PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Jul 07, 2026 (Agenda)

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026 @ 6:00 PM VIDEO CONFERENCE/IN-PERSON 21000 HACIENDA BLVD., CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93505 If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the planning department at (760) 373-7141 or via email at planning@californiacity-ca.gov. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 American Disabilities Act Title II). Zoom 1. Public may join Planning Commission Meeting live via Zoom: • https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89958907490 • Meeting ID: 899 5890 7490 2. One tap mobile • ++16694449171,89958907490# US • +17207072699,89958907490# US (Denver) 3. Public can dial into the Zoom line:  One tap mobile: +16694449171,89958907490# US  +17207072699,89958907490 # US  Dial the above number and enter the meeting ID: 89958907490 Granicus 1. Agenda can be viewed via Granicus: https://californiacity.granicus.com/viewpublisher?view_id=1 2. Public may eComment on agenda items via Granicus https://www.californiacity-ca.gov/CC/images/Ecomment_Instruction_Guide_2020.pdf City Website 1. Agenda can be viewed on the City’s website. 2. Recording of this meeting will be made available on the City’s website. LATE COMMUNICATIONS: Following the posting of the agenda, any emails, writings, or documents that the public would like to submit to the Commission must be received by the Secretary no later than 3:00 p.m. the day prior to the scheduled meeting.1

**At this time, please take a moment to silence your cell phones** 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Brottlund Commissioner Cantrell Commissioner Coleman Commissioner Perez 4. Oath of Office 5. Selection of Vice Chair Recommendation: Entertain a Motion for Nominations to Select the Chair by Majority Vote. 6. ADOPT AGENDA Adopt Agenda: July 7, 2026 7. DISCLOSURE OF SITE VISITS AND EX-PARTE CONTACTS Disclosure by Commissioners of site visits and ex-parte contact for items on the agenda. 8. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR This portion of the meeting is reserved for the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter not on the agenda and over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction. Comments are to be limited to three (3) minutes. The Planning Commission will receive the comments but cannot engage in back- and-forth discussion with the public or make any decision. The Planning Commission may direct staff to bring the item back to a future agenda for discussion. 9. PUBLIC HEARING PH 1. Appeal of Planning Director Approval of Site Plan Review No. SPR 25-09 for the California City Correctional Facility, 22844 Virginia Boulevard, APN 350-031-02 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff report, public testimony, and record materials submitted for the appeal; 2. Find that the appellant failed to meet the required burden of proof to overturn the Planning Director’s approval of SPR 25-09 and find that the Planning Commission’s action on the appeal does not approve new construction, expansion, an increase in bed capacity beyond the existing entitlement record, or a new or modified conditional use; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC 2026-07-07 denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Director’s February 26, 2026, approval of SPR 25-09 as issued.2

10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to present information, announcements and items that have come to their attention. Short staff responses may be appropriate. The Planning Commission will take no formal action. A Planning Commissioner may request to calendar an item for consideration at a future meeting or refer an item to staff. Chairman Brottlund Commissioner Cantrell Commissioner Coleman Commissioner Perez ADJOURNMENT AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING: This agenda was posted on all official City bulletin boards, the City’s website and agenda packets were completely accessible to the public at City Hall at least 72 hours (for special meetings 24 hours), prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Department3

PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report July 07, 2026 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anu Doravari, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Director Approval of Site Plan Review No. SPR 25-09 for the California City Correctional Facility, 22844 Virginia Boulevard, APN 350-031-02 APPLICANT: CoreCivic, Inc. APPELLANT: Dignity Not Detention Coalition REQUEST: Consider the appeal and determine whether to uphold the Planning Director's February 26, 2026 approval of SPR 25-09 as issued. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff report, public testimony, and record materials submitted for the appeal; 2. Find that the appellant failed to meet the required burden of proof to overturn the Planning Director’s approval of SPR 25-09 and find that the Planning Commission’s action on the appeal does not approve new construction, expansion, an increase in bed capacity beyond the existing entitlement record, or a new or modified conditional use; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC 2026-07-07 denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Director’s February 26, 2026 approval of SPR 25-09 as issued. Recommended motion: I move to adopt Resolution No. PC 2026-07-07 denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Director’s February 26, 2026 approval of SPR 25-09 as issued. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SPR 25-09 concerns the California City Correctional Facility at 22844 Virginia Boulevard. The application was submitted on the City’s Minor Site Plan Review application form for an existing building/business/ownership and is dated August 22, 2025. The operative business plan submitted with the application describes the facility as owned and operated by CoreCivic, Inc., opened in 1999, and expected to operate in the same manner it has since construction.4

The Planning Director issued a determination letter on February 26, 2026, approving SPR 25-09. The determination was based on the City’s existing entitlement record— including Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-01, CUP 98-02, and the CEQA Transmittal Addendum No. 1 2014.pdf—the associated environmental record, application materials, and applicable Municipal Code provisions. The determination letter states that the approval implements CUP 97-01 and CUP 98-02, reflects a maximum vested entitlement capacity of 2,816 beds, applies to the previously approved 70-acre facility footprint, and does not authorize any expansion or modification of the approved project. Dignity Not Detention Coalition initiated its appeal of the Site Plan Review approval on February 27, 2026. This staff report addresses the Site Plan Review appeal before the Planning Commission under standard California land-use frameworks. Business licensing and contract matters are administered through separate City procedures and are outside the purview of this land-use evaluation. Based on the complete administrative and environmental record, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the February 26, 2026, SPR 25- 09 approval as issued. APPLICATION MATERIALS AND REVIEW BACKGROUND SPR 25-09 was submitted as a Minor Site Plan Review application for an existing building/business/ownership. The application materials did not request new construction, expansion of the approved facility footprint, ground disturbance, or changes to the approved site layout. No new site plan was submitted for SPR 25-09. Staff reviewed the application based on the existing entitlement record, City records on file, the operative business plan, and applicable Municipal Code requirements. The operative business plan describes the California City Correctional Facility as a 2,560-bed facility with an approximately 522,363 square foot physical plant. The Planning Director’s determination letter identifies the entitlement record as CUP 97-01 for 2,304 beds and CUP 98-02 for an additional 512 beds, for a total authorized entitlement capacity of 2,816 beds. Because the applied-for operational capacity of 2,560 beds remains well below the maximum authorized capacity, SPR 25-09 did not approve any expansion or increase beyond the historical entitlement record. The determination letter also states that the facility satisfied all objective requirements of the Building & Safety Division and Fire Department.5

ENTITLEMENT RECORD Approval / Record Summary Relevance to SPR 25-09 CUP 97-01 / PC Resolution No. 01-98-1802 Approved a conditional use permit for a 2,304-bed prison facility on approximately 70 acres and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Establishes the original conditional use entitlement and identifies site plan review, utility connection, and Municipal Code compliance obligations. CUP 97-01 / CC Resolution No. 01-98-1801 Certified the Final EIR Supplement / CEQA findings for the 2,304-bed prison project and approved the project following Planning Commission action. Establishes the City Council approval and prior CEQA record for the original facility. CUP 98-02 / Resolution No. 11-98-02 Approved modification of CUP 97-01 for a 512-bed expansion and affirmed CUP 97-01 except as provided in that resolution. Supports the determination that the combined entitlement record reflects a maximum authorized capacity of 2,816 beds. CEQA Transmittal Addendum No. 1 2014.pdf Documented and filed a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) on June 9, 2014, for a 256-bed internal repurposing of the facility structure. Formally establishes that the environmental impacts of a 2,560-bed operational configuration within the existing facility footprint have been fully evaluated, cleared, and mitigated. Prior CEQA documents and adopted mitigation programs The facility and correctional use were evaluated through the EIR Supplement (CUP 97-01), the MND (CUP 98-02), and Addendum No. 1 (2014). Existing adopted mitigation programs remain enforceable according to their own terms. SPR 25-09 did not alter or adopt new mitigation measures. MUNICIPAL CODE FRAMEWORK6

• CCMC Section 9-2.212 (Site Plan Review): applications are filed with the Planning Director. The Planning Director reviews the proposal to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of the section. The section explicitly mandates that the site plan shall be approved if the application shows the site conforms to existing Municipal Code requirements. • CCMC Section 9-2.402 (RA District Conditional Uses): "Governmental or quasi-governmental correction, probation or prison facilities and services" may be permitted in the RA District with a conditional use permit. • CCMC Section 9-2.103 (Code Interpretation): Establishes guidelines for interpreting general code language. SPR 25-09 was reviewed under the existing entitlement record and the listed RA conditional-use category; it was not processed as a new citywide code interpretation or a new conditional use permit. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION The item before the Planning Commission is the appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of SPR 25-09 under CCMC Section 9-2.212. Under California zoning law, when a local code utilizes mandatory phrasing such as "shall be approved," the review is strictly ministerial (non-discretionary) once objective conformity is demonstrated. CCMC Section 9-2.212(d) explicitly removes discretionary authority from the Planning Director, stating that the “site plan shall be approved if application shows the site will be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code.” The Planning Commission’s review is strictly limited to whether the application demonstrates conformance with the Municipal Code per CCMC Section 9-2.212(d). This appeal hearing is not a revocation proceeding for CUP 97-01 or CUP 98-02, nor is it a public hearing for a new conditional use permit. Under California's vested rights doctrine, long-standing entitlements cannot be retroactively extinguished or re- adjudicated through a ministerial site plan compliance check. PROCEDURE OF THE APPEAL The appeal hearing before the Planning Commission is considered de novo under CCMC Section 1-4.04(d). This means that the Planning Commission is not bound by the decision of the Planning Director. The appeal hearing shall be based on the following evidence: (1) Any relevant evidence, including staff reports, etc., submitted at the time of the prior decision and at the appeal hearing; and (2) Findings, if any, and decision of the Planning Director, but the Planning Commission shall not be bound by the findings and decisions of the original decision being appealed. BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE APPEAL HEARING7

Under CCMC Section 1-4.04(e), the appellant, Dignity Not Detention Coalition, has the burden of proof to support the overturning of the Planning Director’s decision on SPR 25-09. MINOR SPR PROCESSING AND DIRECTOR HEARING SPR 25-09 was properly submitted on the City’s Minor Site Plan Review application form because it applies strictly to an existing building with no physical modifications. The application did not propose new construction, new ground disturbance, expansion of the approved facility footprint, or modifications to the existing site layout. While the Planning Department utilizes Director Hearings for projects involving active discretionary reviews or major site design alterations, CCMC Section 9-2.212 does not require a formal public hearing for an administrative verification of an existing, approved structure. NO NEW SPR CONDITIONS SPR 25-09 did not impose new discretionary Planning conditions, did not adopt new mitigation measures, and did not modify CUP 97-01 or CUP 98-02. The approval simply recognizes that the facility remains bound by its existing entitlement record, previously adopted environmental documents, and active mitigation programs. Any compliance review or enforcement related to those existing obligations remains completely separate from this limited SPR approval. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF REVIEW Appeal Issue Staff Land Use Review Zoning / Use Classification CCMC Section 9-2.402 explicitly identifies “[g]overnmental or quasi-governmental correction, probation or prison facilities and services” as a conditional use in the RA District. The existing entitlement record includes CUP 97-01 and CUP 98- 02. Under standard California planning practices, land-use classifications track the physical characteristics, structural demands, and impacts of a facility (e.g., Institutional Group I- 3 occupancy), not the specific demographics or civil/criminal status of the occupants. The facility remains a secured correction/detention facility and falls squarely within the broad categorical language of the CCMC and the existing CUPs. Civil Immigration Detention / The appellant asserts that civil immigration detention represents a separate use category requiring a new CUP. However, the City has historically interpreted this land-use8

Appeal Issue Staff Land Use Review "Change of Use" Argument classification to encompass federal civil detainees, notably during the facility's operations under the 2010–2013 Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA). Furthermore, the certified CEQA Transmittal Addendum No. 1 2014.pdf explicitly cleared the "repurposing" of internal bed configurations up to 2,560 beds within the existing structure. Shifting the supervising agency contract between state and federal authorities does not alter the physical land-use footprint or generate distinct zoning impacts. New Conditional Use Permit Requirement Because SPR 25-09 requested no new construction, zero ground disturbance, and no increase in bed capacity beyond the established 2,816-bed entitlement, no triggers for a new or modified CUP have occurred. Any future proposal to physically expand the development footprint or exceed the 2,816-bed limit would legally require a separate discretionary CUP amendment and subsequent CEQA review. CEQA Compliance Under California Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(1) CEQA Guidelines Section 15268, and CCMC Section 2- 6.303(b)(2), ministerial actions are entirely exempt from CEQA. Because the Planning Director was legally mandated by CCMC Section 9-2.212(d) to approve the site plan upon demonstration of code conformity, the action involves no discretionary balancing of environmental options. Furthermore, the physical facility and its 2,560-bed operational ceiling were already fully analyzed under the certified EIR Supplement (CUP 97-01), the MND (CUP 98- 02), and CEQA Transmittal Addendum No. 1 2014.pdf. FINDINGS SUPPORTING RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. SPR 25-09 was submitted as a Minor Site Plan Review application for an existing building/business/ownership and is dated August 22, 2025. 2. The City’s Site Plan Review process ensures that development of an approved use conforms to Municipal Code standards for site design, infrastructure, and improvements. 3. The application materials did not request new construction, expansion of the approved facility footprint, ground disturbance, or modification to the approved site layout.9

4. The operative business plan states that the facility opened in 1999, is owned and operated by CoreCivic, and is expected to operate in the same physical manner it has since it was constructed. 5. CUP 97-01 approved a 2,304-bed prison facility on approximately 70 acres at the project site. 6. CUP 98-02 approved a 512-bed expansion and affirmed CUP 97-01, establishing a combined entitlement capacity of 2,816 beds. 7. The facility's operational configuration of 2,560 beds was explicitly evaluated and cleared under CEQA Transmittal Addendum No. 1 2014.pdf, which concluded that internal bed repurposing within the existing structure generates no new significant environmental impacts. 8. CUP 97-01 and CUP 98-02 run with the land and remain valid, active entitlements absent a formal, separate revocation proceeding. 9. CCMC Section 9-2.402 allows governmental or quasi-governmental correction, probation, or prison facilities and services in the RA District with a conditional use permit. 10. The Planning Director’s approval of SPR 25-09 did not impose new discretionary conditions, adopt new mitigation measures, or modify the underlying vested CUPs. 11. Because SPR 25-09 demonstrated compliance with objective Municipal Code requirements, approval was mandatory under the ministerial command of CCMC Section 9-2.212(d). 12. The appeal materials do not identify an objective basis under CCMC Section 9- 2.212 to set aside the February 26, 2026, SPR 25-09 approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2026-07-07 2. Combined Administrative Record for SPR 25-09 Appeal The combined record can include: • Planning Director Determination Letter • Appeal Letter • SPR Application Materials • Business Plan / Operational Information • CUP 97-01 Record • CUP 98-02 Record • Prior CEQA Documents • 2014 CEQA Addendum / NOD Materials • Building, Fire, and Occupancy Materials • DOJ Correspondence • Prior agenda/hearing materials • Record exhibits10

ATTACHMENT 1: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2026-07-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DIGNITY NOT DETENTION COALITION AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S FEBRUARY 26, 2026 APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. SPR 25-09 AS ISSUED FOR THE CALIFORNIA CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 22844 VIRGINIA BOULEVARD, APN 350-031-02 WHEREAS, CoreCivic, Inc. submitted Site Plan Review No. SPR 25-09 for the California City Correctional Facility located at 22844 Virginia Boulevard, APN 350-031- 02; and WHEREAS, SPR 25-09 was submitted on the City's Minor Site Plan Review application form for an existing building/business/ownership and is dated August 22, 2025; and WHEREAS, the operative business plan describes the facility as owned and operated by CoreCivic, opened in 1999, and expected to operate inside the same physical plant footprint since construction; and WHEREAS, the project site is subject to Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01, approved for a 2,304-bed facility, and Conditional Use Permit No. 98-02, approved for an additional 512 beds, representing a total authorized capacity of 2,816 beds; and WHEREAS, the proposed operational scale of 2,560 beds was formally evaluated, cleared, and certified under CEQA Transmittal Addendum No. 1 2014.pdf, with a Notice of Determination properly filed with the Kern County Clerk on June 9, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director issued a determination letter dated February 26, 2026, finding that SPR 25-09 satisfies all objective Municipal Code requirements; and WHEREAS, the Dignity Not Detention Coalition submitted an appeal dated February 27, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the appeal materials, the entitlement record, the prior CEQA record, applicable Municipal Code provisions, and public testimony at a regular meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.11

SECTION 2. SCOPE OF ACTION. The action before the Planning Commission is strictly limited to the appeal of the Planning Director's approval of SPR 25-09 under CCMC Section 9-2.212. This Resolution does not authorize or approve new construction, physical expansion of the facility footprint, an increase in bed capacity beyond the existing entitlement record, or a new or modified conditional use. SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The Planning Commission hereby affirms that SPR 25- 09 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects). The approval is a non-discretionary action limited to the verification of compliance with objective Municipal Code standards. The Commission further finds that the environmental impacts of the 2,560-bed configuration within the existing structural footprint were fully analyzed and mitigated under CEQA Transmittal Addendum No. 1 2014.pdf, and no triggers for a subsequent or supplemental EIR exist under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. SECTION 4. LAND USE FINDINGS. 1. SPR 25-09 applies strictly to an existing building/business/ownership and is dated August 22, 2025. 2. The application materials requested zero new construction, zero ground disturbance, and no expansion of the approved facility footprint. 3. CUP 97-01 and CUP 98-02 establish a combined, valid land-use entitlement capacity of 2,816 beds on the project site, which runs with the land and remains unrevoked. 4. CCMC Section 9-2.402 explicitly permits “governmental or quasi-governmental correction, probation or prison facilities and services” in the RA District via a CUP. The physical land-use impacts of the facility are consistent across federal and state operational contracts, and the current use falls squarely within this approved zoning category. 5. Under CCMC Section 9-2.212(d), site plan approval is mandatory if the application demonstrates conformance with existing code standards. Because the application satisfies all objective Planning, Building, and Fire standards, the Planning Director possessed no discretionary authority to deny the application. The appeal record provides no objective legal or land-use basis under the CCMC to set aside the approval. SECTION 5. DECISION. The Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal filed by the Dignity Not Detention Coalition and upholds the Planning Director's February 26, 2026, approval of SPR 25-09 as issued. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of California City at a regular meeting held on July 7, 2026, by the following vote:12

ATTEST: ____________________________________ Planning Secretary/City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF KERN ) ss. CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY ) I, ____________________________, City Clerk of the City of California City, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on July 7, 2026, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________________ City Clerk13

February 27, 2026 U.S. mail and electronic transmittal City of California City City Hall 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93505 To Mayor Hawkins, Members of the City Council, Members of the Planning Commission, Interim City Manager Grayson, City Attorney Ponto, and City Clerk, On behalf of the Dignity Not Detention Coalition, I write to appeal the decision by California City to approve a business license, site plan review, and all related approvals to CoreCivic, Inc. for the operation of the California City Detention Facility, 22844 Virginia Blvd., California City, CA. This appeal is brought pursuant to sections 1-4.04, 1-4.05, and 9-2.212(b) of the California City Municipal Code (CCMC). The grounds for appeal are outlined below. • The Business License, Site Plan Review, and all related approvals are not in conformance with the City’s zoning for the facility. See CCMC § 9-2.803(a). • The facility’s zoning does not on its face allow civil immigration detention facilities. CCMC §§ 9-2.401, 9-2.402. Under the Municipal Code, any uses not expressly allowed within a zoning district are prohibited. CCMC § 9-2.102(b). • Even if the facility’s zoning district could allow civil immigration detention as a use similar to a “prison”, whether it in fact does is ambiguous. The Municipal Code mandates that the Planning Commission and City Council resolve any ambiguities in interpreting the Code to allow uses not expressly permitted. CCMC § 9-2.103. The Council must make such determination before any Business License, Site Plan Review, or other permit for the facility may issue. • Even if civil immigration detention is conditionally allowed in the facility’s zoning district, then the converted facility still requires a Conditional Use Permit, including notice, public hearings, and public right of appeal. CCMC §§ 9-2.2501, 1-4.02(a). • The City is prohibited from issuing a business license to CoreCivic because CoreCivic has been violating the Code by operating the facility without a license. The Code states that the City “shall” revoke or suspend a license if the licensee is violating the provisions of the business license chapter, which also includes the requirement that a business cannot operate without a license. CCMC §§ 1-3.01(a)(1), 9-2.2803(b), 9-2.2804(c), 3- 2.3.201. • Similarly, the Code provides that a license “shall be” suspended, cancelled, or revoked if the licensee has “[f]ailed to observe . . . the laws of the State” or has “[w]illfully or knowingly permitted violations of . . . the laws of the State.” CCMC § 3-2.3.208(c)(4), (6). As set forth in the federal lawsuit pending against the federal government regarding conditions at the facility, CoreCivic has engaged in and knowingly facilitated numerous, egregious violations of state and federal law. See Gomez Ruiz v. ICE, Case No. 3:25-cv- 09757 (N.D. Cal.; filed Nov. 12, 2025). Because these violations would require the City14

to automatically suspend or terminate any existing business license, they should preclude the City from issuing CoreCivic a business license for the facility in the first instance. A check for the $381.00 appeal fee, pursuant to the City’s current fee schedule, has been mailed to the City Clerk. Please provide notice of any appeal hearing once the date and time are set. CCMC § 1-4.08. If this appeal will be decided without a hearing, please provide the date of the anticipated decision and immediate notice of the appeal body’s determination so that we may exercise any further appeal rights to which we are entitled by law. Sincerely, Jehan Laner Senior Staff Attorney Immigrant Legal Resource Center cc: Brandon Sanchez 2031489.215

Page 1 of 3 Site Plan Review 25-09 Determination Letter To, Marcelo Ariola VP Real Estate CoreCivic, Inc. 5501 Virginia Way, Suite 110, Brentwood, TN 37027 Date: 26 February 2026 Subject: Approval of Site Plan Review (SPR 25-09) at 22844 Virginia Blvd, California City, CA 93505 Dear Marcelo Ariola, The City of California City (“City”) Planning Department has completed its review of Site Plan Review Application SPR 25-09 for the California City Corrections Facility located at 22844 Virginia Blvd (APN 350-031-02). Based upon review of the City’s entitlement record and associated environmental documents, the following determination is issued. Background: The facility located at Virginia Boulevard was originally approved under Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-01, adopted via Resolution No. 01-98-1802, for a 2,304-bed “prison facility.” In October 1998, the City granted CUP 98-02 to expand the permitted use by 512 beds. The facility was inactive for approximately one year. Neither CUP 97-01 nor CUP 98-02 expires due to inactivity. Further, each CUP runs with the land and is valid unless and until revoked after a notice and opportunity to be heard according to applicable law. On August 22, 2025, the facility applied for Site Plan Review approval “to operate in the same manner it has since it was constructed in 1999.” CITY HALL 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93505 ______________________________________ 760-373-8661 www.californiacity-ca.gov Marquette Hawkins MAYOR Jim Creighton MAYOR PRO TEM Della Clark Ronald Smith COUNCIL MEMBERS __________________ Sean Grayson INTERIM CITY MANAGER16

Page 2 of 3 Discussion: Pursuant to California City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) section 9-2.212(b), the Planning Director reviews the proposal to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of this section. Section 9- 2.212(d), further provides that “The site plan shall be approved if application shows the site will be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code.” As such, Section 9- 2.212 directs ministerial approval when the proposal demonstrates Municipal Code compliance. The Planning Department has reviewed the Site Plan Review Application and finds the use is authorized subject to compliance with CUP 97-01 and CUP 98-02. In particular, these permits collectively allow for a total bed count of 2,816. The facility has satisfied the requirements of the Building & Safety Division and Fire Department. According to CCMC section 9-2.402, “correction, probation or prison facilities and services” are permitted in the Residential Agricultural (RA) zone with a conditional use permit. The facility’s current operations appear to fall within the scope of the use approved in CUP 97-01 and expanded by CUP 98-02. Therefore, the proposed use is a continuation of the previously entitled use. CEQA Determination: The Site Plan Review approval is a ministerial action limited to verification of compliance with objective Municipal Code standards and does not involve the exercise of discretion. Accordingly, this approval is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects). The facility and correctional facility use were previously evaluated in a certified Environmental Impact Report Supplement (SCH No. 97091045) adopted in connection with CUP 97-01 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in connection with CUP 98-02. This administrative approval implements existing entitlements and does not authorize any expansion or modification of the approved project. Planning Department Findings: The facility remains subject to the use category approved under CUP 97-01: Governmental or quasi-governmental correction, probation, or prison facilities and services. Pursuant to CCMC section 9-2.212(d), the application shows the site will be used in accordance with the requirements of the CCMC, and as such “the site plan shall be approved.” This Site Plan Review approval: 1. Implements CUP 97-01 and CUP 98-02 as reflected in the City’s entitlement record; 2. Reflects a maximum occupancy of 2,816 beds; 3. Applies solely to the previously approved 70-acre facility footprint (APN 350-031-02); and17

Page 3 of 3 4. References the previously certified environmental documents and adopted mitigation programs associated with CUP 97-01 and CUP 98-02. 5. Affirms that the operator maintains ongoing compliance with all applicable mitigation measures contained in both adopted programs. The City reserves the right to conduct inspections and request documentation necessary to verify continued compliance. Failure to comply with the conditions of CUP 97-01 or CUP 98-02 the adopted mitigation programs may result in enforcement action, including potential revocation proceedings in accordance with the CCMC and California law. Any proposal to expand the development area, increase bed capacity beyond 2,816 beds, or materially modify the approved use shall require amendment to the applicable Conditional Use Permit(s) and compliance with CEQA. This letter constitutes the Planning Department’s formal approval of SPR 25-09 consistent with the above-referenced entitlements and environmental determinations. _____________________ Sincerely, Anu Doravari Planning Director Planning Division Community Development City of California City18

EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 119

Case 1:25-at-00885 Document 1-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 720

Case 1:25-at-00885 Document 1-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 721

Case 1:25-at-00885 Document 1-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 722

Case 1:25-at-00885 Document 1-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5 of 723

Case 1:25-at-00885 Document 1-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6 of 724

Case 1:25-at-00885 Document 1-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 725

EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 226

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 - DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01292-KES-CDB STRUCK LOVE ACEDO, PLC Daniel P. Struck, Bar #012377 Dana M. Keene, Bar #324993 Shannon L. Knorr, Bar #300399 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, Arizona 85226 Tel.: (480) 420-1600 Fax: (480) 420-1695 dstruck@strucklove.com dkeene@strucklove.com sknorr@strucklove.com Nicholas H. Rasmussen, Bar #285736 Nancy Flores-Castaneda, Bar #357148 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & SMITH, LLP 7647 North Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93720 Tel: (559) 433-1300 Fax: (559) 433-2300 nrasmussen@mccormickbarstow.com nancy.flores-castaneda@mccormickbarstow.com Attorneys for Respondent-Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dignity Not Detention Coalition and JOHN DOE, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, v. City of California City and CoreCivic, Inc., Respondents and Defendants. _________________________________ __ CORECIVIC, INC., Real Party in Interest. Case No. 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY U.S. District Judge: Kirk E. Sherriff U.S. Magistrate Judge: Christopher D. Baker I, John Malloy, state the following based upon my personal knowledge. 1. I am over the age of 18 and am competent to testify to the matters set forth in this Declaration. Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 8227

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 - DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01292-KES-CDB 2. I have been employed by CoreCivic 1 since November 2008, when I was hired as Senior Director, Partnership Development with responsibility for managing CoreCivic’s relationships with the states of California, Arizona and Oklahoma, relating to each of those states’ respective correctional services agreements with CoreCivic. For the past seven years, I have held the position of Managing Director, Government Relations with a primary focus on CoreCivic’s relationships with its local governmental partners. 3. The facts set forth are based on my personal knowledge and/or information and knowledge gained in my capacity as a corporate representative of CoreCivic, including information obtained through discussions with other CoreCivic employees and my review of CoreCivic’s corporate records. 4. The California City Correctional Facility (“the facility”) is located at 22844 Virginia Boulevard, California City. 2 5. CoreCivic constructed the facility in the late 1990s and began operating it in 2000 under a contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 6. In September 2010, the City of California City entered into a 15-year Intergovernmental Service Agreement (“IGSA”) with the United States Department of Justice, Office of the Federal Detention Trustee to provide an estimated 2,532 federal beds for use by the United States Marshals Service, Bureau of Prisoners, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with CoreCivic to be the service provider for those agencies at the facility. Attachment A is a true and correct copy of IGSA ODT-10-0002, which is maintained as a business record of CoreCivic, and reflects the estimated total number of federal beds on page 1. 7. Due to the opening of other facilities and declining population levels at the facility, as well as an acute need by the State of California to reduce overcrowding in its 1 Prior to November 2016, CoreCivic was known as Corrections Corporation of America. 2 The facility has also been variously known at times as the California City Correctional Center, the California City Immigration Processing Center, and the California City Detention Facility. Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 8228

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 - DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01292-KES-CDB facilities, in 2013, the OFDT authorized CoreCivic to pursue the leasing of the entire facility to the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“CDCR”). 8. In 2013, CoreCivic entered into a Lease Agreement with CDCR for the use of the 2,560-bed facility. That lease agreement was subsequently extended several times until it terminated in 2024. 9. Although the facility was not used for federal detention between December 2013 and April 2024, neither the City of California City nor the United States cancelled Agreement ODT-10-0002, and it remained in effect until it terminated in September 2025. 10. Once CoreCivic entered into a letter agreement with ICE in April 2025 and began planning to fully restaff the facility to comply with ICE’s requirements, I began to have communications with various City representatives relating to the contract. 11. In early June 2025, City Manager Christopher Lopez requested that we provide tours of the facility for the Mayor, City Council, and various members of the City’s Management Team, which I facilitated on June 17, 2025. 12. At the end of July 2025, I was provided an email from then Director of Public Safety, Justin Vincent, in which he was complimentary of the fire life safety inspection he and Deputy Fire Marshal Hightower conducted. Dr. Vincent noted that there were “just three areas” which needed to be addressed prior to “his final inspection and sign-off for the facility.” Those issues were limited to: 1) installing “704 placards” which indicate to first responders the location of potentially hazardous materials; 2) placement of keys which first responders may use to access the secure perimeter of the facility in the Knox box; and 3) ensuring that City of California City fire and police department radio communications are possible throughout all locations of the facility. Attachment B is a true and correct copy of my email forwarding Dr. Vincent’s report to City Manager Lopez on July 29, 2025, and is a business record of CoreCivic. 13. On July 29, 2025, I received a memorandum from City Manager Lopez regarding the California City Fire Department Inspection. Attachment C is a true and correct copy of this memorandum. In it, the issues raised by the City are limited to the radio issues Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 8229

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 - DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01292-KES-CDB of which I was aware, as well as financial concerns of the City related to potentially increased demand for police, fire, and EMS response due to any calls for service to the facility. 14. At Dr. Vincent’s suggestion, CoreCivic engaged with the City’s recommended contractor, Roger Goodman, to address the radio communications issue. He conducted tests with the City’s fire department radios on July 30, 2025 and noted that “the signal is very strong inside the facility.” Mr. Goodman confirmed that radio communications were also available with Kern County Communications on existing channels. As a temporary solution, he recommended that first responders change to Kern County channel 5 until a bi-directional amplifier was installed at the facility. Attachment D is a true and correct copy of my July 31, 2025 email to City Manager Lopez forwarding the results of the radio test and is a business record of CoreCivic. 15. In response to follow-up correspondence from the City Manager, Dr. Vincent sent another message on July 31, 2025 noting that once the temporary solution of changing channels in response to public safety call for service at the facility was confirmed to be effective for all fire, police, and ambulance services, he would approve that resolution for 90 days, with the requirement that a permanent solution be provided so that first responders do not have to switch radio channels at the prison when responding to a call for service in the future. He concluded that “the only item from our safety inspection still pending is the communications issue” but directed CoreCivic to remove staff from the facility until the temporary solutions had been confirmed effective for all first responders. Attachment E is a true and correct copy of the email thread containing Dr. Vincent’s email response to the City Manager, on which I was copied, as well as my reply, and is a business record of CoreCivic. 16. That same day, I replied that CoreCivic has had productive conversations regarding the need for full dispatch capabilities and expected work to be completed in the very near future. See Attachment E. Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 5 of 8230

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 - DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01292-KES-CDB 17. To effect the temporary radio communications solution, CoreCivic purchased a repeater trailer to boost the radio signal at the facility to Kern County dispatch. On August 5, 2025, I provided notification that permission had been obtained from Kern County for use of the repeater and provided the license authorization to the City Attorney, City Manager, and Dr. Vincent. Attachment F is a true and correct copy of the City Attorney’s confirmation of receipt of my message and is a business record of CoreCivic. 18. The temporary radio solution was tested, and on August 7, 2025, I received confirmation from Deputy Fire Marshal Hightower that the temporary radio system was now working, along with Fire Clearance, and was instructed to “contact city hall to obtain your business license.” Attachment G is a true and correct copy of the email and attachment I received, which is a business record of CoreCivic. 19. On August 7, 2025, I, along with other CoreCivic personnel, had a meeting at the facility with Acting Director of Public Safety, Lt. Hayes, who confirmed he had verified the radio system was fully functional, but stated there were a few outstanding items for CoreCivic to address relating to potential financial impacts to the City should emergency services be required at the facility. Attachment H is a true and correct copy of Lt. Hayes’ email, which accurately reflects our conversations on that day and is a business record of CoreCivic. 20. On August 8, 2025, CoreCivic provided a complete response to the concerns raised in City Manager Lopez’s July 29 th memorandum. In particular, Daren Swenson, CoreCivic’s Senior Vice President and Chief Corrections Officer, confirmed that the radio communications solutions were underway and acknowledged the City’s financial concerns. Mr. Swenson confirmed, based upon CoreCivic’s considerable experience managing multiple populations for various governmental partners, that the likely need for police response to calls for service is expected to be considerably lower for the ICE population than for prior populations at the facility. Moreover, he noted that since the facility’s construction in 1999, there has never been a single instance requiring the California City Fire Department to respond to a call for service at the facility. Finally, Mr. Swenson Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 6 of 8231

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 - DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01292-KES-CDB explained that the facility’s robust medical unit should reduce the need for emergency medical services, but that CoreCivic has contracted with an ambulance service for any emergency medical transports. Mr. Swenson also confirmed CoreCivic’s willingness to reimburse the City for any costs related to emergency responses at the facility, whether by police, fire, or EMS. Attachment I is a true and correct copy of this letter, which is a business record of CoreCivic. 21. In addition, on August 8, 2025, CoreCivic’s General Counsel, Cole Carter, sent separate correspondence, confirming that CoreCivic would reimburse actual costs incurred by the City for emergency response, indemnify and defend the City, and provide insurance coverage for the City to avoid placing any unnecessary strain on the City’s and its agencies’ valuable responses. Attachment J is a true and correct copy of this letter, which is business record of CoreCivic. 22. On August 13–14, 2025, I was copied on and exchanged multiple emails with the City’s Consultant Planner, Anu Doravari, who noted that she was “coordinating with all City departments to ensure compliance,” requested that CoreCivic submit an application for a sign permit, and asked for a copy of CoreCivic’s response to City Manager Lopez’s July 29, 2025 memorandum. Attachment K is a true and correct copy of that email thread, which included my reply providing the requested documents, and is a business record of CoreCivic. 23. Later on August 14, 2024, I was surprised to receive correspondence from Ms. Doravari stating that she believed SB 29 was applicable to the facility, SB 29 required a Site Plan Review independent of the existing valid Conditional Use Permit for the facility, and that no permit or final project approval would be executed or issued by the City before February 1, 2026. Attachment L is a true and correct copy of this email and is a business record of CoreCivic. 24. Notwithstanding Ms. Doravari’s representation that no permit would be approved, executed, or issued before February 1, 2026, a few hours later, the City Building Department transmitted the completed sign permit documents and payment receipt. Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 7 of 8232

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 - DECLARATION OF JOHN MALLOY CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01292-KES-CDB Attachment M is a true and correct copy of the email and attachments received by CoreCivic personnel on August 14, 2025, and is a business record of CoreCivic. 25. I made several requests to City Officials for an explanation as to why a new Site Plan Review is required for the facility when CoreCivic is not making any substantive alterations to the property or its use. Since 1999, CoreCivic has maintained the facility and operated it in conjunction with its government partners, including the United States (to house BOP inmates), the City of California City (to house ICE and USMS detainees), and the State of California (to house CDCR inmates). During each of those prior transitions, the City did not request or require any Site Plan Review, despite changes in the identity of the government entity whose inmates or detainees were housed at the facility. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Executed on October 27, 2025. John Malloy Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 8 of 8233

ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 9 of 8234

Page 1 of 21 I I 4, DUNS Number 159734151 3, Facility Code(s)1. Agreement Number ODT-10-0002 I 5. Issuing Federal Agency U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Federal Detention Trustee 4601 M. Fairfax Drive, Suite 910 Arlington, Virginia 20530 7. Appropriation Data I 2.Effective Date See Block 19. 6. Local Government California City 21000 Hacienda Ave California City, California 93505 TAX I D # 62-1806755 8. Local Contact Person Tom Weil, City Manager 9. Tel: (760)373-7170 Fax: (760) 373-7532 Ernail: citymqr@ca!iforniacity.com m u 13. Optional Guardlfransportation Services: [XI Medical Services U.S. Courthouse 15. Local Government Certification To the best of my knowledge and belief, information submitted in support of this agreement is true and correct, this document has been duly authorized by the governing of the Depastment or Agency and the Department or Agency will comply wjth all pro visions set forth herein. 14. Guard Hour Rate: $53.03 Mlleage shall be reimbursed by the Federal Government a t the GSA Federal Travel Regulation Mileage Rate. 16. Signature of Person Authorized to Sign (Local) Signature v w Tom Weil Name City Manager, California City o ? / z / / / ~ Title Date Services 10. This agreement is for the housing, safekeeping, and subsistence of federal prisoners, in accordance with content set forth herein. 17,Prisoner and Detainee Type Authorized @ Adult Male Adult Female Juvenile Male Juvenile Female ICE Detainees 11. Male: 2,276 Female: 256 (Estimated Federal 8eds) ' 12. See Page #I8 18. Other Authorized 1 19. Signature on Authorized to Sign (Federal) Agency User - BOP ~ J ! h ~ . ~ > ~ dSignature - ICE Scott P. Sterrner Name Assistant Trustee for Procurement, OFDT 23 1 0 Title " IDate Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 10 of 8235

Detention Services .Operational Contract .California City September 17, 2010 ...........................................................................................................................A .1 Rac kground 3 .................................................................................................................A.2 Services Required 3 A.2.1 Standard Receiving and Discharge of PrisonerslDetainees .......................................... 4 A.2.2 Records Management .................................................................................................... 5 A.2.3 Indemnification ............................................................................................................. 5 ...............................................................................................................A.2.4 Transportation 5 A.2.5 Medical Services ........................................................................................................... 7 A.2.5a Prisoner Rape Elimination Act ( P W ) ........................ ..................................... 8 A.2.6 Contacts and Incident Reporting ................................................................................... 8 A.2.7 Detainee Work Program ........................................................................................... 9 .............................................................................................A.3 Quality Control Management 10 ..............................................................................................................A.4 Quality Assurance 10 A.4.1 Inspection Clause ........................................................................................................ 11 ....................................... ....................*.......*..*..........................A.5 Performance Reviews .,. -12 ........................................................................................................A.6 Performance Ratings 12 ............................................................................................................A.7 Performance Matrix 13 A.8 Contact for Agreement Administration .............................................................................. 17 . * ...........................................................................................................A.9 Financial Provls~ons 17 A.9.1 Service Contract Act .............................. .......... ........................................................... 17 .............................................................................................................A.9.2 Price Schedule 18 A.9.3 InvoiceandPayment ................................................................................................. 18 ............................................................................................A .1 0 Modification and Disputes 19 .....................................................................................................................A .11 Termination 19 . ........................................................................................................................A 12 Litigation -20 Prisoner Rape Elimination Act Reporting Information ............................................................... 21 Page 2 of 21 P Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 11 of 8236

Detention Services - Operational Contract - California City September 17, 2010 A.1 Background Federal detention is a large component of criminal and immigration case processing by the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Law enforcement initiatives and increases in illegal immigration to the United States have created a complex detention program that the Department of Justice (DOJ) must effectively manage with available detention resources or acquire additional resources to meet increasing demands. In response to the increasing concern regarding federal detention, the O E c e of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) was established by a Congressional directive to exercise all power and fi~nctionsauthorized by law relating to the detention of federal prisoners and illegal aliens. Accordingly, OFDT leads the development of DOJ detention policy and manages federal detention resources to maximize available detention space. Currently, non-federal detention bed space for federal detainees and prisoners is acquired through Intergovernmental Agreements (EGAs), where a daily rate is paid to state and Focal governments, and facility-specific contracts with private service providers. The Department of Justice Appropriations Act for 2001 (Public Law 106-553) is designed to allow for the use of non-traditional contract vehicles when acquiring detention and other related services. This authority states: "Sec. 119 - Nofwithstandiprgany olherprovision of law, including seclion d(d) of the Sewice Conpact Act of 1965 (41 US.C. 353(d)), the Attorney General hereafter may enter into contracts and other agreements, of any reasonable duration,for detention or incarceration space or facilities, including related services,on any reasonaGle basis. " In an effort to operate in the most effective way and receive the maximum benefit of Section 119 to meet the Government's current and future goals, and acquire additional resources, OFDT desires to award an Agreement to California City for detention services at the California City Correctional Center. A-2 Services Required California City will provide, by the terms and conditions identified in this agreement, all necessary personnel, equipment, materials, supplies, and services for the management of comprehensive detention services, which includc, hut are not limited to, security, medical services, food service, safety, and sanitation. Additionally, the facility shall have sound proof rooms to accommodate video conferencing that permit prisoners and their attorneys to communicate in a secure manner which preserve the confidentiality of the attarney- client relationship. These comprehensive detention services shall provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement for male and female population principally consisting of prisoners or Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 12 of 8237

Detention Services - Operational Contract - California City September 17, 2010 detainees charged with federal offenses' and detained while awaiting trial or sentencing. Services are to be provided at the California City. Performance shall be in accordance with the most current editions of the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards (FPBDS), Performance-Based Detention Standards for Adult Local Detention FaciIities (ALDF), and Standards Supplement. California City shall maintain American Correctional Association (ACA) and Joint Comission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) accreditation throughout the life of the agreement. All services and programs shall comply with this Performance Work Statement (PWS); the U.S. Constitution; all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations; applicable Presidential Executive Orders (E.O.);all applicable case law; and Court: Orders and Consent Decrees. Should a conflict exist between any of the aforementioned standards, the most stringent shall apply. When a conflict exists and a conclusion cannot bc made as to which standard is mare stringent, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall determine the appropriate standard. California City shall comply with DOJ and/or USMS regulation, Congressional mandate, federal law or E.O. and all existing CaIifornia City polices. California City will: Provide a means for verification o f their ACA and JCAHO accreditation. Operate in full and complete compliance of the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards as defined. Those standards are available at http:/lwww. justice.gov/ofdtlmajor-activities.hm Operate in full complete compliance with California Iaws and regulations. a California City will ensure that all employees and contractors comply with their policies regarding employment suitability and background clearances and that any violations of California City Standards of Conduct are investigated and adjudicated appropriately and promptly. A.2.1 Standard Receiving and Discharge of PrisonerslXletainees California City agrees to accept federal detainees only upon presentation by a law enforcement officer of the Federal Government with proper agency credentials and shall not relocate a federal detainee from one facility under its control to another without the permission of the Federal Government. California City shall only release federa1 prisonersJdetainees only to law enforcement officcrs of the Federal Government agency initially committing the detainee (i.e., DEA, ICE, etc.) or to a Deputy United States Marshat (USM). Those detainees who are Case 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB Document 18-3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 13 of 8238

Detention Services - Operational Contract - California City September 17, 2010 remanded to custody by a USM may only be released to a USM or an agent specified by the USM of the Judicial District. Federal prisoners detainees sought for a state or local court proceeding must be acquired through a Writ of Habeas Corpus or the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and then only with the concurrence of the Federal Government. A.2,2 Records Management AIE records related to