot of their headquarters building and requested that it cease this practice since it caused at least one community group to allege that OPD was cooperating with federal immigration enforcement efforts. 122. The mistaken community perception that Oxnard is actively cooperating with federal immigration enforcement efforts is bolstered further when OPD and OFD are dispatched to immigration raids, protests, and other encounters with federal immigration enforcement efforts. This perception negatively impacts Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 34 of 68 Page ID #:2340
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-35-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

public safety in Oxnard because victims and witnesses of crimes are unwilling and less likely to cooperate with local law enforcement and public safety services. 123. The culture of fear and distrust resulting from federal immigration activities within Oxnard has also negatively impacted participation in community services. Since June 2025, there has been a reduction in public participation in various city programs. For example, the Oxnard Public Library has seen a decrease in attendance, circulation of books, and activation of library cards. Additionally, the City has observed a troubling direct impact of ICE enforcement on the City’s public housing tenants. On two occasions, tenants have asked staff to pick up their rent checks rather than dropping their checks off to Housing Department staff due to fear of leaving their units, reflecting a climate of intimidation and anxiety within the community. Moreover, the City has received several complaints that landlords have threatened to report tenants to ICE as a means of intimidation and coercion. Such tactics exacerbate tenant vulnerability and undermine trust between residents and housing providers. This pattern of intimidation, even when indirect, interferes with tenants’ ability to safely access essential public services and threatens the stability of housing within the Oxnard community.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Paramount
124. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Paramount is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. Paramount is more than 80% Latino.
125. Paramount contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. Paramount is responsible for costs associated with the Sheriff’s presence within the City. 126. Paramount’s relationship with its community has been strained as a result of the unlawful immigration enforcement activity. According to the Sheriff’s Department, its deputies have been accused on social media of cooperating with Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 35 of 68 Page ID #:2341
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-36-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

federal agents, thus eroding trust in the Department. Paramount has also been erroneously accused of “covering up” the presence of a Department of Homeland Security office within its jurisdiction. Staff resources, including its Public Information Officer, Assistant City Manager, and City Manager, as well as contract communications support, have been diverted to develop and promote material that presents facts and eases community fears regarding the federal immigration enforcement actions.
127. In an effort to counter the harm caused by the unlawful immigration enforcement activities, Paramount’s City Council has publicly condemned the activities by way of a resolution and is using City funds to create a humanitarian assistance program for immigrants within the Paramount community. 128. As just one example of such activity, unlawful federal immigration raids have occurred at a Paramount Home Depot. Paramount’s Home Depot has been forced to close on at least two separate occasions since federal agents began their immigration enforcement activities on or about June 6, 2025. The store closures are expected to cause a loss of approximately $7,700 in combined sales tax and transactions and use tax revenue to Paramount.
129. Additionally, Paramount is home to one of the largest swap meets in the region. The Paramount Swap Meet supports numerous small businesses and generates significant sales tax revenue for Paramount. Paramount relies upon sales tax revenues, along with other tax revenues, to maintain its services. Due to fear of possible unlawful immigration enforcement, attendance at the Paramount Swap Meet is down, which has resulted in lower sales tax revenues. Paramount expects to lose approximately $17,800 in exhibitor taxes and food and beverage sales. This figure reflects an 80% revenue loss over two weeks and a 50% loss over one additional week.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 36 of 68 Page ID #:2342
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-37-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Pasadena
130. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Pasadena is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution. Pasadena alleges the following facts relating to federal immigration activity within Pasadena upon information and belief.
131. In recent weeks, Pasadena has experienced an unprecedented increase in unlawful federal immigration enforcement activity within its jurisdictional borders.29 For example, Pasadena residents Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto, and Isaac Villegas Molina (collectively, “Pasadena Resident Plaintiffs”) report that in the early morning of June 18, 2025, approximately six masked federal agents equipped with weapons jumped out of unmarked cars and arrested the Pasadena Resident Plaintiffs while they waited at a Pasadena bus stop across the street from Winchell’s Donuts to be picked up for jobs. See Lead Compl. ¶¶ 12–14, 111–13, 124–26, 137–39.30 The Pasadena Resident Plaintiffs report that federal agents made these arrests without first securing arrest warrants, making an individualized determination of risk of flight, establishing a reasonable suspicion of an immigration law violation, and identifying themselves as federal agents. Id. ¶¶ 114–19, 127–32, 140–44.
132. Federal agents have reportedly adhered to the same or similar improper practices on multiple other occasions when conducting enforcement activities in Pasadena. For example, plainclothes federal agents jumped out of unmarked 29 See Police Chief Reiterates His Department Does Not Assist or Participate in ICE Enforcement, Urges Calm, Pasadena Now (July 1, 2025), https://pasadenanow.com/ main/police-chief-urges-calm-reiterates-his-department-does-not-assist-or- participate-in-ice-enforcement.
30 Sophie Flay, ICE agents detain several people at Pasadena bus stop, conducts raids across the city, ABC 7 (June 19, 2025), https://abc7.com/post/ice-agents- detain-2-men-pasadena-bus-stop-conduct-raids-city/16785979/.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 37 of 68 Page ID #:2343
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-38-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vehicles and, while using excessive force, attempted to arrest a Pasadena resident in front of her children outside a Pasadena apartment building on June 28, 2025, prompting a 911 call to Pasadena Police about a suspected kidnapping.31 Multiple Pasadena Police personnel responded to the scene to investigate, and it was determined that the federal agents had mistakenly identified the Pasadena resident for another individual they were seeking. Paramedics also responded to the scene and medically treated the Pasadena resident due to the injuries she sustained from the incident. Such action, and similar activities by Defendants as described herein, is tantamount to a nuisance in Pasadena.
133. This federal immigration enforcement has spread fear, confusion, and distress across the Pasadena community. Pasadena residents, even those who have lived in the City for decades, feel unsafe going outside to engage in everyday activities, such as commuting to work, taking their children to school, and attending community events due to concerns that they could be arbitrarily confronted and assaulted by federal agents.
134. In addition to harming Pasadena residents, the federal immigration enforcement inflicts concrete and particularized injury to Pasadena as a municipal entity, including injury to the operations of its police department, management of its community programs, and production of its tax revenue.
135. The federal immigration enforcement has forced Pasadena to divert its limited police resources to address public safety issues that would not have arisen absent these enforcement practices.
31 Angelique Brenes, ICE agents detain mother in Pasadena in front of children without showing a warrant, KTLA 5 (June 28, 2025), https://ktla.com/news/local- news/ice-agents-detain-mother-in-pasadena-in-front-of-children-without-a-warrant/; ICE Agents Detain Mother In Front of Her Children in Pasadena, Pasadena Now (June 29, 2025), https://pasadenanow.com/main/ice-agents-detain-mother-in-front- of-her-children-in-pasadena.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 38 of 68 Page ID #:2344
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-39-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

136. The federal immigration enforcement has also led to declines in public participation in Pasadena’s community programs such as youth summer education and, in other cases, forced Pasadena to cancel swim lessons and other community programs altogether due to public safety concerns.32
137. Pasadena depends on local taxes to fund its municipal operations.

Federal immigration enforcement has harmed and produced chilling effects on Pasadena businesses, causing declines in businesses’ sales revenue and a corresponding decrease in Pasadena’s tax revenue.33
Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Pico Rivera
138. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Pico Rivera is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. 139. Pico Rivera is more than 90% Latino.
140. On information and belief, unlawful federal immigration enforcement activities have occurred at numerous locations throughout Pico Rivera. Of note is the violent and unjustified arrest of a U.S. citizen, Adrian Martinez, on June 17, 2025 at the Walmart parking lot in the City. This incident led to multiple community protests, including rallies outside of Pico Rivera City Council Hall. 141. Federal immigration authorities have reportedly adhered to the same or similar improper practices on multiple other occasions when conducting enforcement activities in Pico Rivera.
32 Tim Caputo, Pasadena cancels Saturday swim lessons, other park programs after reports of immigration enforcement, ABC 7 (June 22, 2025), https://abc7.com/post/pasadena-cancels-saturday-swim-lessons-other-park- programs-reports-immigration-enforcement/16810001/.
33 See Victor M. Gordo, Pasadena Mayor: Trump’s Immigration Raids Hurt Communities Like Mine, Time (June 18, 2025), https://time.com/7295305/pasadena- trump-immigration-raids.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 39 of 68 Page ID #:2345
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-40-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

142. Another significant incident occurred on June 17, 2025, at Ruben Salazar High School in Pico Rivera, where video evidence was secured to demonstrate what appears to federal immigration authorities trespassing upon El Rancho Unified School District (“ERUSD”) property and federal personnel engaging in purported public urination on ERUSD property, near locations where minor children were located. The School Board of ERUSD conducted a press conference where such conduct was condemned and an investigation was demanded.
143. The unlawful federal immigration enforcement has spread fear, confusion, and distress across the Pico Rivera community. Pico Rivera residents, even those who have lived in the City for decades, feel unsafe going outside to engage in everyday activities, such as commuting to work, taking their children to school, and attending community events due to concerns that they could be arbitrarily confronted and assaulted by federal agents. 144. Pico Rivera contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. Pico Rivera is responsible for costs associated with the Sheriff’s presence within the City. The events of June 17 caused a significant diversion of resources to address the resulting protests. 145. Since the events of June 17, and subsequent unlawful immigration activities throughout the region, fearful residents have held protests and appeared at Pico Rivera City Council Hall to share their sincere fears for the safety of the immigrant community in Pico Rivera. These events required Sheriff’s deputies to be diverted from their normal assignments to provide protection and general community safety.
146. Pico Rivera’s relationship with its community has suffered as a result of the unlawful immigration enforcement activity. According to the Sheriff’s Department, its deputies have been erroneously accused on social media of cooperating with federal agents, thus eroding trust in the Department. Pico Rivera Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 40 of 68 Page ID #:2346
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-41-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

has been erroneously accused of “covering up” the presence of a Department of Homeland Security office within its jurisdiction. Staff resources, including its Public Information Officer, Assistant City Manager, and City Manager, as well as contract communications support, have been diverted to develop and promote material that presents facts and eases community fears. 147. Pico Rivera prides itself on providing a range of first-class recreational, social, and civic resources to its residents. These include, among other things, a senior center, youth events, and other community events. Participation in some City events has decreased since the recent events conducted by federal agents and personnel. On information and belief, the drop in attendance at some Pico Rivera events is attributable to fears of unlawful immigration enforcement activity at these public locations.
148. In addition to harming Pico Rivera residents, the unlawful federal immigration enforcement activity inflicts concrete and particularized injury to Pico Rivera as a municipal entity, including injury to the operations of its police department, management of its community programs, and production of its tax revenue. The unlawful federal immigration enforcement has forced Pico Rivera to divert its limited police resources to address public safety issues that would not have arisen absent these enforcement practices.
149. Pico Rivera depends on local taxes to fund its municipal operations.

Federal immigration enforcement has harmed and produced chilling effects on Pico Rivera businesses, causing declines in businesses’ sales revenue and a corresponding decrease in Pico Rivera’s tax revenue.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Pomona
150. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Pomona is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 41 of 68 Page ID #:2347
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-42-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

151. Unlawful federal immigration activities have occurred at numerous locations throughout Pomona. Extensive federal immigration enforcement activities and associated protests in Pomona have diverted already-strained Pomona Police Department resources away from their core law enforcement and maintaining of the peace functions.
152. In particular, federal agents lack clear identification to facilitate differentiation between their activities and those of local law enforcement. The federal immigration activities have fostered an environment of general distrust among the City’s residents, resulting in increased calls for service, including incidents of vandalism, that negatively impact the Pomona Police Department’s ability to respond to, investigate, and clear the City’s already-high normal volume of calls for service.
153. Additionally, the City Manager’s Office and Pomona Police Department have expended significant staff resources to address social media speculation and rumors alleging City resource coordination with ICE activities. These challenges have cast the City and the Pomona Police Department into the unfortunate position of having to dedicate already-limited local resources in an effort to offset community harm, and have eroded trust in local government programs and activities and municipal law enforcement operations.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Santa Ana
154. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Santa Ana is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution.
155. The federal immigration activities have disrupted public safety and spread fear in the immigrant community of Santa Ana. Upon information and belief, U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in Santa Ana have been detained for questioning. Federal immigration raids have occurred at individuals’ homes, schools, places of work, places of worship, places of public accommodation, swap Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 42 of 68 Page ID #:2348
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-43-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

meets, grocery stores, medical facilities, and hotels. Residents of Santa Ana have shared stories of racial profiling and the arrest of residents without criminal records. 156. The aggressive and unlawful tactics used by federal agents have heightened tensions between the residents of Santa Ana and the Santa Ana Police Department. They have also damaged trust in law enforcement and eroded the critical relationship between residents and the Santa Ana Police Department. The community is less safe because families are too afraid to report crimes or engage with local authorities.
157. The unlawful federal immigration activities have also resulted in negative economic and social impacts to Santa Ana. For example, Santa Ana city centers are “deserted,”34 and fewer people are frequenting commercial and retail establishments, such as local restaurants, grocery stores, medical facilities, places of public accommodation, and entertainment venues, for fear of being targeted by federal agents.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Santa Barbara
158. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Santa Barbara is a local municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution. Santa Barbara is located in the County of Santa Barbara.
159. Federal immigration enforcement activities have occurred in various locations throughout Santa Barbara as well as in neighboring communities within the County of Santa Barbara. These activities have cultivated feelings of fear and 34 Suhauna Hussain & Md Fazlur Rahman, California’s economy is already getting hit by immigration raids, L.A. Times (July 30, 2025),
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-07-30/people-reporting-to-work-in- private-sector-in-california-down-after-raids-report-says.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 43 of 68 Page ID #:2349
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-44-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

distrust within the Santa Barbara community. At least 111 arrests have been made in Santa Barbara County since January 2025.35
160. On July 10, 2025, federal law enforcement agents conducted raids on Glass House Farms in Carpinteria and Camarillo, California. Carpinteria is a community that is ten miles from Santa Barbara. At least ten people were detained during this raid in Carpinteria. Further down the coast, in Camarillo, at least 350 people were detained.
161. On July 15, 2025, community members provided public comment to the Santa Barbara City Council regarding their experiences with recent federal raids and expressed concerns for the safety of immigrant communities in Santa Barbara.

Hundreds of members of the community attended this meeting, demonstrating the high level of concern.
162. Santa Barbara businesses have experienced, and will continue to experience, significant negative economic impacts and disruptions to business operations due to federal immigration enforcement activities. Employees are remaining at home, making it difficult for businesses to operate at normal levels.

There are fewer people patronizing businesses, fewer vendors on the streets, and fewer employees showing up to their workplaces.
163. The Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce compiled a survey and sent it to local businesses to evaluate the impact immigration activity has had on business operations. The Chamber of Commerce received approximately 167 responses within three days of distributing the survey. One of the respondent businesses indicated that their employee, who is a U.S. citizen, was detained and

35 Ryan P. Cruz, More than 620 Arrests Reported in Immigration Operations on Central Coast, Santa Barbara Independent (July 24, 2025), https://www.independent.com/2025/07/24/more-than-620-arrests-reported-in- immigration-operations-on-central-coast/.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 44 of 68 Page ID #:2350
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-45-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

unable to report to work for a week because federal agents would not let him retrieve his identification.
164. Many of the respondent businesses also noted decreased revenue and general commercial activity due to immigration activities. Businesses in the hospitality industry, including restaurants and hotels, noted a drastic decrease in patrons since recent immigration enforcement actions. While these businesses typically see many more patrons during the summer months due to tourism, they reported significantly fewer visitors.
165. Other businesses reported difficulty hiring contractors and handymen to complete projects, and delayed response times due to a decrease in staff. The businesses reported that these issues were attributable to recent immigration enforcement actions.
166. Santa Barbara is a prime destination for travel and tourism, particularly during the summer months. Federal immigration activity in the area has harmed Santa Barbara’s reputation as a tourist destination, resulting in less overall spending and lower hotel occupancy rates, specifically for international travelers. 167. Every year in Santa Barbara, residents and businesses celebrate Santa Barbara’s Spanish history during Old Spanish Days, more commonly referred to as “Fiesta.” Fiesta celebrations include events throughout Santa Barbara such as official parades, markets, a rodeo, dance exhibitions, and more. Fiesta 2025, the 101st Fiesta celebration in Santa Barbara, is scheduled to be held from July 30 through August 3, 2025. Fiesta events both generate significant tax revenue throughout Santa Barbara and are the premiere events for local nonprofits to raise funds. Fiesta has an annual budget exceeding $1,000,000. 168. Due to recent immigration enforcement activities, fewer patrons are expected to frequent the event and purchase goods and services, in turn reducing overall revenue. The Children’s Fiesta Parade, one of the hallmark events of Fiesta, has experienced a 15% decrease in parade entries. On July 14, 2025, the Downtown Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 45 of 68 Page ID #:2351
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-46-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Club announced that it was cancelling its Fiesta Carnival de Los Niños, which is a major fundraising event in the City. The Downtown Club stated that it was cancelling the event “to assure the safety of the kids” as well as due to declining attendance at other community events, thereby making the carnival a financial risk.36 Members of the community have further expressed concern that federal immigration officials will attend other Fiesta events and target the community at these events.37 169. On July 13, 2025, the Santa Barbara Museum of Contemporary Art announced that it was cancelling its Dia de Los Muertos event due to recent immigration enforcement actions.
170. The federal immigration enforcement has also led to declines in public participation in Santa Barbara’s community programs and events, such as youth education programs and other social services. Santa Barbara rents City-owned facilities to both private organizations and nonprofits, which generates revenue for the City necessary to manage and operate the facilities. When comparing the first half of 2025 to the first half of 2024, there has been a 26% decrease in rentals with four recent facility rental cancellations.
171. Community members are also afraid of visiting local food banks in Santa Barbara for fear of federal immigration officials showing up at these locations. The number of individuals visiting local food banks in recent months is down 75% at the Westside Neighborhood Center (from 767 recipients to 226 recipients), 21% at the Franklin Neighborhood Center (from 249 recipients to 199 recipients), and 23% at Parque de Los Ninos (from 256 recipients to 199 recipients).

36 Edhat Staff, Old Spanish Days Leaders Address Immigration Concerns as Fiesta Prepares for 101st Celebration, Edhat (July 21, 2025), https://www.edhat.com/ news/old-spanish-days-leaders-address-immigration-concerns-as-fiesta-prepares- for-101st-celebration/.
37 Daniel Green, Downtown Club Cancels Fiesta Carnival de Los Niños Event, Noozhawk (July 14, 2025), https://www.noozhawk.com/downtown-club-cancels- fiesta-carnival-de-los-ninos-event/.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 46 of 68 Page ID #:2352
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-47-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

At least one nonprofit organization in Santa Barbara has coordinated a food drive to ensure individuals who are food insecure and afraid of visiting local food banks due to immigration activity have access to food.
172. The unlawful federal immigration activities are also preventing vulnerable members of the community from engaging in legal proceedings. The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office prosecutes all misdemeanor crimes that occur within the County of Santa Barbara. Fears of arrest by federal immigration authorities in public and at courthouses have made victims more reluctant to appear, thereby impacting the Office’s ability to obtain just outcomes for victims.
173. The unlawful federal immigration enforcement has spread fear, confusion, and distress across the Santa Barbara community and produced chilling effects on Santa Barbara businesses.

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Santa Monica
174. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of Santa Monica is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a charter city pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution. Santa Monica borders the City of Los Angeles and is directly affected by activities occurring there and in the region.
175. Santa Monica is a prime destination for travel and tourism, particularly international travel, with more visits usually expected during summer vacations.

Unlawful federal immigration activity in the region has harmed Santa Monica’s reputation as a tourist destination and international arrivals have decreased significantly, resulting in less overall spending and lower hotel occupancy rates. 176. Immigrant communities staying home out of fear of a federal immigration raid diminishes economic activity and participation in public events as well as the overall vibrancy and appeal of Santa Monica as a tourist destination. It also negatively impacts many businesses that rely on immigrant labor, including Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 47 of 68 Page ID #:2353
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-48-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

hotels, restaurants, sidewalk vendors, vendors at the farmers markets, car washes, and construction trades, affecting business revenue, employment, and overall economic growth. Santa Monica, in turn, loses critical transient occupancy and sales tax revenue it depends on.
177. Because many members of immigrant or mixed status households who live and/or work in Santa Monica are too afraid to leave their homes to go to work, Santa Monica is exploring setting up a fund to help affected households pay for food, rent, and other necessities.
178. The Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office prosecutes all misdemeanor crimes that occur within the city. Victims have been more reluctant to cooperate with prosecutors and have required additional staff efforts to secure appearances in court. Fear of arrest by federal immigration authorities in public or at courthouses is impacting the City’s ability to obtain just outcomes for victims. 179. Santa Monica has been required to employ significant City resources to prepare for federal immigration raids at City facilities, which preparation is made significantly more difficult by federal immigration authorities conducting unannounced activities without identification.
180. Community members responded to regional federal immigration raids with a large-scale public demonstration in Santa Monica on June 14, which required the City to deploy significantly more Santa Monica Police Department and other City resources to ensure public safety. There has been at least one occurrence of masked, armed, and unidentified federal immigration agents arresting a Latino construction worker on 16th Street near Washington Street in Santa Monica on June

12. The agents appeared not to communicate with the construction worker before detaining him using zip ties and placing him in an unmarked car. The City has obtained a video and declaration from at least one witness describing the incident and how it terrified her.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 48 of 68 Page ID #:2354
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-49-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of South Gate
181. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of South Gate is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. It has a population of approximately 90,700 residents. Over 90% of the population is Latino. 182. Federal immigration enforcement activities have occurred at numerous locations in South Gate. These activities involve masked agents flooding street corners, bus stops, churches, car washes, parking lots, educational facilities, and other places, entering businesses, and interrogating residents as they are working, looking for work, or otherwise trying to go about their daily lives, including when providing lawn and gardening services. Some of the detained individuals are U.S. citizens.
183. Residents have come to South Gate City Council meetings to discuss their concerns regarding the effect that federal immigration enforcement activities have had on South Gate families, churches, and businesses. The residents have expressed concern about federal agents’ failure to self-identify and the use of masks to cover their faces, which creates an atmosphere of confusion about whether detention activity is the work of federal law enforcement or kidnappers and/or assailants.
184. South Gate resources have been used to monitor public protests calling out the unlawful federal immigration enforcement activity. South Gate also cancelled its annual Fourth of July multi-day carnival and fireworks contracts because of the uncertainty created by the federal immigration enforcement and the concern of civil unrest following federal immigration enforcement activity. 185. The federal immigration enforcement activity also means South Gate will incur a loss of tax revenue due to decreased economic activity.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 49 of 68 Page ID #:2355
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-50-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of West Hollywood
186. Intervenor-Plaintiff the City of West Hollywood is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing as a general law city under the laws of the State of California, and is located in the County of Los Angeles. 187. A federal immigration raid occurred in West Hollywood on July 4, 2025 at the Santa Palm Car Wash by masked individuals who reportedly lacked arrest warrants.
188. West Hollywood businesses have experienced economic impacts due to federal immigration enforcement activities. Employees are remaining at home, making it difficult for businesses to operate at normal levels. There are fewer people patronizing businesses, fewer vendors on the streets, and fewer employees showing up to work.
189. West Hollywood is a hospitality destination and the local hotels report to the City that visitor rates are down overall for the international market sector that used to frequent West Hollywood in the summer. Defendants’ policies and enforcement actions have positioned the United States as an unwelcoming destination for foreign guests with uncertainty and volatility. As a city with a hospitality-based economy, West Hollywood has experienced a strong negative impact from Defendants’ actions—not only on hotels but also on the bars, restaurants, and nightclubs that visitors will often frequent when utilizing lodging options in the city.
190. Defendants’ actions have diverted West Hollywood’s law-enforcement resources. West Hollywood contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. Defendants’ actions in early June caused a significant diversion of resources to address the resulting protests in nearby cities.

The West Hollywood City Council was scheduled to have multiple high-ranking representatives from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department present at its June 9, 2025 City Council meeting to discuss a public safety agenda item that was of Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 50 of 68 Page ID #:2356
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-51-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

critical importance to the community. The Sheriff’s Department representatives were not able to attend the City Council meeting, as the regional protests utilized all available resources in the region. The City Council had to continue the item to a later date when the Sheriff’s Department could provide the needed resources to West Hollywood.
191. Defendants’ unlawful actions also caused protests against Defendants’ policies and immigration activities in the region in West Hollywood Park on June 14, 2025, where it is reported that at least 3,000 people attended. The City and Sheriff’s Department had to expend significant resources to maintain safety and order.
192. In response to community member concerns, West Hollywood has expended public resources to provide information to residents including “Know Your Rights” public information available at City facilities and online. It has ongoing efforts to expand outreach and make information more accessible at public events and locations, develop clear protocols for Sheriff’s Department involvement during federal immigration-enforcement activities, and provide assurances that local law enforcement stands with and protects all residents, regardless of immigration status.
193. Defendants’ activities are interfering with West Hollywood’s crucial role in protecting the public health, safety, and well-being of its residents. Such activity is also resulting in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
194. On July 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Lead Complaint challenging Defendants’ use of unlawful searches and seizures to terrorize residents under the guise of federal immigration enforcement. See ECF No. 16. As set forth in detail in the Lead Complaint, in recent weeks, Defendants have carried out increasingly aggressive and unlawful immigration raids in communities throughout the Los Angeles region. Masked federal agents who refuse to identify themselves are Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 51 of 68 Page ID #:2357
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-52-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

stopping, arresting, and detaining people all over the County, seemingly based solely on their apparent ethnicity, capturing citizens and noncitizens alike.

Defendants’ actions have sparked terror throughout the region. 195. As described in the Lead Complaint, Defendants’ indiscriminate, unchecked, and wanton enforcement efforts are violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of Intervenors’ community members, and exceed the scope of Defendants’ statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357. Those same actions violate Intervenors’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. This Amended Complaint in Intervention incorporates the allegations in the Lead Complaint by reference and adds further allegations to describe how Defendants’ unlawful actions are inflicting distinct additional harm on the Intervenors.

A. Defendants’ Unlawful Raids Impair Intervenors’ Ability to Maintain Law and Order
196. Defendants’ raids are anything but routine, lawful immigration enforcement actions. In an unprecedented departure from longstanding practices, armed, often unidentified federal agents are carrying out these roving raids without prior notice to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or any of the Intervenor cities’ police departments. As a result, local authorities are left in the dark about when and where federal enforcement actions or other activities are scheduled to occur in their jurisdictions.
197. Because the unlawful raids are being conducted by masked, armed agents, often without any visible identification, from the perspective of the Intervenors’ residents, many of these activities are not readily distinguishable from, and are therefore confused with, criminal activity. Witnesses have called 911 to report kidnappings after witnessing events like a “group of armed, masked Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 52 of 68 Page ID #:2358
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-53-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

men . . . dragging a woman into an SUV.”38 Local law enforcement agencies thus have been required to divert limited resources to determining whether armed and masked individuals jumping out of unmarked vehicles are federal agents or individuals committing crimes. At least one local law enforcement agency has arrested a civilian posing as a border patrol agent who possessed a list of purported illegal immigrants and loaded firearms and ammunition.39 198. Defendants are detaining and arresting Intervenors’ residents en masse and without probable cause, which leads Intervenors’ residents to reasonably infer that the detentions are based on residents’ appearance alone. As one observer described, “They don’t care if you have papers, as long as you look like what they want you to look like, they’ll take you.”40 A witness to another raid similarly recounted that “if you looked Hispanic in any way, they just took you.”41 199. Defendants’ pattern of arresting people merely because they appear to be immigrants reaches U.S. citizens and other individuals with legal status. In one recent example, immigration officers violently arrested a U.S. citizen and Army veteran—spraying him with pepper spray and kneeling on his neck and back—and then held him in custody for three days without offering any explanation for his 38 Libor Jany, Kidnappers or ICE agents? LAPD grapples with surge in calls from concerned citizens, L.A. TIMES (July 3, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/ story/2025-07-03/los-angeles-police-immigration-kidnappings. 39 Lily Dallow, L.A. man with previous human smuggling arrest may have been impersonating ICE agent, KTLA (June 27, 2025), https://ktla.com/news/local-news /l-a-man-arrested-in-huntington-park-for-possibly-impersonating-federal-agent/. 40 Travis Schlepp, ICE agents make arrest at Los Angeles area church, KTLA 5 (June 11, 2025), https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ice-agents-make-arrest-at-los- angeles-area-church/#:~:text=Community%20members%20and%20religious%20 leaders,in%20the%20church%20parking%20lot.
41 Jasmine Mendez et al., Immigration raids continue as Trump appears to soften on targeting some workplaces, L.A. TIMES (June 15, 2025),
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-15/los-angeles-immigration- raids-continue.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 53 of 68 Page ID #:2359
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-54-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

arrest.42 As another example, Defendants arrested U.S. citizen Andrea Velez, forcibly “lifting [her] off the ground and carrying her away” without explanation; Ms. Velez’s only apparent offense was “the color of her skin.”43 200. Local law enforcement is left to deal with the aftermath of Defendants’ actions, including protests and hostility from residents whose community members are the victims of such actions.
201. Defendants’ unlawful actions are directly harming the relationship between Intervenors’ local law enforcement and their communities, including immigrant communities. Local law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Intervenors’ police departments, have implemented policies and practices designed to promote the safety of residents by fostering cooperation and trust between members of the region’s many immigrant communities and law enforcement. One fundamental goal of these local policies and practices has been to encourage victims and witnesses to collaborate with the police, regardless of immigration status. But Defendants’ actions are eroding Intervenors’ hard-won gains. Indeed, not only Intervenors’ police officers, but also social workers, firefighters, and building inspectors, have already been confused for federal agents and confronted by protestors who thought they were conducting surveillance for an immigration sweep. Intervenors’ ability to obtain just outcomes for victims also is being hindered by fear of arrest by federal agents in public or at courthouses.

42 Daniel Trotta, US citizen says he was jailed for three days after California immigration raid, Reuters (July 16, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/legal/ government/us-citizen-says-he-was-jailed-three-days-after-california-immigration- raid-2025-07-17.
43 Dani Anguiano, US citizen arrested during ICE raid in what family describes as ‘kidnapping,” THE GUARDIAN (June 26, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2025/jun/26/immigration-ice-raid-andrea-velez.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 54 of 68 Page ID #:2360
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-55-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

B. Defendants’ Terror Campaign Chills Business and Drains Intervenors’ Tax Revenue
202. Defendants’ actions also are harming Intervenors’ tax revenue.

Intervenors depend in part on business, sales, and/or hotel and motel taxes to fund municipal operations. Because Defendants’ unlawful raids are sweeping up citizens and noncitizens alike, many residents are unsurprisingly choosing to stay home, regardless of their legal status. So too are international tourists, causing a negative economic impact to the revenues of tourist destinations like Intervenors Beverly Hills, the City of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. 203. The consequences for Intervenors are significant. Many residents and people who work in Intervenors’ jurisdictions are immigrants or children or other relatives of immigrants from ethnic backgrounds that Defendants are indiscriminately and illegally targeting in their raids, including, as described in detail in the Lead Complaint, people of Latino origin. Over 1.8 million City of Los Angeles residents—nearly 48%—ide ntify as Hispanic or Latino.44 Over 4.8 million in the County—nearly 49%—do so. Another 15% of the County identifies as Asian.

Intervenors Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, Pico Rivera, and South Gate are more than 90% Latino. Intervenor Monterey Park is approximately 65% Asian. 204. Defendants’ actions have instilled widespread fear in Intervenors’ communities. People are afraid to leave their homes in order to avoid becoming the next victim of Defendants’ unlawful raids. In the MacArthur Park neighborhood and in Boyle Heights, for example, children are being sent out on errands unaccompanied by their parents. Intervenors all document a similar chilling effect on their residents.
44 U.S. Census Bureau, Los Angeles City, California, https://data.census.gov/profile/ Los_Angeles_city,_California?g=160XX00US0644000#race-and-ethnicity (identifying 1,829,991 “Hispanic or Latino” individuals in Los Angeles); Los Angeles City Planning, Demographics, https://planning.lacity.gov/resources/ demographics (identifying 48% of Los Angeles population as “Hispanic”).

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 55 of 68 Page ID #:2361
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-56-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

205. As a result, Defendants’ actions have created a de facto lockdown of neighborhoods throughout the region. Shops and restaurants are sitting empty and suffering business owners describe the situation as akin to the loss of business in the COVID-19 pandemic.
206. Intervenors, in turn, lose vital tax revenue from those businesses. In the past two years, business and sales taxes comprised approximately 12.5% of Intervenor Los Angeles’s annual revenue budget. Those taxes are generally based on gross receipts. Empty businesses do not generate gross receipts—and thus do not pay business taxes or remit sales taxes to Los Angeles. As another example, Intervenor Culver City documented lower visits to the Culver City Westfield Mall for the entire week of June 23, 2025. Taxes from businesses in the Culver City Westfield Mall are a substantial source of revenue for Culver City.

C. Defendants’ Actions Threaten the Functioning of California Courts 207. California law prohibits the “civil arrest in a courthouse” of any person “attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse.” Cal. Civ.

Code § 43.54. This prohibition reflects the California legislature’s judgment that courthouse arrests pose a “threat to the proper functioning of California’s government and to the rights enjoyed by all Californians.”45 As the former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, has explained, “enforcement policies that include stalking courthouses and arresting undocumented immigrants . . . . undermine the judiciary’s ability to provide equal access to justice.”46
45 See A.B. No. 668, 2019–2020 Legis. Sess., § 1(a) (Cal. 2019). 46 Letter from Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to Attorney General Jeff Sessions (March 16, 2017),
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/document/Chief%2520 Justice%2520Cantil-Sakauye%2520Letter_AG%2520Sessions-
Secretary%2520Kelly_3-16-17.pdf.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 56 of 68 Page ID #:2362
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-57-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

208. Moreover, a long-established federal common law privilege forbids civil arrests in or near courthouses. This privilege extends to parties, witnesses, and all people going to court on business.
209. Despite the clear statutory and common law prohibitions on civil arrests in and around courthouses, Defendants have seized Intervenors’ residents who are traveling to and from state courthouses to attend legal proceedings or address other legal business. For example, federal immigration agents recently stalked two women in the hallways of the Airport Courthouse on La Cienega Boulevard and arrested the women after they appeared for their scheduled court proceedings. Federal agents handcuffed the women, placed them in unmarked vehicles, and drove away. The court was not provided advance notice of these arrests.47
210. Defendants’ actions interfere with the functioning of California’s judiciary and threaten the rights enjoyed by all Californians, including Intervenors’ residents. To take just one example, prosecutors report that some victims and witnesses are reluctant to even come to court out of fear of being accosted by federal immigration officials.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
Violation of the Fourth Amendment:

Detention Stop Without Reasonable Suspicion
(Asserted by Plaintiffs and Intervenor Plaintiffs)
211. The foregoing allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
47 James Queally, ICE arrests at L.A. courthouse met with alarm: ‘Absolutely blindsided’, L.A. TIMES (June 25, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story /2025-06-25/ice-arrests-los-angeles-courthouse.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 57 of 68 Page ID #:2363
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-58-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

212. Except at the border and its functional equivalents, the Fourth Amendment prohibits Defendants from conducting a detentive stop to investigate a person’s immigration status without reasonable suspicion that a person is a noncitizen unlawfully in the United States.
213. “A person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of [unlawful] activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search [or seize] that person.” Perez Cruz v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2019) (alterations in original, citation omitted). “‘Reasonable suspicion’ is no different.” Id. (citation omitted).
214. Defendants have a policy, pattern, and practice of stopping individuals without regard to reasonable suspicion that they are unlawfully in the United States. 215. As a part of Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice, when conducting stops, Defendants engage in a show of force so overwhelming that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. As a matter of policy, pattern, and practice, Defendants do not evaluate the need for force or tailor the force they use to the circumstances of individual stops and arrests.
216. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
217. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice have caused ongoing harm to Intervenors.

COUNT II
Violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2):

Warrantless Arrests Without Probable Cause of Flight Risk (Asserted by Plaintiffs and Intervenor Plaintiffs)
218. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 58 of 68 Page ID #:2364
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-59-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

219. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) requires that arrests without a warrant be accompanied by “reason to believe” that an individual is “likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for [their] arrest.”
220. Defendants have a policy, pattern, and practice of making arrests without any warrant and without making an individualized determination of flight risk. They have no mechanism for ensuring compliance with the statutory limits of agents’ and officers’ warrantless arrest authority and do not provide guidance to agents and officers on how to make an individualized determination of likelihood of escape. Defendants permit agents and officers to make warrantless arrests carte blanche in violation of law.
221. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and/or practice of making warrantless arrests without the required individualized flight risk analysis is “final agency action” that is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations” under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2)(C).
222. Separate from the APA, Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice of making warrantless arrests without the required individualized flight risk analysis is ultra vires.
223. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice have caused ongoing harm to Intervenors.

COUNT III
Violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(ii)
Standards for Stops and Warrantless Arrests
(Asserted by Plaintiffs and Intervenor Plaintiffs)
224. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
225. Defendants are bound by regulation to conform warrantless arrests to the standards in 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c), including the requirement at 8 C.F.R.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 59 of 68 Page ID #:2365
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-60-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

§ 287.8(c)(2)(ii) that officers have reason to believe that an individual is “likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”
226. Defendants have a policy, pattern, and practice of making arrests without any warrant and without making an individualized determination of flight risk. They have no mechanism for ensuring compliance with the regulatory limits of agents’ and officers’ warrantless arrest authority and do not provide guidance to agents and officers on how to make an individualized determination of likelihood of escape. Defendants permit agents and officers to make warrantless arrests carte blanche in violation of law.
227. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice is “final agency action” that is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations” under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii). 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2)(C).
228. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice have caused ongoing harm to Intervenors.

COUNT IV
Violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(iii)
Failure to Identify Authority and Reason for Arrest
(Asserted by Plaintiffs and Intervenor Plaintiffs)
229. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
230. The regulations require agents and officers, at the time of an arrest or as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so, to identify themselves as “an immigration officer who is authorized to execute an arrest” and “[s]tate that the person is under arrest and the reason for the arrest.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(iii). 231. Defendants have a policy, pattern, and practice of not timely identifying themselves, their authority to execute an immigration arrest, or the reasons for an arrest.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 60 of 68 Page ID #:2366
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-61-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

232. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice is a “final agency action” that is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations” under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii). 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2)(C).
233. Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice have caused ongoing harm to Intervenors.

COUNT V
Administrative Procedure Act:

Agency Action Exceeding Statutory Authority
(Asserted by Intervenor Plaintiffs)
234. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
235. Administrative agencies may only exercise authority validly conferred by statute. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must “hold unlawful and set aside” federal agency action that is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
236. California law prohibits the civil arrest in a courthouse of any person attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse. 237. Congress has not authorized Defendants to conduct courthouse arrests in violation of California law.
238. A long-established federal common-law privilege forbids civil arrests in or near courthouses. This privilege extends to parties, witnesses, and all people attending the courts on business.
239. Congress did not displace the federal common-law privilege when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act.
240. Defendants’ activities, including the warrantless arrests of individuals in or near courthouses, exceed the scope of Defendants’ authority and violate this long-established prohibition on civil arrests and interfere with the ability of Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 61 of 68 Page ID #:2367
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-62-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Intervenors’ law enforcement agencies to obtain cooperation from individuals in immigrant communities, regardless of immigration status.

COUNT VI
Administrative Procedure Act:

Agency Action Contrary to Constitutional
Right, Power, Privilege, or Immunity
(Asserted by Intervenor Plaintiffs)
241. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
242. The Administrative Procedure Act instructs courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).
243. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . to the States.” 244. The states’ judicial and police powers are among the most important powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.
245. Defendants’ final agency actions have resulted in harm to Intervenors. 246. In violation of the Tenth Amendment, Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice of arresting individuals in or around California state courthouses located within Intervenors’ boundaries (the “Courthouse Arrest Policy”) commandeers California’s judicial system and unduly interferes with California’s core sovereign judicial and police functions by, among other things, preventing residents of Intervenors from accessing state courts.
247. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to Intervenors and their residents.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 62 of 68 Page ID #:2368
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-63-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COUNT VII
Administrative Procedure Act:

Arbitrary and Capricious Action
(Asserted by Intervenor Plaintiffs)
248. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
249. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must hold unlawful and set aside federal agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 250. Defendants’ final agency actions have resulted in harm to Intervenors. 251. Defendants’ Courthouse Arrest Policy is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
252. The Courthouse Arrest Policy is arbitrary and capricious because Defendants do not sufficiently explain to whom the Policy applies, do not explain how the Policy complies with congressional statutes requiring certain non-citizens to appear in state courts to qualify for immigration relief, fail fully to consider the foreseeable harms and/or costs of the Policy, do not adequately explain its prioritizing of civil arrests in or near courthouses over the harms triggered by those arrests, and do not adequately justify the change from Defendants’ prior policies on courthouse arrests.
253. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to Intervenors and their residents.

COUNT VIII
Tenth Amendment
(Asserted by Intervenor Plaintiffs)
254. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 63 of 68 Page ID #:2369
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-64-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

255. The Tenth Amendment preserves the states’ historic, sovereign, and fundamental autonomy to control the operation of their judiciaries and to pursue criminal prosecutions.
256. The states’ judicial and police powers are among the most important powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.
257. In violation of the Tenth Amendment, Defendants’ policy of arresting Intervenors’ residents in and around state courthouses commandeers California’s judicial system and unduly interferes with California’s core sovereign judicial and police functions by preventing Intervenors’ residents from accessing state courts. 258. In violation of the Tenth Amendment, Defendants’ policy of conducting warrantless seizures and detentions of Intervenors’ residents, without notice to or coordination with local law enforcement, effectively commandeers local law enforcement into responding to these incidents to ensure the safety of Intervenors’ residents and federal agents, and into dealing with the incidents’ aftermaths.
259. Federal courts possess the power in equity to grant injunctive relief with respect to violations of federal law by federal officials. 260. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to Intervenors and their residents.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor, and grant the following relief:

1. Declare that Defendants’ actions violate the Fourth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act;

2. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining further violations of the Fourth and Tenth Amendments and Administrative Procedure Act; Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 64 of 68 Page ID #:2370
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-65-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

3. Declare that Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices violate 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii); and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(iii);

4. Declare that the Courthouse Arrest Policy exceeds Defendants’ statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations;

5. Declare that the Courthouse Arrest Policy is unconstitutional;

6. Enjoin Defendants and all of their officers, employees, agents, and anyone acting in concert with them, from civilly arresting parties, witnesses, and any other individual coming to, attending, or returning from state courthouses or court-related proceedings;

7. Award Intervenors their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees; and

8. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 65 of 68 Page ID #:2371
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-66-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

DATED: August 8, 2025 Res pectfully submitted,

B
y: /s/ E. Martin Estrada
E. MARTIN ESTRADA

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

Attorneys for Intervenors Cities of Los
Angeles, Anaheim, Bell Gardens, Beverly
Hills, Carpinteria, Culver City, Huntington
Park, Long Beach, Lynwood, Montebello,
Monterey Park, Oxnard, Paramount, Pico
Rivera, Pomona, Santa Ana, Santa
Barbara, Santa Monica, South Gate, and
West Hollywood

By:

/s/ Hydee Feldstein Soto

HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO
City Attorney

OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES

CITY ATTORNEY

Attorney for Intervenor
City of Los Angeles

By: /s/
Brigit Greeson Alvarez

BRIGIT GREESON ALVAREZ
Deputy County Counsel

OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES

COUNTY COUNSEL

Attorney for Intervenor
County of Los Angeles

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 66 of 68 Page ID #:2372
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-67-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

By: /s/ Michele Beal Bagneris

MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS
City Attorney

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OF

PASADENA

Attorney for Intervenor
City of Pasadena
Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 67 of 68 Page ID #:2373
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-68-
INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2 )(i), the filer attests that all other signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing.

DATED: Au
gust 8, 2025

B
y: /s/ E. Martin Estrada
E. MARTIN ESTRADA

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

Attorneys for Intervenors Cities of Los
Angeles, Anaheim, Bell Gardens, Beverly
Hills, Carpinteria, Culver City, Huntington
Park, Long Beach, Lynwood, Montebello,
Monterey Park, Oxnard, Paramount, Pico
Rivera, Pomona, Santa Ana, Santa
Barbara, Santa Monica, South Gate, and
West Hollywood

Case 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP Document 141 Filed 08/08/25 Page 68 of 68 Page ID #:2374
From: William
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: 9/2/25 Counsel Meeting, Item 4
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:20:47 PM
Hello, I strongly support the City joining the Orange County Power Authority. I support clean energy

and non-investor owned energy sources, both of which are supported by joining the OCPA.

I understand that it may cost more, but that is a price I am willing to pay for clean energy.

Thank you,
William Ash
Costa Mesa Resident
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Item 4: Support Clean Energy Choice in Costa Mesa Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:08:56 PM
From: Craig Preston <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 12:30 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Item 4: Support Clean Energy Choice in Costa Mesa

Dear Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers,
Thank you for clean energy leadership in Costa Mesa.

And especially

for agendizing a
discussion of Costa Mesa’s feasibility study with OC Power Authority (OCPA). As you consider the results of the feasibility study, please direct staff to move forward with the process for joining OCPA so Costa Mesa families can receive the benefits of clean energy choice.

Of the many benefits to us residents, I highlight Affordability OCPA is the only avenue for rate relief available to families in Orange County.

SoCal Edison has raised rates by 90% over the past 10 years, and plans to increase prices another 45% by 2030.

Unmitigated rate increases have burdened Southern California families; the CPUC found that almost 900,000 people are almost $1,000 behind on their energy bills to SCE. Costa Mesa families deserve more affordable options for their energy needs. 12 of 13 CCE programs in Southern California offer rates lower than or equal to those offered by SCE – including OCPA. OCPA’s Basic Choice product is 3% less expensive per month than SCE.

Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) like SCE have a profit motive to deliver for their shareholders rather than the communities they serve. By contrast, Costa Mesa has greater local control with CCE, with a Board member who can voice the community’s interests as a representative of Costa Mesa.

Please move forward with joining OCPA and bring the benefits of clean energy choice to Costa Mesa.

Grateful and looking forward to the meeting 2 SEP 2025.

Craig Preston

Resident of civic center neighborhood of Costa Mesa, 92626 (714) 473-2798 [email protected]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. el7'l a-l-
August 31, 2025
Mayor John Stephens
Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez
Council Member Jeff Pettis
Council Member Andrea Marr
Council Member Loren Gameros
Council Member Mike Buley
Council Member Arlis Reynolds
City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Public Comment on Agenda Item 4 (Old Business) Orange County Power Authority
September 2, 2025
Dear Mayor Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, Council Members, and City Manager Gallardo-Daly:

I am writing to strongly oppose the City of Costa Mesa joining the Orange County Power Authority ("OCPA"). I was a resident of Costa Mesa for 15 years where I attended TeWinkle and graduated from Estancia High School. My parents lived in Costa Mesa for 45 years and my brother and his wife currently live in Costa Mesa. I graduated from USC and completed an Executive Program at the Darden School in Virginia. I had a successful career for 30 years in Corporate Finance, Banking and Investment Banking in San Francisco and New York. I presently reside in Irvine where I am a former Planning Commissioner for the City.

OCPA has had a very troubled existence from inception and today continues to struggle even more both financially and from a transparency perspective. OCPA made three core promises to the residents when they started operations and these are the promises and the current results:

1. Offer choice through local government control over energy procurement OCPA outsources energy procurement to consultants Pacific Energy Advisors in Folsom, CA. Over the past 12 months, OCPA has purchased over 84% of their energy from 4 companies: Constellation Energy (Maryland), Shell Energy North America (Netherlands), Sunrise Power (Texas) and Southern California Edison (California).

Energy dollars that were previously retained in California have now been largely outsourced to energy companies outside of California. 1 Residents were never offered any choice over whether to join OCPA. They were forced into OCPA by City Councils that voted to join. The City of Irvine had over 30% of their residents opt out of joining OCPA at inception - one of the highest opt out rates in the history of CCA launches.

2. An organization led by professionals to serve the community and create local jobs
OCPA continues to outsource jobs to consultants located outside of Orange County and the State of California including the customer call center which is operated by Calpine (now acquired by Constellation) in Texas. OCPA cannot even produce internally their quarterly financial statements instead relying on a northern California accounting firm even after hiring a full time Chief Financial Officer (Salary of over $300,000) and a Controller. OCPA is spending over $4 million on public relations firms such as Reveille and Golden Communications and now wants to hire a Sacramento lobbyist at $250,000 per year. This has not created local jobs for Orange County or the member cities.

3. Provide affordable, competitive rates to deliver clean energy OCPA's Power Content Label has a large and growing amount of unspecified power - where the source of the energy cannot be determined. OCPA has relied heavily on the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (at $40 million per year) to greenwash their brown power purchases. Despite numerous requests from the City of Irvine and ratepayers, OCPA has declined to disclose what types of energy are being procured even when member cities have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements. In November of 2024, OCPA announced to their member cities that they could not procure energy at the 1 00% Renewable or Smart Tiers due to the costs of renewable energy. They requested that the entire ratepayer base opt down for two years or face skyrocketing utility bills increasing upwards of 400%.

The City of Irvine opted the City municipal accounts and all resident accounts down to the Basic Choice - a level that is on par with Southern California Edison. While ratepayers were allowed to opt back up to 1 00% Renewable or Smart Tiers, only 8 residents (EIGHT) opted back up from the Basic Choice. In addition, the City Manager issued a letter to OCPA regarding their last minute emergency tier change noting several questions about the actions of the Board and the CEO Joe Mosca (letter attached). After this letter, the Irvine City Council voted unanimously to exit OCPA in 2025 granting unilateral authority to the City Manager to issue the exit letter. The City of Irvine is 60% of OCPA's electricity load.

The State of Massachusetts, which set up the first CCA in the nation, has now concluded that providing energy choice has only led to significantly higher electricity costs for their residents and a disproportionate impact on their lowest income ratepayers. Over the past 8 years, they estimate Massachusetts residents lost over $577 million through higher rates than if they had stayed with their existing utility 2 provider's basic service. I've attached the press release on their study, and a copy of the full study is being provided to your City Manager.

Recent Developments and Risks
There are several deteriorating trends for OCPA that present unknown risk for any new member city to consider:

1. OCPA is losing money and will continue losing money through 6-30-2026, reducing their reserves by 48% by 12-31-2025
At FYE 6-30-2025, OCPA incurred a loss of over $15 million. They are projecting another loss at FYE 6-30-2026 of almost $30 million. To cover for this deficiency, OCPA will be exhausting their Rate Stabilization Fund of $45 million by December 31, 2025.

This leaves OCPA with only $45 million in remaining reserves or 16% of operating costs versus their Board directive of maintaining reserves at 30% to 50% of operating costs.

OCPA's energy providers are requiring $15.8 million in cash collateral to supply their energy needs. This reflects a lack of confidence in OCPA's ability to pay their suppliers.

2. OCPA cannot meet their required Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio of l.40x for the US Bank credit agreement
This is the second Event of Default under the bank credit agreement for OCPA. They have indicated they are in process of negotiating a waiver with their Bank so it is unknown what their actual fixed charge coverage ratio is at this point and if they can obtain a waiver.

3. On 12/31/2026, OCPA will switch to charging rates based on full cost recovery
Cost Recovery is defined by OCPA as "full recovery of energy procurement costs, operating expenses, debt service obligations, and reserve contributions". Basically, OCPA will right their financial ship off the backs of their ratepayer base. Unlike SCE, OCPA can change rates at any time with only Board approval. Costa Mesa would be one vote and would not be able to veto any rate increase for your own ratepayers.

4. The impact of AB 205 in November 2025 has not been reflected in the OCPA budget forecasts despite having paid a consultant $9,200 for a study in 2024
Once AB 205 is implemented, OCPA will find itself at a competitive disadvantage with respect to rate comparisons to SCE. OCPA is already charging more on the generation rate side to SCE and once SCE's rates decline by $24.15 per ratepayer, it will be 3 impossible for OCPA to compete with SCE. This could lead to a massive opt out for OCPA and a corresponding reduction in their customer base.

OCPA's budget forecast stated that the effect of AB 205 was not yet determined, however their own consultant study concluded that AB 205 could increase OCPA's residential bills by $6 to $lO/month. A copy of this consultant report is provided in the package to the City Manager.

5. OCPA is considermg the issuance of prepayment bonds to shore up their cash position, but this adds a significant, unquantified risk to member cities and ratepayers.

These complex 30 year bonds include significant costs of issuance, complexity with the use of derivatives, and unknown liabilities back to the ratepayers. OCPA has not yet met with member cities to explain this complex transaction and the consequences of issuance. Given that the Joint Powers Agreement is one of only 3 CCA's in California that puts the liability onto the ratepayers (JPA Liability Clause summary for CA JPA's included with City Manager package), this type of transaction requires careful study, transparency, discussion with member cities including a vote and disclosure of the risks.

6. OCPA continues to be non-responsive to the concerns and issues presented by their member cities, most notably the City of Inrine, OCPA attempted to usurp the requirements of the JPA by unilaterally changing the energy tiers for the City of Irvine and their residents. When confronted by the City Manager and City Attorney in Irvine through a letter (copy attached), OCPA decided to comply with the stated terms of the JPA. Affer this incident, the two board representatives from the City of Irvine requested a presentation by OCPA of the options regarding the early repayment of the loans made by the City of Irvine to fund the start up of OCPA. This motion passed with Mr. Mosca agreeing to present the options within 90 days (February 2025). Mr. Mosca and OCPA have never presented the options to the Board or to the City of Irvine, ignoring their largest customer and the Board approved directive.

Even more recently, OCPA indicated a desire to pursue solar initiatives within the Great Park in Irvine. However, according to our current City Manager, OCPA has been nonresponsive to requests by Irvine City Staff to understand this new initiative.

Summary
Finally, I would reference a letter I've attached from the City of Long Beach that studied joining a CCA for 6 years. Long Beach has its own gas plant and staff members with over 40 years of experience in power procurement. Their exhaustive study of this issue culminated in their letter to the City Council in 2023 wherein they outlined the issues with CCA's and their reasons for declining to join any CCA. This motion was unanimously supported by their City Council.
4 The Costa Mesa City Council has a fiduciary duty to study and understand the risks inherent in putting their residents into an unproven and financially unstable entity. The Joint Power Authority Agreement which is the governing document for OCPA contains numerous inadequate and vague provisions addressing only the assignment of liabilities and not reserves and/or assets. The question you should be asking Mr. Mosca is what the costs are to enter and exit OCPA.

I would ask that you investigate other alternatives with SCE, invite them to present their ideas and programs to the City Council before proceeding further. SCE has their own investors who understand the risks of investment while OCPA forces residents to be their investors and take on only the downside risks of the volatile energy market. There are many alternatives for Costa Mesa to pursue for their clean energy goals. OCPA is an Enron like energy trading company taking on commodity risk that is undisclosed to their ratepayers. OCPA is a risky and unproven option and should be discounted at this time.

Very truly yours,
Michelle C Johnson
Enclosures:

PowerPoint slides - Orange County Power Authority Risk Analysis and Update Letter Dated December 5, 2024 from Oliver Chi, City Manager, Irvine to CEO Mosca April 28, 2023 Memo from Long Beach Utilities Dept on CCA Feasibility 4/3/2024 Press Release from Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell State of Massachusetts
Full Report dated April 2024 on the Residential Electricity Market in Massachusetts (City Manager only)
July 16, 2024 Report on Income Graduated Fixed Charge Bill Impact Analysis (City Manager Only)
Comparison of JPA Liability Clauses in California (City Manager Only) 5 cityofirvine.org
City of Irvine, 4 Civic Center Plaza, P.0. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 949-724-6000 December 5, 2024
Joe Mosca
Chief Executive Officer
Orange County Power Authority
15642 Sand Canyon Avenue
P.0. Box 54283
Irvine, CA 92619-4283
De(ivered Via Emai(
Dear Mr. Mosca,
As the City Manager for the City of Irvine (City), I am writing to you to express the serious concern that City staff has regarding the actions that you have agenized for the Orange County PowerAuthority Board (Board) to consider at a Special Meeting on December 6, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

At that special meeting, Orange County Power Authority (OCPA) staff is asking the Board to do the following:
(1) AuthorizetheOCPAstafftotakeaLLpreLiminarystepsnecessarytoprovideearLy repayment in full of the $7,500,000+ Capital Loan owed to the City of Irvine; (2) MakesignificantchangestoBoardPolicy23,reLatingtotheselectionoTtheDefauLt Rate Product by cities on behalf of their constituents; and (3) Providedirectionrelatingto"potentiaLchangesinOrangeCountyPowerAuthority Rate Design in relation to updated energy market information and default rate product scenarios.

We are confused as to why you and OCPA have called a special meeting with only 24-hours of advance notice to contemplate these matters. None of these are issues are new. The Capital Loan (Agenda Item 4.1) has been in place since 2021, and is not due until 2027.

The turmoil in the power supply market that appears to be the motivation forAgenda Item

4.2 (stripping cities and subscribers of their authority over the Default Rate Product) and Agenda Item 4.3 (modifying the rate design) has been evolving for many months. Yet, for reasons that are unclear to the City, OCPA has proposed Board actions on all three of these items with only Limited notification, and with no outreach to the Cityto inform us OCPA 1 2/6/2024 Special Meeting Items
December 5, 2024

Page 3 of 5 ends

Importantly, reimorcing that obligation, the Debt Subordination Agreement requires that the City turn over any payment that if OCPA is not entitled to make that payment.

At best, it is unclear why OCPA staff have chosen to agendize this matter on such short notice,andwithsofewdetails. ItisaLsounfairandunreaListictoexpecttheBoard,the public, and the City oflrvine, to be well-informed about this matter before the Board acts, giventhelackofinformationandanalysisprovidedinadvanceofthemeeting. Ratherthan make a multi-million dollar decision in this rushed and under-informed environment, we urge you to recommend that the Board take a step back; discuss the loan repayment with Irvine staff; provide a reasoned written staff analysis to explain why repayment ofthe loan is good for OCPA, ratepayers, and Irvine; and make an informed decision at a properly noticed regular meeting.

For its part, the City staff is also disappointed that OCPA did not more actively communicate on this issue. The City provided more than $7,500,000 to form and provide seed funding for OCPA. The City has been a good partner and a strong ally to OCPA. The courtesy of some advance notice and discussion between OCPA staff and City staff would have been appreciated.

Agenda Item 4.2 - Updates to Policy No. 23, Changes to Default Rate Product Policy, and Approval of Changes to Power Supply Options/Default Rate Products Relating to OCPA Energy Procurement Strategy Changes
In the opinion of Irvine's staff, iT Agenda Item 4.2 is approved, it will represent a massive breach of trust with both OCPA's Member Agencies, and with all of the electrical power subscribers who are members of OCPA.

As you are aware, Board Policy 23 currently states, "Each Orange County Power Authority ("OCPA") Member agency has discretion to select to the Default Rate Product for the customers in its respective jurisdiction." These words are clear and unambiguous, and the ability of each agency to choose the default rate was fundamental to many (if not all) cities' decision to join OCPA.

Agenda Item 4.2 would severely diminish that authority through a bait-and-switch - member agencies will nominally retain the abiLityto choose a "default rate," but the policy proposed by OCPA staff redefines the term "default rate" to mean whatever the Board wants or needs it to be.

Further, the revised policy would also allow the Board to determine that "certain OCPA Rate Products will not be available to one or more MemberAgencies as Default Rate OCPA 12/6/2024 Special Meeting Items
December 5, 2024

Page 5 of 5 ends

defined and rushed. Selection the rate design and default rate products are two of the mostfundamentaltasksTortheOCPAstaffandBoard. Theytakemonthso'fstudyand analysis, involve the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, and impact the lives andtrustofhundredsofthousandsofsubscribers. Amissteporanuninformeddecision can have drastic adverse effects.

Despite those realities, the "Discussion/Fiscal Impact" section of the staff report states in full, the following: "A summary of this item will be provided orally at the Board meeting." As with the Capital Loan item, the staff report acknowledges that "Staff have prepared a presentation with updated possible scenarios...", butthe presentation is not provided. To put it mildly, this is not the way to conduct serious public business.

Based on the foregoing, I would urge you to recommend that the OCPA Board not to act on any of the three above referend agenda items. Of course, it would have been preferable if you had provided me and the City of Irvine with the courtesy of informing us about these dramatic proposed changes in advance of the publication of your December 6, 2024, special meeting agenda, so that we could have at least shared our perspective with you.

Regardless, if you are available, I remain open to discussing these matters with you, and can be reached at , orvia emaiL at ochi(a)cityofirvine.org.

Regards,
OLiver Chi
City Manager, City oflrvine
Cc: Jeff Melching,lrvine CityAttorney

CITY OF
LONGBEACH Memorandum
Date: April 28, 2023
To: Thomas B. Modica, City Manager
From: Robert Dowell, Director, Energy Resources"'-2'A '/' Christopher J. Garner, General Manager, Long Beach Utilities Department For: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Subject: Long Beach Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Study Status History
In 2002, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 117, creating Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), which allows cities, counties, and some special districts the option to aggregate the electrical buying power of individual customers into a single entity. A CCA supplants the traditional role of the existing private electric utility as the buyer of the electricity for the customers. The goal is for a CCA to secure electricity supply contracts that offer customers a higher percentage or renewable energy than currently offered by traditional electric utilities while remaining cost comparable to the private utilities.

In 2017, the City Council first requested City staff to evaluate the potential benefits of forming a CCA, as well as potential risks, for the Long Beach community. Over the past several years, staff has provided the City Council with periodic updates on the viability of forming a CCA, each time recommending against the formation of a CCA due to various reasons including substantial financial risks and regulatory uncertainties. Rather than forming a CCA, the City has pursued new opportunities that have become available, as well as opportunities the City sees forthcoming, relative to increasing Long Beach's green energy use in replacement of electricity produced with traditional fossil fuels This memorandum is in response to the City Council's request on December 7, 2021, to provide a follow-up report on the Feasibility of the City Forming a CCA.

Background
As noted in previous communications with the City Council, the opportunity to form a CCA also carries significant risk, to both the customers and the City of Long Beach (City). Therefore, as the City has evaluated different avenues for achieving green energy benefits, the need to mitigate risk must be, and has been, a strong consideration A City CCA would supplant Southern California Edison's (SCE) existing responsibility of being the default buyer of the electricity commodity for all 500,000 Long Beach residents and businesses. The dollar value of this responsibility that the City CCA would assume from SCE is well above $100 million annually. All SCE customers in Long Beach would be defaulted "in" Long Beach Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Study Status April 28, 2023

Page 3 of 6 ends

towards a cleaner, healthier environment. Under the Green Rate Program, SCE will purchase, on the Utilities' behalf, solar energy from independently owned solar farms in California. This program gives our City the option to request SCE purchase green power for either 50 percent or 100 percent of Utilities' energy usage. If the Utilities' opts for the 50 percent green rate option, the other 50 percent of the Utilities' needs would be met with energy from SCE's standard energy supply portfolio. The City is also assisting SCE in promoting this green power option to Long Beach residents and businesses.

In addition to the electrical Green Rate Program, the City is an active partner in several statewide and regional clean energy initiatives:
* SCE CPCP Work Group - This is a joint work group with co-leadership from City and SCE staff. Collectively, our organizations are actively working on upgrading electrical infrastructure in Long Beach to support increased EV fleet vehicle charging. This work will enable the City to safely and reliably transition a larger percentage of our City fleet to electric vehicles in the near future.
* California Energy Commission - The California Energy Commission (CEC) has been holding meetings to identify opportunities to decommission some natural gas infrastructure in the State, and also look at ways to increase the availability of and safety for new electrical infrastructure, as well as battery storage, which would be needed for a clean energy future.
* Alliance for Renewable, Clean Hydrogen Systems (ARCHES) - Long Beach, with direction from the City Council, has taken a leadership role in the statewide ARCHES coalition, building a framework for advancing clean energy in Long Beach and statewide.

Through this work, we have also found that ongoing activities at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will continue to impact CCAs and the future of clean energy development.

CCA Rates
In 2022, a comparison" of the lowest priced option for CCAs against the base option charged by SCE, indicated that the CCA rates ranged from being 1.1 percent lower to 2.0 percent higher than SCE. For 2022, SCE had a green rate anomaly in which its 100 percent green rate was much lower than its base rate, as well as much lower than the "1 00 percent green rates charged by CCAs, with SCE's 100 percent green rate ranging from 3.8 percent to 19.3 percent lower than those charged by CCAs. As SCE's green rate was priced unusually low, this option was oversubscribed and not available to all SCE customers interested in taking advantage of this option.

In 2023, SCE has had a significant rate increase and some CCAs have quickly similarly followed while others are expected to do the same very soon. For example, CPA which serves certain areas in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura, this month approved an interim rate Long Beach Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Study Status April 28, 2023

Page 5 of 6 ends

CCA Financial Security Requirements
Currently, CCAs must provide a Financial Security Requirement (FSR), i.e., deposit, which is designed to cover any incremental costs that their incumbent IOU might face in the result of their sudden failure and the return of all their customers to full IOU service. This amount equals a fixed $147,000, to the address administrative costs to absorb the CCAs customers, plus an amount to cover any incremental procurement costs that the incumbent 10U would face serving the returned customers. The incremental procurement cost is updated every 6 months and is based on a formula set in 20'l3. Up until early 2022, the FSR has been simply the fixed administrative cost of $147,000.

The WCE failure in 2021 demonstrated that the current FSR amount was insufficient to cover the administrative costs of absorbing the returned customers, let alone the incremental procurement costs. In May 2022, because of high forward power prices, the incremental procurement formula resulted in very high FSRs. For example, the FSR for the CPA CCA would have increased from $147,000 to $88 million. The CPUC suspended the updated FSR calculation, subject to an overall reconsideration
Because of WCEs failure and the extreme increase in the FSR per the formula change, the CPUC integrated the issue of how to ensure that failed CCAs do not impose costs on their incumbent IOU or their ratepayers into Rulemaking 21-03-011. Parties to that proceeding have put forth various proposals to revise the FSR calculation, all of which would significantly increase it from the current $147,000 amount. A proposed decision on this issue should be released in the next few months. We anticipate that the CPlJC will increase the administrated portion of the FSR beyond $147,000 and include some safety valves that will prevent the FSR from increasing too much from year to year.
8/24/25, 12::31 PM NeW J km Reskklfd8 Lo8t O€ $577 Miflk>n ThrtXlgtt Corn4ffi EldC Supply COntracts In The Last 8 YOarS ... 'x',7 Mass.gov
OFFERED BY Offlc*oftheAtmrney6*naral

PRESS RELEASE
New Report: Massachusetts Residents Lost Over
$577 Million Through Competitive Electric Supply
Contracts In The Last 8 Years
Report calb the competitive electric supply industry a "predatory and broken market," calls for the Legislature to act to proted consumers.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
4/03/2024 Office ofthe Attorney General
ME["IA CONTACT
Max German, Deputy Press Secretary
Phone Online
(617) 727-2543 [email protected]
80STON - Attome General Andrea Joy Campbell today released a new competitive electric supply report, (/doc/competitive-electric-supply-report-2024/download) which found that in the last eightyears, individual residential customers who switched to and received their electric supply from competitive suppliers paid over $577 million more on their electric bills than they would have paid if they stayed with their utility company's basic service. As detailed in the new report, customers accrued significant net losses in seven of eight years studied, with $51.8 million in net losses for the two most recent years, July 2021-June 2023. "This report once again shows a clear pattern by the individual competitive electric supply industry of substantially harming our residents, with customers experiencing net losses of $51.8 million for the two years studied and predominantly in communities of color and low-income communities," said AG Campbell. 'The harms caused by these companies significantly outweigh any benefits to consumers, and I will continue to push and advocate to the Legislature for the elimination ofthis predatory and broken industry."
1/3
8/24/25. 12:31 PM New Report: Massachusetts Residents Lost Over $577 Million Through Competitive Electric Supply Contracts In The Last 8 Years...

[email protected]
Office of the Attorney General
The Attorney General is the chief lawyer and law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
(!:)2025 Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Mass.go is a registered service mark ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts. MaSS.90v PriVaCV POliCV(/privacvpolicv) 577

ORANGE COUNTY POWER AUTH ,RA Y
Risk Analysis and Update
For Costa Mesa City Cou -Item 4
September 2, 2025
Michelle Johnson
OCPA promised the following when they launched
service in 2022
* Offer choice through local government control
over energy procurement

2. An organization led b rofessionals to serve tYf) community and create local jobs
3 Provide affordable, competitive rates to eliver
clean energy

1. Offer choice through local government control over energy procurement OCPA ener urchases are concentrated in 3-4 com anies lar el head uartered outside of California:
2024 To Ener Providers - 84.5%
Constellation Energy (MD)
Shell Energy North America (Netherlands)
Sunrise Power (TX)
Southern California Edison (CA)
247.5 MM 011%)
$65.4 MM (31.1%)
$22.9 MM (10.9%)
$21 .9 MM (10.4%)
> OCPA outsources energy procurement to consultants Pacific Energy Advi Folsom, CA
> Energy procurement dollars that were previously retained in Californ have now been largely outsourced to energy companies outside of Californ' OCPA has sus ended additional urchases of renewable ener for two > OCPA suspended PCC 1 purchases for 2025 and 2026 - 24 months - 400% spike in renewable energy market prices started late 2024 - OCPA defines PCCI as follows:
> PCCI is a renewable resource located within the state of California or, a renewable resource that is directly deliverable to California without energy substitution from another resource.
> $15.8 Million in cash collateral was posted from May 2024-December 2024
- Shell Energy, SCEdison, PG&E, Grace Orchard Energy, CAISO - Unknown additional postings due to lack of check register pos+i s in 2025 (only March 2025 has been posted)
> Cash collateral requirement indicates a weak financial sition of OCPA and lack of confidence in their ability to pay for energ purchases

2. An organization led by professionals to serve the community and create local jobs
>OCPA continues to outsource'obs to consultants
- A full time Chief Financial Officer and full time Controller are still outsourcing accounting and financial statement preparation-- why'O - OCPA increased their spending on public relations to Reveille ($4 million), Golden Communications and others
- The call center and customer contact location is run by Calpine in Tex (acquired by Constellation Energy) and rates will be increasing substantially in FY 2026 ($2.2 Million)
- OCPA is forecasting to hire a Sacramen+o lobbyis+ for FY2026 at a ry of $250,000

OCPAISANORGANIZATIONRUNBYCONSULTANTSA POLITICAL

OPERATIVES OUTSOURCING JOBS OUT OF IRVINE AND THE ST ATE

3. Provide affordable, competitive rates to deliver clean energy OCPA is a relatively small player in the energy commodity markets and continues to struggle to deliver on their promise of competitive rates for clean energy
> Price spikes of Renewable Energy in FYE 2025 prompted OCPA to request member cities/ratepayers to opt down from 1 00% Renewable Energy or risk skyrocketing rates (increased rates of 400%+!)
- OCPA reported that only 8 residents in Irvine opted back up to 100% >oc::nehwis+aobrilecaEniiyerhgays'nbdeCnac'hnmgaarcaeCsk+Ohfedirermaa+ensdtofOsro+huet'hreprrOndcUaC'iitornia // Edison providing less fham% savings on the total Basic Rate and significantly higher rates for their renewable energy tiers - from an 00 BoardMeetingonrates: /
- OCPAs rates "in setting the Basic Choice customer rates equal to uthern - California Edison's current rates, it would not fully recover the O A annual revenue requirement, so some additional costs are recover rough the premium on the other product offerings, including the Smart hoice product offering"
Implementation of new legislation in November 2025 - AB 205 - and the impact on OCPA is a risk that OCPA has not yet addressed >All residents within SCE territory will see a $24.15 fixed fee on the delivery side of their bill and a corresponding reduction in the generation rate to offset the fee
The most recent joint rate comparison of SCE/OCPA indicates OCPA is already charging higher generation rates than SCE Residential
Monthly Usage 541 kWh
SCE rates are current as of June 1, 2025 0CPA rates are current as of July14, 2025 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for D-SDP, D-SDP-0, DE, DE-SDP, DE-SDP-0, DM, DMS-1, DMS-2, DMS-3 . . CPASmartChoice PA100%. PABasicChoiceomestic CE
47,o ReneWable) 55% Renewable and enewable Choice '-'o Carbon-Free- 100% Renewa51e-
SCE Delivery Rate
Surcharges
Total Costs
Average Monthly Bill
(S)
At 12/31 /2026 0CPA will switch to charging rates based on cost recover defined as:
> "Full recovery of energy procurement costs, operating expenses, debt service obligations, and reserve contributions" > Unlike Investor-Owned Utilities that must apply and receive CPUC approval for rate increases, OCPA can change rates at an time with Board approval leaving ratepayers exposed to swings in the energy markets
Ratepayers will be exposed to higher pricing whether they are in e Basic Choice tier or higher as OCPA seeks to recover their cos and rebuild their reserves throu h their new cost recove ricin ethod Financial Update and Outlook
OCPA is unable to meet their lender re uired Fixed Char e Ratio 1 40x necessitating a requested waiver to remain in compliance with their credit agreement
> Th s s the 2nd requested wa ver for OCPA
- OCPA prev ous y defau red the r cred t agreement when they misapp payments to the C ty of rv ne loan n noncompliance with the r ban WalVer
- OCPA s nab ty to prov de suff c en+ f nanc a capac ty to v r the r debt serv ce s another indicator of their weakenin n ncial position
OCPA's Rate Stabilization Fund of 545 million is forecast to be depleted by 12-31 -2025
> Deferred Revenue is an accounting mechanism which takes revenue earned in a rior eriod and moves it to a current eriod in order to show a profit
> Considering the actual revenues and expenses for the FYE, OCPA is expecting to record a deficit for FYE 2025 of S15 Million and a deficit for FYE 2026 of S29 Million
- The deficit in FYE 2026 could be much
Rate Stabilization Fund is expected to
larger during the first 6 months whe
be fully exhausted
- Thereafter, OCPA is forecasting they will record breakeven profitabili keep their reserve at $45 Million or 16% of operating expenses whic is f r below tl1e farget Of 30% +O 50% Of opera+!ng expenses
OCPAs reserves are forecast to decline 48% from a hi of 86 million FYE 2024 to 45 million FYE 2026
OCPA Forecast OCPA Budget
$ thousands FYE 6-30-2025 FYE 6-30-2026
Revenues
Electrlcltyaase 248,064 246,322
Smart Choice Premium 5,257 7,430
100% Renewable Premium 16,008 3,252
Less: Uncollectible Acc+s (4,713) (3,855)
DNeef+eR"eevdeRneuveeEnleUcetricity 2W 22839,08387a
/
Investmentlncome 4,510 3,000
TotalNetRevenue 284,238 286,037
Expenses/Other
CostofEnergy 271,038 269,368
OtherExpenses 12,514 15,904
Other Uses (Capital Outlay) 377 0
DebtService-Interest 309 314
TotalExpenses/Other 284,238 285,587
Netlncome(Surplus/(Deficit) 0 450
OCPA's consideration of prepayment bonds is an attempt to shore up their cash position and adds a si nificant un uantified risk to member cities and ratepayers
> The OCPA Joint Powers Agreement is one of only 3 CCA's in California that puts the liability onto the ratepayers
> Substantial upfront costs of issuance, complexity of derivatives, and long term nature (30 years) of these transactions requires careful study, transparency, discussion with member cities and disclosure OCPA has targeted their first issuance of prepayment bonds by Janu 2026 with little time for analysis of the risks inherent in a complex fin transaction
Summary and Recommendations
> OCPA has lost 50% of their initial member city base since inception - OCPA has only signed one new member city (Fountain Valley late 2026) with Dana Point, Laguna Woods, Stanton and others declining to join OCPA
> Fountain Valley will be the smallest member city of OCPA and the opt /
out rate is unknown at this time
> OCPA's financial condition is deteriorating
- Rate Stabilization Fund of $45 million is expected to be depleted by 12/31 /2025
- Operational shor+falls are continuing to put cash flow pressure on O;? ntil at least 1 2/31 /2026
- Bank financial covenants are not being met necessitating ba waivers - Energy providers are requiring cash collateral to ensure pa ent Summary and Recommendations
> The volatility of the energy markets make it impractical for OCPA to provide an accurate forecast and impacts their ability to provide cheaper, cleaner energy to ratepayers
- OCPA ceased purchasing PCC 1 1 00% Renewable Energy for 2 full years OtoCpPaAssSaClohnagngh'ingghe+hrerartreas'teomrae+'ehpOadyOeOrsg+yo'rOebau:CIdO+Sh'ereirCreOsVeervryesmaen'dh/odstabilize their financial condition - OCPA has not been able to accurately forecast their financial p i due to the extreme volatility of the energy markets coupled w" r e departure of members
- The unknown risks of the full implementation of AB205 in ovember 2025 and the effect on rates has not been disclosed
Summary and Recommendations
> OCPA is not responsive to the concerns and issues presented by the City of Irvine (OCPA's largest member city and over 60% of their electricity load) - OCPA's CEO and CFO requested an urgent opt down from the City of Irvine/ratepayers in November 2024 with little notice to the City prompting a letter from the City Manager - OCPA's current Budget repeatedly blames the City of Irvine's "unex ected shift from 100% Renewable Choice to Basic Choice" for OCPA's financial shortfalls - City of Irvine's OCPA Directors requested by February 2025 o presentation on the options for repayment of the City of Irvine loans - this request has been ignored by OCPA and no presentation/analysis has ever been made despite CEO Mosca and the Board approving the motion
> OCPA's consideration of prepayment bonds is an attempt to shore up t financial position and presents a si nificant un uantified risk to the m r cities and ratepayers
- The long-term risks of prepayment bonds to OCPA, member cities and the tepayers is unclear
- The OCPA Joint Powers Agreement is one of only 3 CCA's in Californi at puts the liability onto the ratepayers
Summary and Recommendations
The Costa Mesa City Council has a fiduciary duty to your residents to perform due diligence before entering any agreement with OCPA including > Understanding the risk to the ratepayers and the City of an increase in electricity rates caused by AB 205 and their new cost recovery method and the ability of Costa Mesa to impact, positively or negatively, the rates their residents will pay with one Board seat
> A thorough review of the Joint Powers Agreement including the costs of entry a the costs and rocess to exit
> A full understanding of the financial outlook for OCPA > The risk of issuing long term bonds to the ratepayers and the City > The impact on OCPA of an exit by the City of Irvine (60% of QC, A's electricity load) - voted unanimously on l 2/12/2024 to issue a letter to exit by 1 2/31 /2025 Summary and Recommendations
"There's a reason that investor-owned utilities are owned by investors: they're willing to put their own money into it for the risk that's in that market and they know that if the utility does well, they benefit from that. When you're a CCA and you're buying a commodity, your investors unfortunately are your residents. And unbeknownsj to them, they're taking on a piece of the risk in the energ market"
Christopher J. Garner, Genera/ Manager
Long Beach Utilities Department
From: Jim Ward
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: A strong recommendation for Costa Mesa to join OCPA Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:42:44 AM
I highly recommend that the Costa Mesa City Council take whatever steps are necessary to join OCPA.

I have been a climate activist and a strong advocate of Community Choice Energy since before OCPA was formed.

Although I am not a resident of Costa Mesa, I have lived in Orange County for over 50 years. I believe it is very important for Costa Mesa to show the leadership which might influence other Orange County cities to join OCPA also.

This has become more personal for me than just a climate issue. I recently purchased a plug in hybrid and have seen my electric bill take a significant Increase.

Unfortunately, I live in a small condo in Rancho Santa Margarita which would make it impractical for me to install solar panels. The best way for me to reduce my SCE bill and my carbon footprint would be to have my city join OCPA also. And the best way to do that would be to convince them to follow the leadership of other Orange County cities such as Costa Mesa.

I hope that my email can be forwarded to each of the City Council members. Thank you.

James Ward
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Joclyn Rabbitt-Sire
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Agenda Item #4
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 12:16:48 AM
Dear Mayor Stephens, Mayor Pro-Tem Chavez, and all Council Members, I am a resident of Huntington Beach writing to you in strong support of agenda item #4, concerning Costa Mesa's next steps with regard to Orange County Power Authority (OCPA).

I understand the results of the feasibility study point to highly favorable outcomes if you opt to join Orange County's sole Community Choice Aggregator. With such positive prospects facing the City, you are poised to unlock enormous benefits for your community, including cost savings, rate stability, and reinvestment of returns back into your city infrastructure.

One of the most important benefits your residents and businesses stand to gain is choice.

With
OCPA, ratepayers can choose how much of their energy comes from renewable sources.

As a
resident of one of the four cities that founded OCPA in 2022, this choice is something that I and many of my neighbors gravely miss since it was taken from us last year.

I am hoping that
you as a Council will make more judicious decisions than my city's council concerning OCPA, and keep the benefits to your people as your guiding priority.

If you do, I'm certain you will
adopt the provisions laid out in agenda item #4 this evening.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Joclyn Rabbitt-Sire

From: [email protected]
To: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Subject: Agenda Item #4: OCPA Feasibility Study
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:23:45 AM
Costa Mesa City Council -

While I am not one of your constituents, I think that my experience with OCPA in Huntington Beach might be of interest to you.

As I'm sure you know, Huntington
Beach had OCPA for several years, and then our city council decided to terminate the relationship.

Here are several things that I think you should know about OCPA in HB.

Despite numerous claims that people were forced onto OCPA service, nothing could be further from the truth.

All residents and businesses received notice of the
relationship several months in advance and were given the option to choose their service plan.

The options included three plans from OCPA as well as remaining on SCE.

Residents and businesses were also notified that they could change their choice at any time by simply reaching out the the provider and requesting a change to the service they desired.

That request could be a change of plans within OCPA or

a
return to SCE service.

OCPA offered three plans in Huntington Beach: a lowest cost plan, a balanced plan, and a 100%green energy plan.

SCE offered no such choices - there was only the
base plan or a TOU (Time-Of-Use) plan for those of us with solar.

There was no
100% green option at all.

interesting point
is that

OCPA's

lowest cost plan was
less

expensive than any SCE

plan.

You might be surprised to learn that about 80% of residents and businesses chose to be on OCPA.

I was one of them. My experience was seamless.

I chose the 100%
green energy plan and was transitioned to it with no issues.

It cost me an extra $3 a
month to be on that plan - a small price to pay to try to slow global warming and leave a liveable planet to future generations.

We had no outages and no billing issues in
my time on OCPA.

The Huntington Beach city council did not even bother to have public hearings ahead of their decision to pull HB out of OCPA.

They did so in the face of significant public
opposition, and frankly, couldn't really justify their decision.

They relied on old
information and half truths, much like opinions you may have seen from Jim Phelps - a former consultant for the CPUC.

What that decision did was to take choice away for Huntington Beach residents. With OCPA, we had a choice of three rate plans and could still opt for SCE. After that decision, we were all forced onto SCE with no choice of rate plans.

It's important to note that OCPA has not stood still in the intervening years.

They now
offer benefits that SCE does not.

For those of us who have an EV, OCPA now offers
a program to install a Level 2 EV charger at no cost.

(Mine cost me several thousand
dollars to have installed.)

They also offer a $1000 rebate on the installation of
batteries for those with solar.

To the best of my knowledge, SCE offers neither. SCE
depends on the federal IRA tax credits, which were just rescinded.

As someone trained in economics, a bedrock principle of capitalism is that competition is necessary for our markets to function properly.

OCPA is the only
competition to SCE - a regulated monopoly.

I would argue that our regulators are not
doing a very good job.

California's electricity prices have about tripled in the last 20 years and are now the highest in the continental United States.

Detailed studies by
environmental economists show that about 90% of that increase is due to uncontrolled spending by the utilities on transmission and distribution lines, spending that should be authorized by the CPUC, but is, in fact, 60% self-approved by the utilities.

So, my message to you is that OCPA offers your residents choices that are simply not available from SCE without taking anything away.

Why wouldn't you offer that to your
citizens?

Thank you for your consideration.

David Rynerson
HUntington Beach

Good Evening Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Council Members, Agenda Item 4
This November, in SCE’s delivery area, the AB205 $24.15 Utility Fee will be on everyone’s electric bill. No exceptions. SCE bundled customers will see a generation rate reduction of between 5-7 cents per KWh to oﬀset the Utility Fee. The big question is: will the OCPA reduce their generation rate by the same amount to oﬀset the Utility Fee. If not, OCPA customers will be paying the $24.15 fee and 5 cents per KWh or more in their Basic Choice and other tier rates.
30 seconds
Ask the OCPA before you make a decision that would be devastating to your residents. The OCPA has spent $9000-$10,000 to see how much AB205 will increase their rates and already has that answer. Make them answer the question before you get trapped. Do Costa Mesa residents want higher electric rates? I doubt it, no one needs higher bills. Don’t expose your residents to this mess.
60 seconds
I have included screenshots on the aberration between SCE’s and the OCPA’s delivery charges. As I interpret the documents the OCPA adjusts its section of the Joint Rate Comparison to keep their Basic Choice rate artiﬁcially below SCE’s Basic Rate. Query the OCPA to see if they are playing games with the numbers. Ask if they are paying SCE a portion of the surcharges to keep their rates artiﬁcially lower than SCE’s. Will AB205 throw a monkey wrench into the OCPA gears?
90 seconds
Sincerely
Walter Nobrega

From: Mary
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Council Agenda Item #4 OCPA Clean Energy Choice for Costa Mesa Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 8:26:19 PM
As a resident of Costa Mesa, I am very proud to live in a LEED Gold City and do what I can to add to environmental practices.

Costa Mesa can make significant progress on climate by
moving forward with OCPA Tuesday night.

A study by the City of Irvine found that by
joining OCPA will reduce CO2 emissions by 360,000 tons/year - more than Any other action individuals can take combined.

I will be watching to see your discussion.

Mary Estrada

499 Flower Street

Costa Mesa, CA 92627
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Item 4: Support Clean Energy Choice in Costa Mesa Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:36:53 AM

From: Marilyn Palomino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 7:18 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Item 4: Support Clean Energy Choice in Costa Mesa

Dear Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers,
Thank you for facilitating a discussion of Costa Mesa’s feasibility study with OC Power Authority (OCPA). As you consider the results of the feasibility study, please direct staff to move forward with the process for joining OCPA so Costa Mesa families can receive the benefits of clean energy choice.

I live in the City of Huntington Beach and was so
pleased to have the choice to select cleaner energy through OCPA.

OCPA is the only
alternative to fossil fuel-powered pollution that residents currently receive through SoCal Edison (SCE). Joining the agency allows families to choose for themselves which clean energy tier (Basic, Smart, or 100% renewable) best fits their household needs, all while making significant local progress on climate change.

I had been on SCE"s clean
energy choice list for years.

Then the city of HB opted into OCPA.

My electrical bills
were about the same and I felt like I was helping to lower the carbon footprint of our city.

When the new city council pulled out of the OCPA contract I was extremely disappointed, as were many others.

Please give your residents and businesses a
choice!

Joining OCPA will also protect working families from arbitrary rate increases by SCE. Just in the past decade alone, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have raised rates by 90% and plan to keep increasing prices 45% by 2030. Costa Mesa residents deserve relief from soaring energy bills by a monopoly utility that prioritizes shareholders over our communities. Please move forward with joining OCPA and bring the benefits of clean energy choice to Costa Mesa.

Thank you,
Marilyn Palomino
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: OCPA uses their own consultant.

Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:38:06 AM
Attachments: image0.png
image2.png

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 1:35 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: OCPA uses their own consultant.

Good Afternoon Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Council Members, The OCPA was just going through the motions when they hired PEA to evaluate Costa Mesa’s feasibility study. The fix was in. The right consultant should have been a company that would not have financial ties to the OCPA.

Sincerely,
Walter Nobrega
Lake Forest, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Sent from my iPad
From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: The OCPA is coming for your city.

Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:38:31 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2025 9:15 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: The OCPA is coming for your city.

Good Morning Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Council Members, I am not from Costa Mesa, but worked the last eighteen years of my career as an Operations Manager for a Costa Mesa company. Costa Mesa was like my second home.

I hope I can help pull back the curtain on the OCPA and how they spew misinformation in the attempt to snare unwary cities. After our city was fooled into joining the OCPA I and other Lake Forest residents countered with facts about the misinformation the OCPA used to hook our City. We presented documented factual information disputing all the misleading information and the LF City Council decided to hire an independent consultant who eventually stated that we had done our homework and that LF should exit the OCPA. I don’t have skin in Costa Mesa’s game but I hate to see cities fall for their misinformation. Peruse the attached Joint Rate Comparison and look at the OCPA’s claim of their generation rate being 3% lower than SCE’s generation rate and ask yourself why would they make that claim. I think you know why. If you have any doubts about me I welcome you to call the LF Mayor Voight or Mayor Pro Tem Pequino and ask them about me.

Sent from my iPad
From: Fiorella Gardella
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: In support of Costa Mesa Community Choice for Energy Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 10:06:49 PM
To whom it may concern,
I just want to let my voice heard on this issue.

We can't afford not having clean energy, we already know that changes in temperature from fossil fuels are causing vast destruction and costing

millions of dollars.

Please consider
Community Choice for Energy, with Federal cuts OCPA is an option to meet sustainability goals.

Thank you.

Fiorella Gardella
Science Teacher
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Lori Whalen
To: CITY CLERK; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: In Support of Costa Mesa Joining Orange County Power Authority – Old Business Item 4 Date: Saturday, August 30, 2025 7:30:11 AM
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for Costa Mesa to join the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA), as outlined in Old Business Item 4 on the September 2 agenda. Delaying this decision with another third-party study could jeopardize our city’s opportunity to access competitive energy rates this year.

Personally, joining OCPA directly impacts me by offering more transparent, competitive options for my utility bills during difficult economic times. I appreciate having a choice— and right now, I feel Costa Mesa ratepayers have none.

A few points to consider:

The Community Choice Aggregation model is well established and proven throughout California, including right here in Orange County, where OCPA has thrived financially and other cities benefit already.

CCAs are no-cost to participating cities and help return more ratepayer dollars to local customers—a critical advantage knowing federal support for sustainability has been cut.

In California, cities leading on clean energy and sustainability goals almost always belong to a CCA, and residents deserve that same forward-thinking leadership.

I urge you to vote in favor of joining OCPA, ensuring our city remains competitive and sustainable. Please do not delay this important opportunity.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Lori Whalen
2242 Miner Street
Costa Mesa

From: Tristan Miller
To: CITY COUNCIL; STEPHENS, JOHN; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; MARR, ANDREA; BULEY, MIKE; GAMEROS, LOREN; PETTIS, JEFF; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CITY CLERK
Subject: Item 4: Support Clean Energy Choice in Costa Mesa Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 4:33:19 PM
Dear Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers,
Families and businesses need clean energy choices in Costa Mesa. Further studies will only arrive at the same conclusion: it is the best time to join OCPA so the City of Costa Mesa has energy choice, more renewable energy, keeps rate payer dollars in our community, and a basic rate that is currently 3% less than SCE’s. For businesses and residents, that could mean millions of dollars in savings plus incentives, rebates, energy-efficiency kits, and our ratepayer dollars staying in our community.

Thank you for agendizing a discussion of Costa Mesa’s feasibility study with OC Power Authority (OCPA). As you consider the results of the feasibility study, please direct staff to move forward with the process for joining OCPA so Costa Mesa families can receive the benefits of clean energy choice.

OCPA is the only alternative to fossil fuel-powered pollution that residents currently receive through SoCal Edison (SCE). Joining the agency allows families to choose for themselves which clean energy tier (Basic, Smart, or 100% renewable) best fits their household needs, all while making significant local progress on climate change.

Only about 3,000 accounts out

of approximately 5,000,000

in the entire SCE service

area

are currently enrolled in
the SCE Green Rate Program, which

is oversubscribed. In contrast,

OCPA offers three tiers of renewable energy to
our community.

Joining OCPA will also protect working families from continual rate increases by SCE. In the past decade alone, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have raised rates by 90% and plan to keep increasing prices 45% by 2030. Costa Mesa residents deserve relief from soaring energy bills and all the benefits that Community Choice Energy brings to so many counties and cities across California.

Please move forward with joining OCPA and bringing the benefits of clean energy choice to Costa Mesa.

Thank you,
Tristan Miller
Volunteer for the City of Costa Mesa’s Green Business Program Parent, Business Owner, Vice Chair of the OC Chapter of CRP

From: DANNY GRAY
To: CITY CLERK
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:59:29 AM
Dear Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers,
Thank you for agendizing a discussion of Costa Mesa’s feasibility study with OC Power Authority (OCPA). As you consider the results of the feasibility study, please direct staff to move forward with the process for joining OCPA so Costa Mesa families can receive the benefits of clean energy choice.

OCPA is the only alternative to fossil fuel-powered pollution that residents currently receive through SoCal Edison (SCE). Joining the agency allows families to choose for themselves which clean energy tier (Basic, Smart, or 100% renewable) best fits their household needs, all while making significant local progress on climate change.

Joining OCPA will also protect working families from arbitrary rate increases by SCE.

Just in the past decade alone, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have raised rates by 90% and plan to keep increasing prices 45% by 2030. Costa Mesa residents deserve relief from soaring energy bills by a monopoly utility that prioritizes shareholders over our communities. Please move forward with joining OCPA and bring the benefits of clean energy choice to Costa Mesa.

One of the key benefits in joining a CCA through OCPA is energy choice.

If
Costa Mesa joins OCPA, all residence and businesses will be able to choose their commitment to clean energy.

It can be provided through one of the three
tiers offered by OCPA or by opting back to SCE.

Costa Mesa has a little over 19,000 businesses registered with the city.

Many
are large, international companies.

Sizable companies often make
commitments to be good stewards of the environment.

These commitments
can come with huge investments that may not be feasible from a business point of view.

OCPA can offer businesses renewable energy without huge investments such as microgrids.

Thank you,
Danny Gray
Climate Reality Project / OC Chapter
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
We are a local group of Costa Mesa residents writing to express our strong support for Costa Mesa joining the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA) without delay.

In January 2025, a well-attended community solar workshop was held at the Halecrest Park Swim and Tennis Club. Residents concerned about sustainability and energy affordability gathered to learn about solar energy, battery storage, and EV tax credits. While some attendees were able to take advantage of these programs, many were unable to do so due to upfront costs or home/roof limitations.

Notably, several Irvine residents in attendance shared their experience of being enrolled in a 100% Renewable Energy plan through OCPA. Their stories highlighted the power of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) to democratize access to clean energy—especially for those who cannot install solar panels themselves.

We were excited to learn that Costa Mesa is considering joining OCPA. CCA programs have a proven track record across California, offering residents cleaner energy options, competitive rates, and local control. For everyday residents who want to make a difference, there are few alternatives as impactful and accessible.

Joining OCPA would help Costa Mesa meet its sustainability goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and empower residents with energy choice. We urge you to move forward with this opportunity and vote in favor of joining the Orange County Power Authority.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to a cleaner, more equitable energy future.

Sincerely,
Jake Comer, P .E., Born and Raised in Costa Mesa, now residing in Orange Sharon, Christopher, and Sean Comer, Salvador St
Andrew and Lindsay Albers, 18
th St
Kaiulani W. Peterson, Rainier Way
Bill, Lus, and Sam Hatch, Nancy Lane
Kevin Salwyer and Angel Fisk, Bay St
Diana and Lane Moore, Murray Ln
Jeanyne Fossell, Junipero Dr
Lorinda and Aili Wase, Juniper St
Mariel, William, and Olivia Levalley, Joann St
Trace Curet, San Rafael Circle
Richie Barden, Westminster Ave
Royce Friedman, Wilson St
Joanna and Paul Krikorian, Tulane Rd
Jessica Fager, Cte Venosa
Kim and Nathan Alvis, Cork Lane
Allison and Gregory Sides, Aspen Village Way
Cinthia Tompkins, Magellan St
Cinthia and Henry, Drake Ave
Shelly Woodward, Santa Clara Circle
Clare Warner, Windsor Ct
Lisa Feinstein, Shantar Sr
Daniel Wase, Pinecreek Dr
Jamie Sacco, Charle St
From: Susan Eaton
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Old Business 4. Request for City Council ... OCPA Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 7:30:28 PM
Dear Mayor Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez and Council members Reynolds, Pettis, Marr, Gameros and Buley, As one who heard about the benefits of Community Choice Energy when it was first brought to OC to various business groups, environmentalists,

and city councils in the 20teens. It has lived up to its presentation as the Best Thing that cities can do to meet their climate goals.

I began watching city council meetings all over the county during Covid when city councils were having presentations about adopting it - including Costa Mesa! I was unbelievably jubilant when Irvine agreed to put in the start-up funds and Huntington Beach and Buena Park joined them in voting to adopt the 100% Renewable Choice Plan and Fullerton the Smart Choice rate plan (that Costa Mesa is now considering).

Over the 3 years OCPA has been operational, they have solved their personnel problems and hired highly qualified individuals with experience and training in the industry, have maintained sound financial standing, passed several audits and used suggested practices for improvement, acquired a permanent office space, appeared at many community events (including CM) and begun giving back to their member cities and residents funds to support their climate projects as promised.

Besides watching many city council meetings, I have also watched most of the OCPA Board meetings and retreat and seen first hand a growing knowledge base of the Board members from the member cities. The new members from Irvine and Fountain Valley have been participating with good questions and seem very enthusiastic about OCPA.

Now that the independent feasibility study has shown that Costa Mesa will benefit from joining OCPA, I look forward to watching the Council move forward tomorrow night to direct staff to finish their application for OCPA by December 31, 2025 so that residents and businesses in Costa Mesa can provide cleaner energy to the grid in early 2027 (delay required by regulations).

Sincerely,
Susan Eaton
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: marie-helene luebbers
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: September 2, Agenda item #4
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 3:15:10 PM
Dear members of Costa Mesa City Council,
Please pass

Agenda Item #4 and join OCPA for Costa Mesa's energy.

OCPA has proven to be the only avenue for rate relief available to families in OC. It will deliver an affordable option for our energy needs. SoCal Edison keeps raising its rates and plans to raise them by 45% by 2030.

OCPA is helping residents to install solar panels and EV chargers. Its finances are striving, and, most important, it helps reducing CO2 emissions> And California is experiencing regularly big fires and heat waves due to climate change.Please make the right decision.

Marie-Helene Luebbers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Get more from your
power with money
saving rebates and offers.

As a not-for-profit community energy provider, Orange County Power Authority’s (OCPA) profits go right back into the community. Our priority is creating opportunities to save time and money, increase energy efficiency, and support renewable energy. ocpower.org/ energy-programs
ocpower.org/ energy-programs/marketplace
Scan to learn more!
Solar Battery
rebate program
T ake advantage of a $1,000
rebate for rooftop solar installations
that include a battery storage
system, or standalone battery
storage.

Rebates coming in July 2025
OCPA Charge@home
rebate program
Get up to a $1,000 rebate for a residential
Level 2 hard-wired EV charger purchased
through the OCPA Marketplace - where
chargers range from $500-$700, this makes
it no-cost to you! Available while supplies last.

T o find a certified electrician to install your new
EV charger, check out the California Electric
V ehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP).

OCPA
Marketplace
Great deals that make a difference! The
OCPA Marketplace is an online tool that
offers customers discounts on smart home
devices and energy-efficient products such
as LED bulbs, smart thermostats, power
strips, home energy monitors and more.

Energy Efficiency Kits are available for
free or reduced cost while supplies last!
Solar/Net Energy
Metering (NEM)
For customers with rooftop solar or who
are considering having solar installed
at their home or business, OCPA ’s Net
Surplus Compensation (NSC) rate can
increase your excess energy payback. If
your system has generated more energy
than you’ve used, you’re eligible to receive
a credit that is 10% higher than Southern
California Edison’s prevailing NSC rate.

OhmConnect
In partnership with OhmConnect, OCPA
customers can sign up to receive cash and
gift cards for reducing their energy use during
peak periods.

Incentive Finder
A one-stop shop to find state, federal and
local rebates! The OCPA Incentive Finder
helps customers find the rebates they are
specifically eligible for with just a few pieces
of information.

Other Money and Energy-Saving Programs

ocpower.org
[email protected]
(866) 262-7693

Orange County Power Authority
Onboarding Timeline City of Costa Mesa_v1

July 16, 2024
OCPA appeared before the Costa Mesa City Council to present on OCPA; the Costa Mesa City Council voted to direct the city manager to approve the release of the city’s electric load data to OCPA for the purpose of conducting a feasibility study

May 21, 2025
OCPA met with City Staff to present the results of the feasibility study

September 2, 2025
OCPA presentation of feasibility study results to the Costa Mesa City Council, and discussion on joining OCPA

September 10, 2025
OCPA presentation of feasibility study results to the Costa Mesa FiPAC, and discussion on joining OCPA

September 16, 2025
Costa Mesa City Council consideration of Ordinance and
Resolution to join OCPA (1st reading)

October 21, 2025
Costa Mesa City Council consideration of Ordinance to join OCPA (2nd reading) (Must wait 30 days before 2nd reading)

November 10, 2025
OCPA Board to consider Amended Implementation Plan to
include Costa Mesa as a member

December, 2025 30-Day Notice to Member Agencies Regarding the Amendment of the OCPA Implementation Plan
December 2025
OCPA files Amended Implementation Plan with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

December 2025
Costa Mesa City Council appoints a representative to the OCPA Board

January 2026
OCPA onboards new Board member representing City of Costa Mesa

2026 - 2027
OCPA presence in the Costa Mesa community, communications efforts to spread awareness of OCPA

March 2027 OCPA service launches in the City of Costa Mesa

ocpower.org
[email protected]
(866) 262-7693

Orange County Power Authority
Onboarding Timeline City of Costa Mesa_v2

May 21, 2025
OCPA met with City Staff to present the results of the feasibility study

September 2, 2025
OCPA presentation of feasibility study results to the Costa Mesa City Council, and discussion on joining OCPA

September 10, 2025
OCPA presentation of feasibility study results to the Costa Mesa FiPAC, and discussion on joining OCPA

October 7, 2025
Costa Mesa City Council consideration of Ordinance and
Resolution to join OCPA (1st reading)

November 18, 2025
Costa Mesa City Council consideration of Ordinance to join OCPA (2nd reading) (Must wait 30 days before 2nd reading)

December 8, 2025
OCPA Board to consider Amended Implementation Plan to
include Costa Mesa as a member

Nov/Dec, 2025 30-Day Notice to Member Agencies Regarding the Amendment of the OCPA Implementation Plan
December 2025
OCPA files Amended Implementation Plan with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

December 2025
Costa Mesa City Council appoints a representative to the OCPA Board

January 2026
OCPA onboards new Board member representing City of Costa Mesa

2026 - 2027
OCPA presence in the Costa Mesa community, communications efforts to spread awareness of OCPA

March 2027 OCPA service launches in the City of Costa Mesa

Questions for OCPA
Detailed timeline of necessary steps, including key voting milestones and time requirements (e.g., noticing for pubic vote) to meet the deadlines required for March 2027 launch
• Detailed timeline options are attached.
• To launch Costa Mesa in March 2027, we need to submit an amendment to the OCPA Implementation plan by the end of 2025 to the California Public Utilities Commission. This amendment must include Costa Mesa as a member of OCPA. • The OCPA board must vote on the amended implementation no later than its regular meeting on December 8th at 4:30 PM.
• To ensure this timeline, we need a resolution and ordinance for Costa Mesa to join the OCPA to be considered by the Costa Mesa City Council in October and November.

Please provide timing for Costa Mesa to join the board (as ex officio and/or voting member) if it chooses to join for the March 2027 enrollment target. • A Costa Mesa representative would join the OCPA board in January 2026. Costa Mesa can consider who it would like to sit on the OCPA Board of Directors at the normal time that it considers representation on outside boards and committees around the ﬁrst meeting of the new year. OCPA would ask that Costa Mesa identify a primary and an alternate representative.

What would be the next opportunity if we miss the timing for March 2027 enrollment? • The following year, 2028.

Please provide an example of an implementation plan – e.g., can you provide an implementation plan for Fountain Valley?
• You can ﬁnd all of the Implementation Plans here: Key Documents - Orange County Power Authority; the 2nd implementation plan is one that includes the city of Fountain Valley.

Please describe process for rate setting – my understanding is that the board sets the rate options collectively, and each city (board member or city council?) determines the default rate for the city on an annual process.
• OCPA’s annual rate-setting process begins with strategies and principles established by the Board, which sets the rate options, while each member city selects its default rate (Smart Choice or 100% Renewable Choice) through its city council; starting in 2026, Basic Choice will only be available as a residential opt- down option.
• Rates are designed to balance ﬁnancial stability, clean energy goals, and community priorities, guided by objectives of local control, cost recovery, stability, competitiveness, and equity.
• At the core is the revenue requirement—the total amount needed to cover procurement, operating, ﬁnancing, and capital costs, as well as compliance with lender covenants—ensuring that OCPA maintains reserves, meets ﬁnancial obligations, and remains resilient and creditworthy over the long term.

Figure 1 – Feasibility Projections
Describe the Power Supply Cost categories (Cost of Lead, RA, PCC1, etc.) • In FY25/26, more than 94% of OCPA’s budget—about $270 million—is dedicated to purchasing electricity for our customers. Of this, roughly $225 million (83%) is spent on energy supply, while $45 million (17%) goes toward meeting state reliability requirements known as Resource Adequacy (RA). Within our supply costs, we rely on three categories: renewable energy, system energy, and carbon-free energy. • Renewable energy comes from solar, wind, geothermal, eligible hydro, and biomass & biogas, which qualify under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). To count toward RPS compliance, renewable energy must be paired or bundled with Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). In 2024, OCPA procured over 80% of our customers’ energy that was RPS eligible based on the members’ choices. For 2025, California law requires that 47% of all energy served by OCPA and all Load Serving Entities be RPS-eligible resources. Of that 47% resource mix, 90% of the renewable procurement must come from Product Content Category 1 (PCC1 ≥ 75%) and PCC2 (maximum 15%) bundled resources, and the remaining 10% can be procured from PCC3 resources. PCC1 bundled renewable resources are located in California and are directly delivered into the state without substitution. PCC2 bundled resources represent “ﬁrmed and shaped” products, where out-of-state renewable generation is paired with substitute energy delivered into California. PCC3 resources consist of unbundled RECs purchased separately from the underlying electricity. These rules ensure that the majority of renewable energy is directly tied to California’s grid and provides real local beneﬁts.
• System energy is electricity purchased from the wholesale market that does not carry renewable or carbon-free attributes. It is sometimes called “unspeciﬁed power” and represents a generic mix of what is available on the grid at the time. • Carbon-free energy refers to power from resources that do not emit greenhouse gases during generation. For OCPA, this primarily includes large hydroelectric facilities. While not classiﬁed as “renewable” under the RPS, these resources play a valuable role in reducing OCPA’s overall greenhouse gas proﬁle and advancing local and state climate goals.
• Resource Adequacy (RA) is a regulatory program administered by the CPUC to ensure that electricity providers, including CCAs, maintain enough capacity to serve customer demand during peak periods. RA requires utilities to secure commitments from power plants or demand-response resources so that the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) can call on them when needed. RA obligations are divided into system, local, and ﬂexible categories, and compliance is demonstrated through monthly and annual ﬁlings. While RA does not provide energy directly, it guarantees reliability and grid stability. • To manage cost pressures from market volatility, seasonal demand spikes, and regulatory requirements, OCPA signs long-term power purchase agreements and maintains a diversiﬁed supply portfolio. By emphasizing PCC1 renewables, strategically incorporating limited PCC2 and PCC3 resources within state compliance thresholds, supplementing with carbon-free power, and prudently using system energy, OCPA works to stabilize customer prices, advance California’s clean energy goals, and ensure ﬁnancial sustainability over time.

Describe the “Other Operating Cost” categories
• Other Operating Costs represent the essential expenses that keep OCPA operating effectively, provide access to specialized expertise, and deliver customer-focused programs. These costs include professional contract services, external legal support, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and community energy programs.
• OCPA takes a balanced approach by building internal staffing capacity where appropriate while continuing to rely on consultants and legal experts for complex matters such as energy procurement, labor, and regulatory affairs. • G&A expenses support core functions including office operations, IT systems, business insurance, and membership dues. These memberships—such as with CalCCA—amplify OCPA’s voice in statewide policy discussions and ﬁnancing initiatives.
• Energy programs demonstrate OCPA’s commitment to reinvesting in the community, from clean energy education and community grants to customer tools like the OCPA Marketplace, which provides discounts on energy-efficient products. Together, these investments ensure OCPA remains ﬁscally responsible while advancing clean energy goals and supporting the communities we serve.

Why would Marketing & Enrollment be the same for ﬁrst three years? I would expect this to be higher in initial years
• It’s reasonable to assume that marketing and enrollment costs might be higher at the outset, since initial awareness-building is often front-loaded. In OCPA’s case, however, the major one-time startup expenses—such as large-scale campaigns and the ﬁrst round of mandatory enrollment mailers—were already incurred during program launch. From FY27 through FY30, the budget reﬂects only incremental costs tied to Costa Mesa’s projected 27% load increase, calculated on a load- weighted basis rather than as a spike in early years.
• OCPA also treats marketing and enrollment as ongoing responsibilities, not one- time efforts. A steady budget ensures compliance with state law—covering required enrollment mailers, the annual joint rate comparison, and the power content label— while supporting community partnerships, local events, and targeted outreach. “Other Operating Expenses” is almost the same as staffing costs – what is in this line item?
• See previous response.

Describe how the “Net Operating Margin” is allocated currently for OCPA, and describe whether/how Costa Mesa would be able to inﬂuence how this net operating margin provided by Costa Mesa customers would be used.
• At the end of each ﬁscal year, OCPA’s Net Operating Margin is added to the agency- wide operating reserve rather than allocated to individual member cities. This pooled reserve strengthens OCPA’s ﬁnancial stability and beneﬁts all members by minimizing rate volatility, supporting credit ratings, and ensuring liquidity for unexpected events. Costa Mesa does not have a city-speciﬁc reserve, but it does have direct inﬂuence through its representation on the OCPA Board, which sets the policies governing how reserves are managed and used.
• Under the Board-approved Reserve Policy, OCPA maintains a minimum balance equal to 30% of the operating budget, with a goal of 50% and a maximum of 75%.

Reserves may be used to cover revenue shortfalls, unexpected power supply cost spikes, economic downturns, or emergencies. If balances exceed the maximum, the Board may consider reinvesting in customer programs, paying down debt, or reducing rates. This ensures reserves are used responsibly while keeping OCPA ﬁscally resilient and community focused.

How does this change if Costa Mesa defaults to Base Choice plan (e.g., 90% of customers move to Base Choice)
• As mentioned in a previous response above, beginning in 2026, Basic Choice will only be available as an individual residential opt-down option. In other words, it cannot be selected as a citywide default plan.

What are the anticipated rate/ﬁnancial impacts of federal rollbacks on support for clean energy infrastructure? There is a still a lot of uncertainty related to the impact of decision making at the federal level. OCPA continues to contract for mid-term and long-term renewable energy resources.
• There is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding how federal decisions may affect clean energy infrastructure and related incentives. To mitigate these risks, OCPA continues to secure mid-term and long-term renewable energy contracts that provide stability for our portfolio.
• At the same time, OCPA has taken proactive steps to reduce exposure to federal policy changes. Our long-term contracts include “change in law” provisions with price adjustment ceilings, which ensure that any additional costs from federal rollbacks are shared with counterparties rather than being fully passed on to customers.
• Additionally, the OCPA Board recently approved a standalone battery energy storage system (BESS) project designed to strengthen grid reliability during peak hours, reduce renewable energy curtailments, and limit exposure to federal actions. This project has been structured to remain viable even under scenarios where federal tax credits are repealed or land-use restrictions are tightened, and the developer has a strong track record of successful project delivery.
• These measures help shield customers from rate volatility while keeping OCPA ﬁnancially resilient and on track to meet state clean energy requirements.

Existing OCPA information
Provide current customer opt-out rate for res/com by city

Provide current breakdown of res and commercial customers into the three rate options, by city.

How does OCPA handle customer enrollment in CARE and FERA? • OCPA customers qualify for CARE and FERA discounts. We encourage all our customers to sign up for these programs if they qualify. We do a lot to help spread the word about these important programs in multiple languages.

Does OCPA have existing workforce agreement for energy resources? • OCPA does not own energy generation facilities. Instead, it enters into contracts with energy suppliers and developers for renewable energy. Additionally, OCPA has established sustainable workforce guidelines that outline its goals and objectives for investing in a sustainable workforce now and in the future. We believe in local, good-paying jobs, and we are committed to investing our resources locally to ensure that we have a workforce for today and tomorrow.
• Our Communications and Community Engagement teams attend local job fairs and work with high school students to promote the possibilities offered by the green economy. We have many examples of this work, including our recently developed handout of local training opportunities that we share as a resource. It is attached for your reference.

Regarding Staff Report recommendations
What information can you provide from FV planning and/or other CCAs on the city staff resources required for enrolment/launch and ongoing support? How are other cities supporting their participation?
• We can arrange for City Manager Maggie Le and Director of Public Works Scott Smith to discuss with their city staff the minimal amount of time Fountain Valley has committed to this process.

• The OCPA team is highly knowledgeable about the procedures for a city to join OCPA. We handle most of the work and collaborate closely with city staff to ensure they are satisﬁed and comfortable with the process. We look forward to continuing our support and assisting your city staff with all matters related to energy and sustainability.

Same question as above with city costs / ﬁnancial commitment. • There are no city costs. At this point, OCPA has not asked cities to pay a fee for joining OCPA.

Summarized list of beneﬁts for Costa Mesa
• Customer Choice:
o OCPA provides an option in electricity providers where there was none before. Customers can choose from energy plan options offered by OCPA – to meet their environmental and ﬁnancial goals – or choose to stay with SCE for bundled service. There is no cost to change energy plans or go with SCE. o OCPA, as a not-for-proﬁt, has customers in mind and not shareholders. The money we make goes back to the communities we serve as grants and programs designed to help make the transition to cleaner energy sources easier and more affordable, and save money on their energy bills. o We are locally controlled with a community-focused staff, with our overhead at between 5% and 6% of our operating costs.

• Estimated energy cost savings for Costa Mesa’s energy accounts:

OCPA is not able to provide a long-term rate forecast because, like most Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs), we follow an IOU-indexed rate design. Under this approach, OCPA’s rates are set each year in reference to Southern California Edison’s (SCE) approved generation rates. These rates are established annually through the Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) process and related balancing accounts, and are approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) each December. Because of this framework, OCPA can only ﬁnalize its projected rates in January, after SCE’s rates are conﬁrmed. Until that time, potential savings for Costa Mesa’s energy accounts cannot be estimated with certainty. • Estimated potential for community reinvestment; how soon would we expect to start being able to participate in community programs, grants, etc., and what is the projection for this if Costa Mesa were to join?
As soon as Costa Mesa is launched, Costa Mesa customers will qualify for customer programs launched by OCPA. Our Programs team keeps up with other CCA offerings and is exploring opportunities based on other CCAs’ success, including the following:
• Electriﬁcation program for new
construction affordable housing
• Loans & incentives for electriﬁcation
of single-family households
• Multifamily building energy audits • Home and business energy audits • Multifamily building in-unit electric
panel upgrades
• Low-interest loans for solar
• Demand response incentive
program for businesses
• Technical assistance for
building decarbonization

Potential to participate in other energy-related grant programs e.g. with CEC • Of course, we have our eyes out for grant funding that we can help our communities.

This is a signiﬁcant beneﬁt to join OCPA.

Summaries from longer standing CCAs on the re-investment beneﬁts – both programs and from a ﬁnancial standout – of CCAs. E.g., how much $$ in the operating margin is supporting community-based re-investment?
• Here is a link to download the draft program overview for Central Coast Community Energy (3CE).
• For OCPA, we will use strategic planning like the Community Power Plan to set our priorities from year to year. Currently, OCPA is planning to spend over $1 million on customer programs in this ﬁscal year.

Clean T ech
Opportunities
Find Y our Opportunity at a local Community College
HV AC T echnologies
Cypress College & Orange Coast College
Avg. Salary: $72,140
Forest & Conservation
T echnicians
Orange Coast College & Fullerton College
Avg. Salary: $60,880
Urban & Regional Planner
(Includes Sustainable Infrastructure)
Irvine Valley College, Golden West
College & UC San Diego
Avg. Salary: $105,230
Environmental Science
Cypress College
Avg. Salary: $127 ,660
Training Programs in Orange County and Surrounding Areas Orange County is home to various clean energy technology trainings and programs – perfect for professionals wanting to be a part of the clean energy future. With green economy jobs on the rise, see how you can join in and be part of the movement.

Electrical T echnologies
Irvine Valley College
Avg. Salary: $52,024 - $84,475
Solar Photovoltaic Installers
SEI Solar Professionals Certification Program
Avg. Salary: $60,790
Postsecondary Environmental
Science T eachers
Cypress College & Saddleback College
Avg. Salary: $109,710
Lawyers (Includes Environmental Lawyers)
Irvine Valley College
Avg. Salary: $197 ,790
Find Y our Opportunity Through an Apprenticeship
Orange County
Electrical Institute

JJA TC HVCACR
Apprenticeship Training

Costa Mesa City CouncilSeptember 2, 2025

Costa Mesa City Council
September 2, 2025