US DIS CACD 8 20cv368 REPLY in Support of Amended Ex Parte Application A

Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE Document 19 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:320
1 Jennifer L. Keller, SBN 84412

jkeller@kelleranderle.com
2
Nahal Kazemi, SBN 322026
3 nkazemi@kelleranderle.com
4 KELLER/ANDERLE LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 930
5 Irvine, CA 92612
6 T: (949) 476-8700
F: (949) 476-0900
7
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
CITY OF COSTA MESA and KATRINA FOLEY
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION

12
CITY OF COSTA MESA, and Case No. 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE
13 KATRINA FOLEY,
14 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX
Plaintiff, PARTE APPLICATION FOR
15 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
vs. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
16
CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
17 THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
18 AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
19 DEFENSE, THE UNITED STATES
AIR FORCE, THE CENTERS FOR
20 DISEASE CONTROL AND
21 PREVENTION, THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, FAIRVIEW
22 DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
(FAIRVIEW), THE CALIFORNIA
23 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES, and THE
24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
25 GENERAL SERVICES,
26 Defendants.
27
28
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
3 II. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS DRAMATICALLY FAVORS PLAINTIFFS........... 1
4 A. President Trump’s Promise to Alabama Confirms that Coronavirus Patients Pose

a Public Health Risk, and Reveals the Federal Government’s Plan as an Effort to
5 Use this Crisis as a Political Weapon ..................................................................... 2
6 B. Plaintiffs’ Further Declarations Underscore the Potential Harm and Explain that
Plaintiffs Have Only Just Begun to Understand the Potential Detrimental Impact
7 to Their Community. ............................................................................................... 4
8
C. Defendants’ Suggestion that FDC is the Only Possible Site Because it is the Only
9 Suitable State-Owned Property Makes No Sense ................................................... 5
10 D. The Federal and State Defendants’ Conflicting Narratives Undermine Their

Claimed Hardships .................................................................................................. 7
11
E. Defendants’ Narratives Conflict with the CDC’s Most Recent Guidance about the
12 Coronavirus and the Most Recent Scientific Evidence........................................... 8
13
III. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THEIR CLAIMS ................................ 11
14
A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Nuisance Claims .................................. 11
15
B. Plaintiffs’ Are Likely to Prevail on Their Due Process and Civil Rights Claims. 14
16
C. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their APA Claim........................................... 15
17
1. The Federal Defendants’ Decision is Reviewable by This Court Under
18 the APA ................................................................................................... 15
19 2. Federal Defendants’ Decision to Relocate Coronavirus-Positive patients
20 to a Dilapidated Former Assisted Living Facility for Their Own
Convenience and Expediency is Arbitrary and Capricious. .................... 19
21
D. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Tenth Amendment Claim .................... 20
22
IV. THE STATE DEFENDANTS’ FLAWED “SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY” ARGUMENTS
23 DO NOT BAR PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS AGAINST THEM ....... 21
24 A. Plaintiffs’ Coming Complaint Will Include the Relevant California State Officials
25 ............................................................................................................................... 21
26 B. The Opposition Does Not Address Governor Newsom’s and the California
Legislature’s Positions as to Whether Plaintiffs’ Claims May Go Forward in this
27 Court, Leaving Open the Possibility That They Will Consent ............................. 22
28
i
C. The State Defendants Ignore How the Fourteenth Amendment Prevails in a Direct
1 Clash with The Eleventh Amendment .................................................................. 23
2 V. AT A MINIMUM, THE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE PLAINTIFFS TIME TO
3 MARSHAL THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE
WORKED SO HARD TO KEEP FROM THEM............................................................. 24
4
VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2 Cases
3 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) ...........................................15

4 Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011).............24
5
Ambrosini v. Alisal Sanitary Dist., 154 Cal. App. 2d 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957) .....12
6
ANA Int’l, Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d 886 (9th Cir.2004) ...............................................15
7
ASSE Int’l, Inc. v. Kerry, 803 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ........................................17
8
9 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) ....................................................................15
10 Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................. 18, 19
11 Bright v. East Side Mosquito Abatement Dist., 168 Cal. App. 2d 7 (Cal. Ct. App.
12 1959) .....................................................................................................................12
13 Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) .................................................................15
14 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ...................................................14
15
City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................14
16
Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 568 (9th Cir. 2009)............................................14
17
18 Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) .....................................................................21
19 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) ...............................................................23

20 Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) ...................................19
21 Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 3d 86, 101
22 (Cal. 1979) ............................................................................................................11
23 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821(1985) ..................................................................18
24 Helgeson v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 153 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir.1998) .....................15
25
Knick v. T’ship of Scott, Penn., 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019) ...........................................16
26
McConnell v. PacifiCorp Inc., 2007 WL 2385096, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17,
27 2007) .....................................................................................................................11
28
iii
McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr. Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) ....................................19
1
2 Mich. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 667 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2011) (Wood, J.) ......13
3 Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 758 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2014) (Wood,
J.) ..........................................................................................................................12
4
5 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
29 (1983)...............................................................................................................19
6
Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. F.E.R.C., 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir.
7
2007) .....................................................................................................................20
8
Newman v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................17
9
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 465 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) .......16
10
11 Paterno v. State of California, 74 Cal. App. 4th 68, 104 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) ......11
12 Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984)......................21
13 People v. Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist., 127 Cal. App. 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932) ............12
14
Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................17
15
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ...........................................................20
16
17 Roy v. Kentucky State Police, 881 F. Supp. 290 (W.D. Ky. 1995) .........................20
18 The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) v. U.S., 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989) ................13
19 Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535 (1988) ...............................................................15
20 Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ............................13
21
Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr. v. F.T.C., 911 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1990).............................16
22
Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (22 Cal. App. 3d 116, 129).................11
23
24 Veterans For Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011) ................13
25 Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) ......................................................................18

26 Williamson County Reg. Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985)
27 ..............................................................................................................................16
28
iv
Win Win Aviation, Inc. v. Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff’s Dept., 2015
1
WL 1197534 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2015) ................................................................13
2
Statutes
3
28 U.S.C. § 1331 ......................................................................................................19
4
5 42 U.S.C. § 264 ........................................................................................................18
6 5 U.S.C. § 702 ..........................................................................................................12
7 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) .....................................................................................................19
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v
1 Plaintiffs submit the following Reply in Support of their Amended and

2 Updated Ex Parte Application for TRO and Order to Show Cause Re Issuance of
3 Preliminary Injunction (the “Application,” Dkt. No. 4).1
4 I. INTRODUCTION
5 If there were any doubt that the federal government has no plan and is not
6 acting in the best interests of the community, those doubts have been laid to rest by
7 the Federal Government’s most recent actions. On February 23, 2020, President
8 Trump spoke with Alabama Senator Richard Shelby and promised to protect the
9 people of Alabama by not sending Coronavirus patients to that state even though the
10 facility there is a former military base, a multi-jurisdictional training center for
11 chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, and one of the most suitable
12 in the country to handle the unique challenges of isolating and treating Coronavirus
13 patients. Yet Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar confirmed to
14 Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers that no one exposed to Coronavirus would be
15 sent to the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, Alabama.
16 Instead, it now seems like the entire national burden of isolating and caring
17 for this entire cohort of people in the United States infected with the Coronavirus —
18 and perhaps more, once Costa Mesa is established as the “go to” place for these folks
19 — will fall on the community of Costa Mesa and its surrounding cities. The
20 Defendants have called this action interference with federal-state cooperation on
21 federal quarantine issues. (Dkt. 13 at 12.) To the contrary, it has shined a light on
22 the fact that the federal government is acting for arbitrary and capricious political
23 reasons, and not based on the best scientific evidence or to protect the public.
24 II. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS DRAMATICALLY FAVORS
PLAINTIFFS
25
As this Court ruled in its order granting a temporary restraining order, the
26
Plaintiffs have made a “strong showing of irreparable harm” (Dkt. 9 at 3), and “the
27
1
Plaintiffs adopt the same shorthand references as in their Application and in
28
their Further Statement Re Nuisance Claim (the “Further Statement,” Dkt. No. 11).
1
1 balance of equities tips heavily toward the Plaintiffs.” (Id.) Plaintiffs demonstrated
2 that severe public health and safety risks were likely to ensue if the Defendants
3 moved people infected with Coronavirus to an inadequate facility.
4 Around the world, countries are shutting down their borders, enforcing
5 curfews, aborting major cultural events, and cancelling school to try to prevent the
6 spread of this disease. The risk to Costa Mesa in terms of threats to public health
7 and safety and interference with daily life is severe. The threat of Coronavirus could
8 also bring commerce to a halt and keep people shut in their homes. Business and
9 tourism visits could drop off dramatically, events and conventions could be
10 canceled, jobs may be lost, millions of dollars in tax revenues could disappear, and
11 people might stay away from Costa Mesa and Orange County.
12 And Costa Mesa first responders and local hospitals will bear the worst of this
13 crisis, as the CDC has itself has acknowledged that it expects more people from the
14 Diamond Princess to test positive for the disease, become ill, and require treatment.
15 (Dkt. 1-1, Ex. 15.) In other words, contrary to the suggestions of the federal and
16 state government in their oppositions, there is almost no chance the medically fragile
17 individuals quarantined at Fairview will remain at Fairview and not expose the
18 broader community; many will end up in local hospitals, exposing first responders
19 and local medical staff, at the very least.
20 A. President Trump’s Promise to Alabama Confirms that
Coronavirus Patients Pose a Public Health Risk, and Reveals the
21 Federal Government’s Plan as an Effort to Use this Crisis as a
Political Weapon
22
23 President Trump put a finer point on the harm threatened against Costa Mesa
24 Sunday when he promised to protect Alabama residents from this very same danger
25 even though the facility in Alabama selected as a location to treat other Coronavirus
26 patients is far more secure and suitable for this purpose. The public statements of
27 Governor Ivey, Senator Shelby, and Congressman Rogers thanking President Trump
28 for cancelling the plans to use the Center for Domestic Preparedness and thereby
2
1 “keeping Alabamians safe,” make clear that President Trump’s promise presumed
2 that moving individuals with Coronavirus to the State of Alabama posed a danger to
3 that state’s public health and safety. (Further Decl. of Nahal Kazemi, “Kazemi 2nd
4 Decl.,” Ex. A.)
5 Moreover, if it were truly necessary to send the Coronavirus patients to new
6 locations now, then President Trump would not have withdrawn the Government’s
7 supposedly well thought out and scientifically based plan to locate the majority of
8 those patients at a facility in Alabama uniquely qualified to handle this threat. And
9 the people of Costa Mesa are now left to wonder if everyone infected with
10 Coronavirus will be housed in a dilapidated former assisted living facility the State
11 of California declared just three weeks ago to be unsuitable as an emergency shelter.
12 Indeed, the State determined this facility could not be used even as an alternative to
13 having people sleep on the street because it required two years and $25 million
14 dollars in rehabilitation just to make it habitable. Are the people of Costa Mesa
15 really supposed to believe this is the best location in the entire country to serve as
16 the frontline for combatting and containing this potential epidemic?
17 In the absence of any meaningful communication from the federal
18 government, Plaintiffs and the people of Costa Mesa and Orange County are left
19 wondering why their community was chosen and why Alabama was spared. Why
20 are secure federal facilities and specialized medical facilities inappropriate, but a
21 rundown former home for people with developmental disabilities is perfectly
22 situated to contain a dangerous and deadly disease? The concerns of the Plaintiffs
23 and the people of Costa Mesa and Orange County are not founded on baseless
24 rumors or fearmongering. Instead, the harm this virus could wreak on the
25 community is palpable, and is exacerbated by the fact that the information they are
26 receiving from the government is contradictory, incomplete, and constantly
27 changing. Instead of getting reassurance that the federal government is working to
28
3
1 keep this region safe, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated feel abandoned by their
2 government. Worse than abandoned, they feel targeted.
3 B. Plaintiffs’ Further Declarations Underscore the Potential Harm
and Explain that Plaintiffs Have Only Just Begun to Understand
4 the Potential Detrimental Impact to Their Community
5 City employees have filed additional declarations with this reply in support of
6 Plaintiffs’ positions, highlighting the startling lack of coordination at the local level
7 and how that lack of coordination is negatively affecting the City’s ability to respond
8 to any emergencies or public health threats arising from the use of Fairview to isolate
9 Coronavirus patients. For example, Acting Police Chief Bryan Glass identified key
10 information the City’s leadership would expect to receive in the event of a public
11 health emergency that would allow it to better coordinate with other levels of
12 government in responding to any threats. (Glass Decl. at ¶ 5.) He noted the failure
13 to include City leadership in the planning process here would hamper the City’s
14 ability to serve as an effective partner. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
15 Emergency Services Manager Jason Dempsey compared the bare bones and
16 unconfirmed information he received from Cal OES to the robust and detailed action
17 plan he would prepare for a relatively mundane event, like a football training camp
18 that was expected to pose no threat to the community. (Dempsey Decl. at ¶ 4.) He
19 gave detailed examples of information the City still did not have and which it needed
20 to ensure community safety in the event Fairview was used to isolate Coronavirus
21 patients. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
22 And City Manager LoriAnn Farrell Harrison described in her declaration the
23 normal methods and legal authorities relied on to coordinate among federal, state,
24 county, and local officials, including activation of the National Incident
25 Management System (NIMS), which is the standard protocol for coordinating a
26 whole government response to an emergency. (Farrell Harrison Decl. at ¶ 28.) The
27 NIMS system was not activated here, meaning critical information has not gotten to
28
4
1 those who need it and vital lines of communication have not been opened. (Id. at ¶
2 29).
3 Accordingly, and contrary to Defendants’ claims of robust coordination (Dkt.
4 14 at 2-4), the intentional exclusion of the public safety officials and emergency
5 managers with the best understanding of this community has ensured that planning
6 for the use of Fairview has been inadequate and incomplete, increasing the risk to
7 Costa Mesa and the surrounding area.
8 C. Defendants’ Suggestion that FDC is the Only Possible Site Because
it is the Only Suitable State-Owned Property Makes No Sense
9
10 Defendants expended a great deal of energy attacking the declaration of Costa
11 Mesa City Attorney Kim Barlow. They said it needed more details. (Dkt. 13 at 10.)
12 They said it was hearsay (even though the statements relayed in it were those of the
13 Defendant Department of General Services, making them admissible as those of a
14 party opponent. (Id.). And they said it didn’t address the particular usage proposed.
15 (Id.) But what Defendants did not do was dispute its accuracy. That is because the
16 facts are plain: On February 5, 2020, representatives of the State Department of
17 General Services, which has responsibility for the closure of the Fairview
18 Developmental Center, informed officials from the City of Costa Mesa that the site
19 was not suitable for use as an emergency homeless shelter. And the reason given
20 was the time (two years) and cost (approximately $25 million) necessary to make
21 the facility fit for that purpose. (Dkt. 4-3).
22 If it was the case not three weeks ago that the Fairview Developmental Center
23 was unfit as an alternative to people sleeping on the street, how are Plaintiffs to
24 believe that the minor modifications Defendants claim were made over the weekend
25 (Dkt. 14-3 at ¶5) were sufficient to make this facility better suited to now house,
26 isolate, treat, and care for highly contagious individuals than a FEMA center tailor-
27 made to this purpose?
28
5
1 Rather than confronting these facts, Defendants fall back on the position that
2 that no other state-owned facilities are suitable. But Defendants give no reason why
3 a facility must be state-owned to be used for this purpose. And there are certainly
4 better suited federal facilities. There are also better suited medical facilities, such as
5 all those designated to treat Ebola patients in 2014. As the Ocean View Unified
6 School District argued in its amicus brief in this case:
7
There are approved facilities that are well-positioned to
8 receive, treat, and suppress the spread of the Coronavirus.
9 In coordination with the CDC, California state officials
10 approved and designated certain hospitals to address the
Ebola virus. Those hospitals include Kaiser Oakland
11 Medical Center, Kaiser South Medical Center in
12 Sacramento, University of California San Francisco
13 Medical Center, University of California Davis Medical
Center in California.
14
(https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/viral/35-us-
15 hospitals-are-designated-ebola-treatment-centers). Based
16 on the designation of these facilities as Ebola virus
treatment centers, these facilities are much more
17
appropriate than Fairview, which is basically closed down.
18 These facilities have appropriate treatment rooms to
19 minimize or eliminate the spread of the Coronavirus.
20 More importantly, medical personnel and staff in these
facilities are rigorously trained in preventing the spread of
21
the Ebola virus, which procedures are very similar those
22 recommended by the CDC for treatment of the
23 Coronavirus.
24
Recently, 13 Americans infected with the Coronavirus
25 aboard a cruise ship off the coast of Japan were transported
26 to Omaha, Nebraska for treatment of the Coronavirus at
27 University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC).
(https://www.nebraskamed.com/biocontainment/coronavi
28 rus-qa-what-it-is-and-how-to-avoid-it). It is no
6
coincidence that UNMC is one of the 35 facilities

1
designated to treat the Ebola virus.”
2
3 Moreover, even if Defendants were correct that a dilapidated former assisted
4 living facility could somehow be made suitable with a few minor tweaks over a
5 weekend, then there is no reason another unused facility that is not in a densely
6 crowded city, adjacent to residential neighborhoods, major freeways, schools,
7 shopping centers, and a large airport, could not also be modified for this purpose.
8 At any rate, without any communication from Defendants, coupled with
9 evidence that a more suitable location was vetoed by the President for political
10 reasons, the Plaintiffs have ample reasons to conclude that the decision to place
11 infected individuals in Costa Mesa was not made in good faith nor based on sound,
12 scientific reasons.
13 D. The Federal and State Defendants’ Conflicting Narratives
Undermine Their Claimed Hardships
14
15 Around the world, public health experts’ best understanding of the
16 Coronavirus is constantly changing and incomplete. Plaintiffs recognize the strain
17 that these facts place on Defendants. But what Plaintiffs cannot understand, and
18 what clearly undermines the Federal and State Defendants’ claims that they are fully
19 coordinating with one another and deploying their superior expertise, are all the
20 contradictions in their respective filings.
21 The Federal Defendants claim that the infected individuals at issue are
22 asymptomatic, need no treatment, and will place no burden on Costa Mesa, its
23 emergency services, or its hospitals. (Dkt. 13-2 ¶7). The Federal Defendants insist
24 the infected people are only in need of a place to stay while they complete a fourteen-
25 day isolation period. (Dkt. 13-1 ¶10). In contrast, the State Defendants inform us
26 that these individuals have been diagnosed with the disease, hospitalized, treated,
27 released, and require 30 days’ isolation. (Dkt. 14-1 ¶10). The State Defendants add
28 that these people are extremely medically fragile, in need of close care, and cannot
7
1 be exposed to the stress of travel. (Id.; Dkt. 13 at p. 17). The Federal and State
2 Defendants cannot both be correct and the contradictions in their respective claims
3 show there is no meaningful coordination at any level.
4 Further, while the State asserts it has fully coordinated with the County Health
5 Agency and suggests the City is nothing more than an annoying interloper (Dkt. 14
6 at pp. 2-4), statements by the Orange County Health Agency expose this as yet
7 another inaccurate statement. Specifically, the Orange County Health Agency has
8 expressed its concern over Defendants’ hasty, ill-thought out, and poorly-
9 communicated plan. (Kazemi 2nd Decl., Ex. F). And the State has only this
10 weekend tried to coordinate with the County Health Agency (even though the Health
11 Agency has a mandated role in enforcing quarantines and protecting public health –
12 Dkt. 13 at p. 20). In response, the County Executive asked the state and federal
13 government to include Costa Mesa, neighboring cities, emergency managers, and
14 local hospitals in the process because of the vital role each would play in minimizing
15 the threat of this disease spreading throughout the community. (Kazemi 2nd Decl.,
16 Ex. G).
17 E. Defendants’ Narratives Conflict with the CDC’s Most Recent
Guidance about the Coronavirus and the Most Recent Scientific
18 Evidence
19 Defendants claim there is no alleged harm to Plaintiffs because there is no
20 threat of transmission and no threat of burden on the community’s public health and
21 emergency resources. But this is flatly contradicted by information the CDC
22 provided during its own teleconference on Friday. The CDC admitted on this call
23 that it expects more people from the Diamond Princess to not only contract the virus,
24 but to become ill and require care. (Dkt. 1-1, Ex. 15). And if all those people are
25 relocated to Costa Mesa, just where are they supposed to receive medical care?
26 According to the State’s regional director for the Office of Emergency Services, in
27 local hospitals. (Dkt. 4-5). In their Opposition, the Federal Defendants attacked the
28 Plaintiffs for relying on this communication as it supposedly only reflected initial
8
1 plans, (Dkt. 13 at p. 2), yet Defendants have refused to provide Plaintiffs with any
2 information other than these “initial plans.” Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to
3 assume that Defendants mean what they say when they state that people who become
4 ill from the disease will be transported to local hospitals.2
5 Defendants also ignore the burden that hosting federal health workers, support
6 staff, and security personnel in the community will impose. If protocols for
7 preventing transmission of the disease are still changing, there is a substantial
8 likelihood of transmission of the disease to those charged with caring for the
9 infected. Yet Defendants have provided no information on how they will prevent
10 this potential vector of transmission. Will they be providing housing for the
11 caregivers, medical personnel, and support staff at Fairview? Are they, too, to be
12 isolated ore quarantined? If so, will there be sufficient space at Fairview, now that
13 it seems that it is the only place in the entire country where the federal government
14 intends to isolate Coronavirus patients? And if the health care, security, and support
15 personnel are not going to be housed at Fairview, where will they stay and what
16 precautions will be taken to prevent transmission off campus? To the extent the
17 federal government can be said to have a plan, it has not shared that plan with the
18 Plaintiffs or other stakeholders at risk of harm.
19 Further, the most recent scientific evidence shows the incubation of this
20 disease may be as long as 24 days or longer. (Dkt. 1-1, Ex. 5). Scientific evidence
21 also shows the virus may remain active for as long as nine days on inanimate
22 surfaces, contradicting Defendants’ claim that only close contact with infected
23 individuals creates a risk. (Kazemi 2nd Decl., Ex. B). Individuals who have
24 2
Defendants also argued that leaving the infected people in Solano County
25 would put an unfair burden on that community’s public health resources. (Dkt. 14-
1 ¶23). But this contention is at odds with their assertion that caring for these
26
individuals poses no burden to the community where they are hosted. Nor can
27 defendants explain why moving them to a more densely populated and more
residential area without coordinating with the local government in that region is not
28
an unfair burden.
9
1 repeatedly tested negative for the disease have transmitted it to others. (Kazemi 2nd
2 Decl., Ex. C). And cases in Italy, Iran, and Hong Kong suggest the disease can be
3 passed without direct contact with an infected individual. (Dkt. 1-1, Ex. 9).
4 Plaintiffs acknowledge that a novel and highly contagious disease is difficult
5 to understand and even more difficult to combat. Mistakes are going to be made,
6 such as the laboratory mistake in San Diego that allowed an individual who was still
7 contagious to be released from the hospital. (Kazemi 2nd Decl., Ex. D). Or the
8 mistakes made by the Japanese government in not moving more quickly or
9 effectively to quarantine the Diamond Princess. (Kazemi 2nd Decl., Ex. E). Or our
10 own Federal Government’s decision to repatriate individuals who had the disease,
11 over the CDC’s objections. (Dkt. 1-1, Ex. 12).3 But Defendants should recognize
12 that whatever mistakes are made in handling patients at the Fairview Developmental
13 Center will be borne by Costa Mesa, Orange County, and all of Southern California,
14 at the very least. Insisting on such a makeshift facility in such a densely populated
15 area for this quarantine will surely increase exponentially the harms arising from
16 those mistakes.
17 Additionally, it is worth noting that if Fairview is the only site in the entire
18 United States deemed acceptable for housing Coronavirus patients, it will remain
19 that way. No other community will step up to help shoulder this burden. They will
20 instead appeal to the President to protect them from the harm the federal government
21 sees fit to impose on Costa Mesa. If Fairview becomes the one place with staff
22 trained and protocols in place to contain Coronavirus, the impetus will be to send all
23 Coronavirus infected individuals here. As the CDC now believes it can no longer
24 prevent but can only slow the community-based transmission of the disease,
25
3
Defendants dismissed Plaintiffs’ concerns as nothing more than internet-
26
based rumormongering. They did not, however, contradict the assertion that the
27 federal government overruled the CDC’s own determination that it was too much of
a public health risk to repatriate the infected individuals rather than leave them in
28
hospitals abroad for treatment. (Dkt. 1-1, Ex. 12).
10
1 Defendants have themselves admitted they expect this disease will spread in the
2 communities where it is located. As of now, the most likely place for community-
3 based transmission will be the only community where the federal government
4 intends to introduce significant numbers of people with the disease – Costa Mesa.
5 III. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THEIR CLAIMS
6 A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Nuisance Claims
7 Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs may not assert nuisance claims against
8 them are meritless. Plaintiffs have strong claims against both sets of Defendants
9 which compel immediate injunctive relief.
10 First, the State Defendants’ contention that Section 3482 of the California
11 Civil Code (“Section 3482”) shields them from Plaintiffs’ nuisance claims
12 oversimplifies California law and ignores the factual record showing that Defendants
13 have no plan, and that their reckless choice of an unsuitable quarantine site
14 needlessly exposes Plaintiffs to risks of tremendous harm.4
15 The California Supreme Court and numerous other courts interpreting
16 California law have long recognized that, “‘although [under Section 3482] an
17 activity authorized by statute cannot be a nuisance, the Manner in which the activity
18 is performed may constitute a nuisance.’” Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn.
19 v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 3d 86, 101 (Cal. 1979) (quoting Venuto v. Owens-
20 Corning Fiberglas Corp. (22 Cal. App. 3d 116, 129)). For example, where a public
21 improvement “is erected improperly, it cannot be fairly stated that the legislature
22 contemplated the doing of the very act causing damage.” Paterno v. State of
23 California, 74 Cal. App. 4th 68, 104 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (emphasis in original and
24 internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., McConnell v. PacifiCorp Inc., 2007
25 WL 2385096, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007) (Section 3482 did not bar plaintiffs’
26 nuisance claims where pleadings “allege[d] that the manner in which defendant
27
4
Section 3482 provides that “[n]othing which is done or maintained under the
28
express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.”
11
1 operated the dams has created a nuisance,” notwithstanding fact that project was
2 pursuant to a FERC-issued license); Bright v. East Side Mosquito Abatement Dist.,
3 168 Cal. App. 2d 7, 10-12 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959) (statute authorizing district to abate
4 mosquitoes did not permit abatement in such a manner as to create a nuisance
5 through the creation of a thick blanket of chemical fog which made it impossible for
6 motorists to see or to proceed safely down a highway); Ambrosini v. Alisal Sanitary
7 Dist., 154 Cal. App. 2d 720, 725-27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957) (statutory authorization to
8 construct a sewer outfall did not preclude nuisance liability for constructing a
9 defective outfall); People v. Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist., 127 Cal. App. 30, 36 (Cal. Ct.
10 App. 1932) (district’s statutory right to divert water from river did not give it the
11 right to do so without protecting fish, and its failure to do so was a public nuisance).
12 This commonsense rule is in accord with federal common law, which
13 similarly provides that a party may sue a federal agency under the federal common
14 law for creating a public nuisance caused by an agency’s selection of a course of
15 action to implement a policy. Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 758 F.3d
16 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2014) (Wood, J.) (“Mich. v. U.S. Army Corps II”).
17 Here, Defendants have, without coordinating with county or local officials, let
18 alone each other, decided to move forward with a quarantine in a manner that has a
19 high likelihood of introducing precisely the types of public health concerns that
20 nuisance laws are meant to abate.
21 Second, the Federal Defendants’ argument that the doctrine of sovereign
22 immunity bars Plaintiffs’ federal common law nuisance claims has no legal support.
23 Specifically, Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides a statutory
24 basis for a federal common law claim for nuisance. Section 702 provides:
25 An action in a court of the United States seeking relief
other than money damages and stating a claim that an
26 agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to
act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority
27 shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the
ground that it is against the United States or that the United
28 States is an indispensable party.
12
1 5 U.S.C. § 702 (emphasis added). “This waiver of immunity found in § 702 is

2 “generally applicable” and is not limited only to claims reviewable through the
3 APA.” Win Win Aviation, Inc. v. Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff’s Dept.,
4 2015 WL 1197534, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2015); see also Mich. v. U.S. Army
5 Corps of Eng’rs, 667 F.3d 765, 775 (7th Cir. 2011) (Wood, J.) (“Mich. v. U.S. Army
6 Corps I”) (“[T]he waiver in § 702 is not limited to claims brought pursuant to the
7 review provisions contained in the APA itself.”); Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n,
8 456 F.3d 178, 186 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity
9 applies to any suit whether under the APA or not.” (quotation marks omitted)); The
10 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) v. U.S., 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989) (§702’s waiver
11 of sovereign immunity applies more broadly than to actions under the APA itself);
12 Veterans For Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845, 865 (9th Cir. 2011) (same).
13 “The waiver covers actions that seek specific relief other than money
14 damages,” such as claims for injunctive relief. Mich. v. U.S. Army Corps I, 667 F.3d
15 at 2011. And in Mich. v. U.S. Army Corps I, the Seventh Circuit held that a federal
16 common law claim for nuisance may be maintained against the federal government
17 under Section 702. See id. at 774-76. Accordingly, the Federal Defendants’
18 observation that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not permit injunctive relief is
19 simply irrelevant because the FTCA is not the basis for Plaintiffs’ federal common
20 law nuisance claim. See id. at 776 (noting that, “[b]y its terms, the FTCA does not
21 apply to any federal common-law tort claim, no matter what relief is sought,”
22 explaining that “state tort law—not federal law—is the source of substantive liability
23 under the FTCA,” and reasoning that “if the FTCA could never apply to the type of
24 claim advanced, then there is no reason to think that it implicitly forbids a particular
25 type of relief for a claim outside its scope”).5
26
27 5
The Federal Defendants urge that they need more time to respond to Plaintiffs’
federal common law nuisance claims, but as of the filing of this reply, they have yet
28
to file a more detailed rebuttal to these claims.
13
B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Due Process and Civil

1 Rights Claims
2 The Court already identified the considerable liberty interests at stake here,
3 including the rights of Plaintiffs and others similarly situation to live in their homes,
4 go to school, travel, conduct business, engage in commerce, and participate in public
5 life. (Dkt. 9 at 3.) Defendants’ claims that these interests are not at stake rests on
6 the unsupportable position that housing Coronavirus patients at an ill-equipped
7 facility poses no threat to those interests. For the reasons stated above, Defendants
8 conduct directly and obviously threatens Plaintiffs’ liberty interests.6
9 Moreover, the decisions made by Defendants in narrowing down the list of all
10 places in the United States that could possibly serve this function to just this one
11 facility in Costa Mesa was clearly arbitrary. See Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554,
12 568 (9th Cir. 2009). It was selected over far more suitable facilities and is now the
13 only site under consideration after Senator Shelby asked the President to remove a
14 far more suitable location as a political favor. Fairview has no unique medical
15 equipment. It was not designed for patient isolation. It is not attached to a facility
16 specializing in infectious diseases. It is not remote from potential vectors of
17 transmission. And it is not even particularly habitable. Choosing this site over
18 others for political reasons and at the possible expense of public safety is precisely
19 the sort of arbitrary decision that due process protections exist to prevent.
20
21
22
23
24 6
Federal Defendants’ cursory standing arguments fail for the same reason. As
25 with their deficient due process arguments, they assume that Plaintiffs’ interests will
not be invaded by Defendants’ conduct. This is simply untrue. Defendants’ conduct
26
constitutes a “real” and “immediate” threat to those interests, including to the City’s
27 “proprietary interests,” which are “congruent” with those of its citizens. City of Los
Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102-03 (1983); City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d
28
1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004).
14
1 C. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their APA Claim

2 1. The Federal Defendants’ Decision is Reviewable by This
Court Under the APA
3
4 The Federal Defendants advance numerous arguments claiming that this
5 Court cannot review their administrative decision to place Coronoa virus-positive
6 patients in an unsecure, unfit facility. Federal Defendants’ argument neglects the
7 weight of the case law. In general, there is a “strong presumption that Congress
8 intends judicial review of administrative action.” Helgeson v. Bureau of Indian
9 Affairs, 153 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S.
10 535, 542 (1988)); see also Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140–41
11 (1967) (“[T]he Administrative Procedure Act ... embodies the basic presumption of
12 judicial review . . . . [O]nly upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a
13 contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review.”),
14 abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 (1977); ANA
15 Int’l, Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir.2004) (“The default rule is that agency
16 actions are reviewable ... even if no statute specifically authorizes judicial review”).
17 The Federal Defendants erroneously argue the Court cannot review their
18 placement decision because it is not a “final decision.” A decision is “final” under
19 the APA when two conditions are satisfied: “First, the action must mark the
20 ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decision-making process, it must not be of a merely
21 tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one by which
22 ‘rights or obligations have been determined,’ or from which ‘legal consequences will
23 flow.’” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997) (quotations and internal
24 citations omitted). Here, Federal Defendants’ decision to relocate the Corona virus-
25 positive patients to the unsecure Fairview facility — as Federal Defendants told the
26 City Council on Thursday night and President’s Trump’s decision on Sunday to
27 exclude the only alternative — confirms the agency’s decision-making process is
28 complete.
15
1 Moreover, legal consequences will flow from Federal Defendants’ decision.

2 The City currently leases recreation facilities from the Department of General
3 Services at Fairview allowing its residents to use a portion of the Fairview facility.
4 (Farrell Harrison Decl. at ¶ 33.) Upon placing and quarantining the patients at
5 Fairview, however, the quarantine procedures will eliminate the City’s right to use
6 Fairview facilities for its residents.
7 “[T]he general rule is that administrative orders are not final and reviewable
8 ‘unless and until they impose an obligation, deny a right, or fix some legal
9 relationship as a consummation of the administrative process. The legal relationship
10 need not alter the legal regime to which the involved federal agency is subject.”
11 Oregon Nat. Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 465 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir. 2006)
12 (emphasis in original; internal quotations, alterations, and citations omitted).
13 Likewise, a decision can satisfy the second Bennett element “if it has a ‘direct and
14 immediate . . . effect on the day-to-day business’ of the subject party.” Id. (quoting
15 Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr. v. F.T.C., 911 F.2d 261, 264 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also
16 Williamson County Reg. Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 193
17 (1985) (“the finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decision-
18 maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete
19 injury....”), overruled on other grounds, Knick v. T’ship of Scott, Penn., 139 S.Ct.
20 2162 (2019). Accordingly, because the Federal Defendants’ decision creates legal
21 consequences for the City’s lease (and inflicts an actual injury in the process), the
22 Federal Defendants’ decision is final.
23 Federal Defendants rely on Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Department of
24 Agriculture to contend that if an agency exercises its discretion, that act is not a
25 “final decision.” (Fed. Defs.’ Opp’n at 17-18.) But their reliance on Gallo is
26 misplaced. There, the plaintiff was a milk producer required under federal law to
27 pay assessments to the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board; the plaintiff
28 challenged the constitutionality of these assessments in an ongoing administrative
16
1 proceeding and sought permission to escrow current and future assessments pending
2 resolution of the administrative proceeding. The administrative officer denied the
3 request to escrow the payments. The Ninth Circuit held the officer’s decision was
4 “not a ‘final agency action’ because it does not determine the rights or obligations
5 of the parties, nor are there legal consequences flowing from it.” The obligation to
6 pay assessments arose under the applicable federal law, not from the officer’s denial
7 of interim relief: “The judicial officer's denial of interim relief imposes no obligation
8 on Gallo at all. Further, there are no legal consequences arising from the decision
9 denying interim relief, nor does the decision fix the rights of the parties.” Gallo, 159
10 F.3d at 1199. Here, however, Federal Defendants’ decision to commandeer
11 Fairview will cause legal consequences for the City by depriving it of a facility it is
12 contractually entitled to use.
13 The Federal Defendants next argue the Court should refrain from intervening
14 in their arbitrary decision because the APA does not allow review of an agency
15 decision if the applicable statute vests discretion with the agency, and — according
16 to Federal Defendants — 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) does just that. (Fed. Defs.’ Opp’n at
17 16-17.) But the Ninth Circuit has addressed and rejected the argument Federal
18 Defendants advance here.
19 “[T]he mere fact that a statute contains discretionary language does not
20 make agency action unreviewable.” Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648
21 F.3d 708, 718–19 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added; internal citation and quotation
22 omitted). See also ASSE Int’l, Inc. v. Kerry, 803 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2015)
23 (holding that where a statute vested discretion with the State Department, “that does
24 not deprive [the court] of the right to review [an agency’s] actions for an abuse of its
25 discretion or to determine if its actions were otherwise arbitrary and capricious”);
26 Newman v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The fact that an agency has
27 broad discretion in choosing whether to act does not establish that the agency may
28 justify its choice on specious grounds. To concede otherwise would be to disregard
17
1 entirely the value of political accountability, which itself is the very premise of
2 administrative discretion in all its forms.”); Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057 at 1066,
3 1068 (9th Cir. 1994) (decision of the Secretary of Health & Human Services to grant
4 a waiver to California to permit greater experimentation with administration of
5 welfare benefits was reviewable even though the statute permits the Secretary to
6 authorize waivers only “to the extent and for the period the Secretary finds
7 necessary,” and which “in the judgment of the Secretary [are] likely to assist in
8 promoting[statutory] objectives”). Rather, the judicial review is precluded only in
9 “‘those rare instances where statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given
10 case there is no law to apply,’ Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 599 (1988), thereby
11 leaving the court with ‘no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s
12 exercise of discretion.’ Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985); see 5 U.S.C.
13 § 701(a)(2).” Pinnacle Armor, 648 F.3d at 719.
14 Here, the Federal Defendants rely on 42 U.S.C. § 264, which provides ample
15 standards for the Court to judge the agency’s exercise of its discretion. Under § 264,
16 and the correlated C.F.R. provisions, the Surgeon General is permitted to promulgate
17 regulations “necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of
18 communicable diseases[.]” The Federal Defendants’ decision can therefore be
19 examined in this context, which the Federal Defendants admit applies.
20 Applying the standard in § 264 reveals the Federal Defendants’ decision does
21 not further their statutory obligation to make decisions in a manner that will prevent
22 the transmission of Corona Virus. The Federal Defendants’ decisions defy common
23 sense. It is impossible to fathom how a rundown building just deemed unfit to be an
24 emergency homeless shelter, located in a densely populated area, can be the best
25 place in the entire country to isolate individuals with Coronavirus. The crumbling
26 and obsolete infrastructure of Fairview and its incompatibility with the CDC’s own
27 guidelines for isolation would make it a truly illogical choice, even if it were not
28
18
1 located in one of the most densely populated parts of one of the most densely
2 populated counties in the country.
3 Finally, Federal Defendants claim that there is no independent jurisdiction
4 under the APA. But, where a plaintiff alleges federal constitutional violations as a
5 result of an agency’s decision, federal question jurisdiction already exists under 28
6 U.S.C. § 1331. See, e.g., McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr. Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 498
7 (1991) (holding that a statutory preclusion provision did not deprive courts of
8 constitutional challenges to agency conduct).
9 2. Federal Defendants’ Decision to Relocate Coronavirus-
Positive patients to a Dilapidated Former Assisted Living
10 Facility for Their Own Convenience and Expediency is
11 Arbitrary and Capricious
12 The APA requires that where, as here, an agency acts in a manner that is
13 “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
14 law,” the reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside [the] agency action,
15 findings, and conclusions.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). “[W]hile formal findings are not
16 required, the record must be sufficient to support the agency action, show that the
17 agency has considered the relevant factors, and enable the court to review the
18 agency's decision.” Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057, 1074 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing
19 Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744, (1985)). An agency rule
20 is “arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has
21 not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
22 problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence
23 before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference
24 in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc.
25 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
26 It is difficult to imagine a decision-making process more arbitrary and
27 capricious than the one seen here. The federal government has taken out of
28 consideration a facility on a secure installation, with the infrastructure, equipment,
19
1 and trained personnel to handle isolation of highly infectious individuals because a

2 political ally of the President asked him to do so. There is no question that Congress
3 did not intend for the executive branch to treat this decision-making process as a
4 way to reward political allies, at the expense of public health. Eliminating a well-
5 suited facility in favor of a very poorly suited one for reasons having nothing to do
6 with good public policy or sound science is the paradigmatic arbitrary act.
7 The Federal Defendants’ argument that there is no final decision which
8 Plaintiffs can challenge is also inconsistent with the State’s position that there is
9 literally nowhere else to send these individuals. Now that the Federal Defendants
10 can no longer look to Alabama as an alternative, the decision to infected people at
11 Fairview appears to be a fait accompli. And refusing to publicly acknowledge that
12 does not make it less true.
13 D. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Tenth Amendment Claim
14 Plaintiffs also have a viable Tenth Amendment claim, which likewise supports
15 injunctive relief. And the Federal Defendants’ contention that anti-commandeering
16 principles do not apply here because Plaintiffs are not “State of California officers”
17 misunderstands the law. These principles are not limited to state officials. To the
18 contrary, they apply with equal force to local officials. See, e.g., Printz v. United
19 States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997) (“The Federal Government may neither issue
20 directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the
21 States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a
22 federal regulatory program.”) (emphasis added); Roy v. Kentucky State Police, 881
23 F. Supp. 290, 292 n.4 (W.D. Ky. 1995); see also Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util.
24 Comm'rs v. F.E.R.C., 475 F.3d 1277, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“In Printz the Court
25 found that New York 's anti-commandeering principle precluded a provision of the
26 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring local law enforcement officers
27 to help conduct background checks on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm”)
28 (emphasis added).
20
IV. THE STATE DEFENDANTS’ FLAWED “SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY”

1 ARGUMENTS DO NOT BAR PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIMS AGAINST THEM
2
A. Plaintiffs’ Coming Complaint Will Include the Relevant California
3 State Officials
4 State and federal officials announced their plan under the cover of darkness at
5 the eleventh hour. Clearly, time did not permit Plaintiffs to list in Friday’s
6 emergency filing the names of the involved California officials who are included as
7 defendants in the coming complaint. But rest assured, they are named and must
8 answer for their ongoing violations of Plaintiff Foley and other individuals’ civil
9 rights and their substantive and procedural due process rights.
10 Based on the Supreme Court’s holding in the seminal Ex Parte Young case,
11 naming the relevant state officials as defendants to Plaintiffs’ coming claims
12 eliminates any potential Eleventh Amendment concerns. See, e.g., Ex Parte Young,
13 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permitting federal suits against state officials to obtain
14 prospective relief against violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.) The State
15 Defendants cite Ex Parte Young but contend that case does not apply. See State Opp.
16 at 18. Not so. Ex Parte Young clearly applies because Plaintiffs’ claims are “for
17 prospective injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacities for their
18 alleged violations of federal law.” Id.
19 In addition, the State Opposition’s argument about Pennhurst State School &
20 Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), is as misinformed as it is misleading. That
21 case held that Ex Parte Young did not permit suits in federal courts against state
22 officers alleging violations of state law. But it reaffirmed that Ex Parte Young
23 permits suits in federal court against state officials alleging violations of federal law.
24 Id. Pennhurst also reiterated the well-established federal principle that “a suit
25 challenging the constitutionality of a state official’s action is not one against the
26 State.” 465 U.S. at 102. Here, Plaintiffs’ claims against state officials are not based
27 on state law. They challenge the federal constitutionality of the actions of the to-be-
28 named California officials, who will need to answer for their violations of federal
21
1 law, including the Fourteenth Amendment (as well as Section 1983 and potentially
2 other federal statutes).
3 The State Defendants’ other flawed arguments contend they are but pawns in
4 this Fairview debacle because “it is the federal government’s responsibility to
5 provide security and safety precautions for housing of quarantined patients at the
6 Fairview facility.” See State Opp. at 19. Nonsense. First, that argument presents a
7 highly factual issue for which the State Defendants’ opposition provides insufficient
8 evidence. Second, that argument is belied by the undisputed fact that Fairview is not
9 federal property. Third, the relevant state officials cannot abandon their duties and
10 responsibilities to the people of Costa Mesa and California because “the Feds made
11 us do it.” Id. Nor can the State Defendants reconcile their claim of purported
12 “sovereign immunity” with their simultaneous – and unsupported – contention that
13 the involved California officials are somehow powerless against the Federal
14 government.
15 B. The Opposition Does Not Address Governor Newsom’s and the
California Legislature’s Positions as to Whether Plaintiffs’ Claims
16 May Go Forward in this Court, Leaving Open the Possibility That
They Will Consent
17
18 The State Defendants concede that Plaintiffs’ claims against them can proceed
19 with the consent of the State of California. See State Opp. at 17. But their
20 Opposition makes no mention of Governor Newsom’s or the California Legislature’s
21 position on the matter.7 Until the Court has heard from those branches of
22 government, any consent and/or waiver arguments remain open, and any and all
23 claims directly against the State Defendants should move forward.
24
25
7
Notably, Governor Newsom made clear last May that Fairview required “a
26
site evaluation” and presented “constraints” in meeting housing and homelessness
27 needs. See, e.g., https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2020-02-
23/federal-agencies-respond-to-costa-mesas-temporary-restraining-order-calling-it-
28
disruptive-interference.
22
C. The State Defendants Ignore How the Fourteenth Amendment

1 Prevails in a Direct Clash with The Eleventh Amendment
2 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “No State shall make or
3 enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
4 United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
5 without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
6 protection of the laws.”
7 The State Defendants’ opposition glaringly ignores the Supreme Court’s
8 decision in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), regarding the interplay
9 between the Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments. Fitzpatrick made clear that the
10 Fourteenth Amendment trumps the Eleventh when the two are directly in conflict.
11 Id. The decision in Fitzpatrick was based upon the rationale that the Fourteenth
12 Amendment, adopted well after the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification of the
13 Constitution, operated to alter the pre-existing balance between state and federal
14 power achieved by the Constitution and the Eleventh Amendment. Id. By ratifying
15 the Fourteenth Amendment, the states surrendered a portion of the sovereignty that
16 had been preserved to them by the original Constitution, including their right to
17 sovereign immunity when in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. “The
18 substantive provisions [of the Fourteenth Amendment] are, by express terms,
19 directed at the States. Impressed upon them by those provisions are duties with
20 respect to their treatment of private individuals.” Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 454.
21 Plaintiffs’ action seeks to prevent the State of California and its officers from
22 further violating California citizens’ procedural and substantive due process rights
23 under the Fourteenth Amendment. The State Defendants are subjecting the residents
24 of Costa Mesa (and the rest of California) to significant risk of disease and even
25 death. In this action, the Fourteenth Amendment is directly in conflict with the
26 Eleventh Amendment. In such situations, the Fourteenth Amendment prevails
27 (Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 454), and Plaintiffs can bring claims directly against the
28 State Defendants without any bar from the Eleventh Amendment.
23
V. AT A MINIMUM, THE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE PLAINTIFFS

1 TIME TO MARSHAL THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE THAT
DEFENDANTS HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO KEEP FROM THEM
2
3 In the event the Court finds the Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial
4 likelihood of success on the merits, the Court should still enjoin the transfer of people
5 exposed or infected with Coronavirus to Costa Mesa. Under the sliding scale variant
6 of the standard for granting a temporary restraining order, the Court should grant the
7 order when the balance of hardships tilts sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor (as it does here),
8 so long as there are serious questions going to the merits of the case. Alliance For
9 The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
10 Here, Defendants have shrouded from the public their decision-making
11 process, their plans to minimize risk to the community, and whether they intend to
12 follow the latest scientific evidence or rely on outdated protocols. Their claims of
13 unique and unmatched expertise ring hollow given their own about-face on the use
14 of a far more appropriate facility on grounds unrelated to good science. Their own
15 briefing suggests confusion among them as to who will be served at this facility,
16 what their needs are, how long they will be there, and whether they are likely to
17 depend on local health care resources.
18 Plaintiffs respectfully request that if the Court does not continue the temporary
19 restraining order or issue a preliminary injunction, it orders, at a minimum,
20 evidentiary hearings on the safety and suitability of Fairview. Finally, should the
21 Court deny Plaintiffs’ requested relief and declines to order any such hearings,
22 Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court issue a stay until next Monday to allow
23 Plaintiffs to file an appeal and emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit.
24 VI. CONCLUSION
25 Plaintiffs’ Application asked this Court to temporarily restrain Defendants
26 from transporting persons infected with or exposed to the Coronavirus to any place
27 within Costa Mesa, California until an adequate site survey has been conducted, the
28 designated site has been determined suitable for this purpose, all necessary
24
1 safeguards and precautions have been put in place, and the public and local
2 government have been informed of all efforts to mitigate risk of transmission of the
3 disease. These requests made sense at the time of Plaintiffs’ original application.
4 But as Plaintiffs have acquired more information about Defendants’ reckless
5 and arbitrary decision-making, as well as their total lack of meaningful coordination,
6 Plaintiffs now believe evidentiary hearings are warranted and essential for
7 determining whether Defendants should move forward at all in Costa Mesa.
8 Accordingly, Plaintiffs also respectfully request further evidentiary hearings to
9 address the significant questions about the safety and suitability of Fairview for
10 housing Coronavirus patients.
11
12 Dated: February 24, 2020 KELLER/ANDERLE LLP
13
By: /s/ Jennifer L. Keller
14 Jennifer L. Keller
15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
City of Costa Mesa and Katrina Foley
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:351

2 jkeller@kelleranderle.com
4 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 930
Irvine, CA 92612
5 T: (949) 476-8700
6 F: (949) 476-0900

8 CITY OF COSTA MESA and KATRINA FOLEY
9
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION
12
13 CITY OF COSTA MESA, and Case No.
KATRINA FOLEY,
14
FURTHER DECLARATION OF
15 Plaintiff, NAHAL KAZEMI IN SUPPORT
OF EX PARTE APPLICATION
16 vs. FOR TEMPORARY
17 RESTRAINING ORDER AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY
18 AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE INJUNCTION
19 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, THE UNITED STATES
20 AIR FORCE, THE CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND
22 CALIFORNIA, FAIRVIEW
DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
23 (FAIRVIEW), THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF
24 EMERGENCY SERVICES, and THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
26
Defendants.
27
28
FURTHER DECLARATION OF NAHAL KAZEMI IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
1 I, Nahal Kazemi, declare as follows:

2 1. I am senior counsel at Keller/Anderle LLP, counsel of record for
3 Plaintiffs City of Costa Mesa and Katrina Foley in City of Costa Mesa and
4 Katrina Foley vs. United States, et al. I have personal knowledge of the
5 information stated below and could testify to it under oath.
6 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an article entitled
7 “Sen. Shelby & Gov. Ivey: Trump says Alabama coronavirus quarantine plan will
8 not happen,” ABC News, February 23, 2020, downloaded from
9 https://abc3340.com/news/local/sen-shelby-gov-ivey-trump-says-alabama-
10 coronavirus-quarantine-plan-will-not-happen.
11 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a Jan. 31, 2020
12 article entitled “Persistence of coronavirus on inanimate surfaces and their
13 inactivation with biocidal agents,” Journal of Hospital Infection.
14 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a February 21,
15 2020 article entitled “Without Symptoms or Clear Test Results, Woman May
16 Have Still Spread Coronavirus,” U.S. News and World Report, , downloaded
17 from: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-02-21/without-
18 symptoms-or-clear-test-results-woman-may-have-still-spread-coronavirus/.
19 5. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a February 10,
20 2020 article, entitled “CDC mistakenly removes San Diego’s first positive
21 coronavirus case from hospital,” San Diego Union-Tribune, downloaded from:
22 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2020-02-10/san-diego-
23 county-has-firt.
24 6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a February 22,
25 2020 article, entitled “We’re in a Petri Dish: How a Coronavirus Ravaged a Cruise
26 Ship,” New York Times, downloaded from:
27 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/world/asia/coronavirus-japan-cruise-
28 ship.html.
1
INJUNCTION
1 7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a February 22,

2 2020 Press Release from the Orange County Health Agency entitled “Statement of
3 Support for City of Costa Mesa’s Legal Action to Temporarily Halt Use of
4 Fairview Developmental Center as COVID-19 Quarantine Facility” downloaded
5 from: http://www.ochealthinfo.com/about/admin/pubs/press.
6 8. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an email I
7 received on February 23, 2020 from Costa Mesa City Manager, forwarding a letter
8 from Frank Kim, the Orange County Executive Officer.
9 9. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a February 23,
10 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Summary published by the
11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, downloaded from:
12 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/summary.html.
13 10. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the 2018-2019
14 Travel Costa Mesa Annual Report, downloaded from:
15 http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2019/2019-05-07/CC-8-
16 Attach-1.pdf.
17 11. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of a February 23,
18 2020 article entitled “Coronavirus strikes Italy: Austria blocks ALL trains crossing
19 the border after THREE people die and more than 150 fall ill in outbreak - as
20 Venice carnival is cancelled and Armani fashion show is axed, with 12 towns put
21 into lockdown,” The Daily Mail, downloaded from:
22 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8034547/Giorgio-Armani-cancels-
23 Milan-fashion-coronavirus-killed-two-people-near-city.html
24 12. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a February 24,
25 2020 article entitled “Shipping lines face troubled waters as oil tankers, container
26 carriers and cruise lines stop calling on China for fear of catching the coronavirus”
27 downloaded from:
28
2
INJUNCTION
1 https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/3051784/shipping-lines-face-
2 troubled-waters-oil-tankers-container
3 13. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the Transcript for
4 CDC Telebriefing: Update on COVID-19, dated February 21, 2020, downloaded
5 from: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0221-cdc-telebriefing-covid-
6 19.html
7 14. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of Natsuko Imai, et
8 al. Report 3: Transmissibility of 2019-nCoV (Jan. 2020), downloaded from:
9 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-
10 fellowships/Imperial-2019-nCoV-transmissibility.pdf
11 15. Attached as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of a LIVESCIENCE
12 article titled How long can the new coronavirus last on surfaces?, dated February
13 18, 2020, downloaded from: https://www.livescience.com/how-long-coronavirus-
14 last-surfaces.html
15 16. Attached as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of a Science Daily
16 article titled, Spread of coronavirus underestimated, review finds, dated February
17 14, 2020, downloaded from:
18 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200214111519.htm
19 17. Attached as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of a CNBC news
20 article titled, France has seen a 30% to 40% fall in tourists following the
21 coronavirus outbreak: Finance minister, dated February 23, 2020, downloaded
22 from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/23/coronavirus-impact-france-sees-tourism-
23 numbers-fall-by-30percent-to-40percent.html
24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the
25 best of knowledge and recollection.
26 Executed on February 24, 2020.
27
Nahal Kazemi
28
3
INJUNCTION
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE Document 19-10 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 53 Page ID
#:398
#:399
2018/ 19 ANNUAL REPORT

#:400
TABLE OF CONTENTS
#:401
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 4
MISSION OF TRAVEL COSTA MESA 5
FISCAL OVERVIEW 6
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM IN OC 10
U.S. TRAVEL FACTS 10
AIRLIFT 11
CALIFORNIA’S TOP INTERNATIONAL MARKETS 12
OC VISITOR STATS 14
NEW SUPPLY IN OC 15
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM IN COSTA MESA 16
COSTA MESA & OC ECONOMICS 17
FOOD TRENDS 18
MARKETING 20
WEBSITE OVERVIEW 27
PARTNERSHIPS 30
SOCIAL MEDIA AND INFLUENCERS 37
IPW AND OC MARATHON 34
PUBLIC RELATIONS 41
MEDIA COVERAGE 45
ACCOLADES 48
BOARD MEMBERS 50
#:402
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE \
TOURISM
“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what
you’ve always got,” Henry Ford once said. Travel Costa Mesa (TCM)
has cultivated several exciting changes this past year. At the end of
fiscal year 2017-2018, TCM began the process of a brand refresh that
focused on website, logo redesign and a dynamic marketing approach
dedicated to the current core demographic. The TCM team also
embarked on a new partnership with an innovative ad agency that is
revitalizing our brand.
An economic report from Tourism Economics was commissioned

that focused on the total impact of tourism within the city outlining
the specific benefits. Visitor volume and spending in Costa Mesa has
outpaced that of the state since 2012. Orange County findings reveal
that visitor volume and spending continues to exceed state growth
since 2010.
The LA Times and TCM launched The TASTE in October, which

brought together restaurants that epitomize the culinary scene. This
multi-day event created an incredible marketing opportunity that
amplified the message of Costa Mesa as a foodie destination in a
competitive market.
The economic benefits of tourism are vital to the success of our

nation, state and city. In 2017, domestic and international travelers
spent $1.036 billion in the U.S. Tax revenues totaled $164.7 billion for
federal, state and local governments. Travel-related spending within
the state of California increased 4.8 percent in 2017, totaling $132.4
billion. Room demand increased 1.4 percent and travel-generated tax
revenue grew to $10.9 billion. Orange County (OC) visitor volume
and spending also grew in 2017. Visitors to OC spent $13.5 billion,
4 percent more than the previous year. Costa Mesa visitors spent
$738 million in 2017, up 4 percent from the previous year and visitor
volume increased 3.6 percent.
International Pow Wow (IPW) will make its way to Anaheim June 1-5,
2019. This tradeshow is the U.S. Travel Association’s premier travel
industry marketplace and the largest generator of travel to the U.S.
This will be the ninth year our organization will be participating. We
will partner with Segerstrom Center for the Arts, South Coast Plaza,
OC Fair & Event Center as well as others to showcase the City of the
Arts® to media and the meetings and incentive markets worldwide.
The TCM brand is reenergized! With the dedication of the team and
support from the community, the City of the Arts® is poised to reach
and welcome more guests than ever.
Paulette Lombardi-Fries
PRESIDENT, TRAVEL COSTA MESA
#:403
TRAVEL COSTA MESA’S \
MISSION, VISION
& KEY OBJECTIVE
I In 1995, Travel Costa Mesa was formed as a nonprofit corporation to market the
city of Costa Mesa as a desirable, leisure overnight destination in Orange County.
MISSION
STATEMENT
Travel Costa Mesa enhances and
promotes the destination brand
experience, further increasing
visitor spending for industry and
community economic viability,
sustainability and quality of life.
VISION
STATEMENT
Travel Costa Mesa is the engaged
destination marketing leader,
supporting and selling the city’s
distinct visitor brand experiences
and advocating community tourism
benefits.
KEY
OBJECTIVE
Increase brand awareness for the
city of Costa Mesa as a desirable,
overnight, leisure Orange County
destination.
// TRAVEL COSTA MESA // 5

#:404
#:405
A CLOSER LOOK \
FISCAL OVERVIEW
#:406
BIA \
METHOD
& BASIS OF LEVY
The proposed method and basis of levying the assessment to allow each business owner to estimate the
amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business are set forth according to City of Costa
Mesa Ordinance 95-9, and is as follows:

The BIA assessment will be used to fund TCM. The organization will fund marketing efforts to promote
tourism in Costa Mesa and will sponsor related tourist events that benefit the hotel and motel businesses
within the City.

The improvements and marketing funded by this assessment are outlined in the annual report.
REVENUE
A three percent (3%) levy will be assessed against each of the 11 hotels listed in the annual report,
based on the net revenue from the sale of overnight room stays.

Business owners shall pay the assessment to the Costa Mesa City Finance Department on a
monthly basis. A penalty and interest shall be assessed on late payments.
New hotel and motel businesses that are interested in participating in the BIA should contact the
City and TCM. This is a voluntary program for hotel partners.
FISCAL YEAR 2018-2019

TCM is forecasting a budget of $2.62M for fiscal year ending June 2019. As of February 2019, BIA funds
are at $1,865,352.80. The following represent the primary expense projects for the current fiscal year:
2% ART/TRANSPORTATION
11%

TOTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES
24%

TOTAL
63% TOTAL
EMPLOYEE
EXPENSES
MARKETING
EXPENSES
8 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:407
LODGING \
HOTEL
PARTNERS
LODGING ADDRESS BUSINESS OWNER PROPERTY OWNER
Avenue of the Arts 3350 Avenue of the Arts Rosanna Inc. Rosanna Inc.
Costa Mesa Costa Mesa, CA 92626 3350 Avenue of the Arts 3350 Avenue of the Arts
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Ayres Hotel 325 Bristol Street Newport Country Inn & Suites, Inc. Newport Country Inn & Suites, Inc.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 355 Bristol St., Suite A 355 Bristol St., Suite A
Best Western Plus 2642 Newport Blvd. James Hsuen & Shang-Pu Lee James Hsuen & Shang-Pu Lee
Newport Mesa Inn Costa Mesa, CA 92627 2642 Newport Blvd. 2642 Newport Blvd.
Hilton 3050 Bristol Street Ashford TRS CM LLC Remington Lodging & Hospitality LP
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1100 14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75254 Dallas, TX 75254
Crowne Plaza 3131 Bristol Street Brighton Management Bright Bristol Street, LLC
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1901 Main Street, Suite 150 3131 Bristol Street
Irvine, CA 92614 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Holiday Inn Express 2070 Newport Blvd. Narendra B. Patel Narendra B. Patel
Hotel & Suites Costa Mesa, CA 92627 2070 Newport Blvd. 2070 Newport Blvd.
Marriott 500 Anton Blvd. Host Hotels & Resorts HEI Hotels & Resorts
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 6903 Rockledge Dr., Suite 1500 101 Merritt 7 Corporate Park, 1st Floor
Bethesda, MD 20817 Norwalk, CT 06851
Ramada Inn & Suites 1680 Superior Ave. B.D. Inn Inc./Ramada Ltd. B.D. Inn Inc./Ramada Ltd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 1680 Superior Ave. 1680 Superior Ave.
Residence Inn 881 Baker Street Marriott International BRE Hotels & Resorts
by Marriott Costa Mesa, CA 92626 10400 Fernwood Rd. 6201 15th Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20817 Brooklyn, NY 11219
The Westin 686 Anton Blvd. Host Hotels & Resorts CJ Segerstrom & Sons
South Coast Plaza Costa Mesa, CA 92626 6903 Rockledge Dr., Suite 1500 c/o South Coast Plaza
Bethesda, MD 20817 686 Anton Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
BLVD Hotel 2430 Newport Blvd. Hollywood Corner Inc. Shyamal Patel
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 2430 Newport Blvd. 16609 Honeybee Dr.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Tustin, CA 92782

#:408
AMERICA’S LEADING INDUSTRY \
TOURISM
In 2017, 15.6 million American jobs were supported by the travel industry. One out of 9 U.S. jobs depend on travel and tourism. Travel is among the top 10
industries in 49 states and D.C. in terms of employment. This industry alone generated $2.4 trillion in economic output.
Domestic leisure travel accounted for over 70 percent of all domestic travel within the U.S. Approximately 1.8 billion person-trips* took place in 2017 which
was an increase of 2.1 percent from the year prior. Domestic business travel increased over 1 percent and accounted for 462 million person-trips.
International arrivals to the U.S. also increased in 2017 to 76.9 million up .7 percent from the previous year. Arrivals from Canada and Mexico totaled 38
million and overseas markets represented 38.9 million. Overseas travelers spend over $4,200 when they visit, and their average length of stay is 18 nights.
They represent 51 percent of all international arrivals and account for 84 percent of international travel spending.
74% 2017
of domestic trips taken TOP 10
 are for leisure purposes INTERNATIONAL
MARKETS TO THE U.S.
DID $131.9 billion Origin Visitations
YOU of Visitor in Millions
KNOW?  The amount of Meeting & Incentive

travel accounted for all business
travel spending
Canada
Mexico
20.2
17.8
U.K. 4.5
 $164.7 billion Japan 3.6

China 3.2
Total tax revenue generated by travel
spending for federal, state & local South Korea 2.3
governments Germany 2.1
Brazil 1.9
France 1.7
LEISURE CONSUMER INSIGHTS Australia 1.3
(residents within California)
89.3% MARKET CONDITIONS

of residents drive
FOR THE GOLDEN STATE
29% California welcomed over 230 million
travel with children leisure guests in 2018. It continues
under the age of 18 to have a strong domestic market and
remains the number one destination in
62%
the country. More than three fourths of
the state’s visitors, over 217 million, are
from within the United States and over
decide where they are
13 million are international guests. The
going to travel less state continues to see an increase in
than one month out international travel however, modestly
at .7 percent in 2018. Mexico, Canada
Data from U.S. Travel Association
*A person-trip is defined as one person spending the and China remain as California’s top
night away from home in paid accommodations or on international markets.
a day trip which is 50 miles or more away from home.
10 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:409
CALIFORNIA TOP MARKETS
TOP LONG-HAUL MARKETS PRIMARY WESTERN MARKETS

• TOP DMAs: New York City (12.8%); Chicago (7.9%); • TOP DMAs: Las Vegas (24.3%); Phoenix (23.9%); Seattle (12.2%);
Dallas (7.3%); Miami/Ft. Lauderdale (5.2%); Houston (4.7%); Portland (11.6%); Salt Lake City (8.6%); Denver (7.4%); Reno (3.3%)
St. Louis (3.3%); Washington, D.C. (3.2%), Philadelphia (2.6%); • 67.9% Drive; 30.1% Air; 2.0% Other
Detroit (2.4%); Boston (2.4%) • 35% with children under 18
• 44.1% Drive; 49.3% Air; 6.6% Other • $548 per trip
• 34% with children under 18 • 35% trip decision less than 1 month before travel
• $958 per trip • Top online planning sources: Search engine (28.5%);
• 32% trip decision less than one month before travel Travel provider website (21.1%); OTA (16.2%);
• Top online planning resources: Travel provider website (27.2%); Destination website (14.6%); Facebook (11.9%); Travel review site (7.5%)
Search engine (24.2%); OTA (19.9%); Facebook (13.9%);
Destination website (13.1%); Travel review site (10.0%)
Data provided by Visit California
DOMESTIC TRAFFIC / 2018 vs 2017

21,500,000
CALIFORNIA AIRLIFT
16,500,000
5.5% increase
11,500,000
2017
6,500,000
2018 California’s busiest airport traffic statistics showed an
1,500,000 increase in 2018 passenger traffic compared to 2017.
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
5,000,000
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC / 2018 vs 2017
6.2% increase
International traffic to California airports
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2017
5.3% increase
Domestic airport traffic
2018
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Los Angeles, Burbank, Long Beach, Ontario, Orange County, San Diego, Sources: Individual airports.
Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, & Sacramento Note: Monthly figures may not sum to YTD totals due to date revisions.

#:410
SPOTLIGHT ON CALIFORNIA’S \
TOP 3 INTERNATIONAL
MARKETS
Canada
Visitors from our neighbors to the North are projected to increase to 1.8
million in 2019. There are currently 420 weekly nonstop flights to California
with over 59 thousand seats available. This was a 5.4 percent increase from
the year prior. Those that travel by air tend to research further in advance
with more than 43 percent beginning at least six months in advance. Top
states visited by Canadians are Florida, New York, California, Illinois and
Texas. The U.S. remains the top international destination for Canadians
followed by the United Kingdom, China and France.
CANADIAN
TRAVELER
PROFILE } 1.723M
2018 Projected Visits
$2.266B
2018 Projected Visitor
Spending
+3.0%
2019 Forecasted Visits
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
Mexico
The United States is the number one destination for the Mexican market.
Visitors from Mexico that travel by air are expected to increase to 631
thousand in 2019. There are currently 584 weekly nonstop flights to
California with over 92 thousand seats available. The Tijuana airport
is a new gateway to California in which 22 million passengers utilized
in 2018, up over 22 percent from the year prior. Visit California will
create a new welcome center in spring of 2019 to take advantage of
this opportunity. Popular travel seasons coincide with school holiday
schedules and are around Easter, mid-July and August and Christmas.
Long weekend getaways are an opportunity as summer break typically
lasts five weeks.
The leisure traveler that books their trip by air visits just under two
destinations within the state, stays 9.6 nights and spends over one
thousand dollars per trip. Hotels are used 50 percent of the time and
9 percent bring children. Group size that travel by air is 1.5. Booking
directly with the airlines is the preferred method as 46 percent chose
this option. Travel agencies are used 25 percent of the time followed by
online travel agencies at 22 percent.
$733M +4% 607K by air/

MEXICO
TRAVELER
PROFILE } 2018 Projected
Visitor Spending
2019 Forecasted
Visits
7.98M by air & ground
2018 Projected Visits
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
12 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:411
CHINA
TRAVELER
PROFILE
China
Visitors from China are projected to increase to 1.7 million in 2019. There are currently 148 weekly nonstop
1.601M
flights to California with over 44 thousand seats available. Two new routes were added last year which are from 2018 Projected
Xian to LAX by Hainan Airlines and Shenyang to LAX by China Southern Airlines. Visits
Both routes were added in December 2018. Advance airline reservations are between one to three months for
the individual traveler where those that are group travelers’ book three to six months in advance.
The leisure traveler represents 62 percent of the total visitors to California. Over half of this segment, 55 percent,
choose to stay in a hotel and stay 13.6 nights. Their spend per trip is just under two thousand dollars. Group size
$3.407B
is 2.1 people and they visit over 3 destinations while visiting the Golden State. Twenty percent of these leisure
2018 Projected
travelers bring children with them. Visitor Spending
Outbound tourists from China took over 71 million trips over a six-month period of time in 2018 which was up 15
+6.2%
percent compared to the year prior, according to Ctrip, an online provider of travel services. Overall, 59 percent of
women traveled abroad compared to 41 percent of men. Private and customized tours are becoming popular as
seasoned travelers are requesting more flexibility.
2019 Forecasted
Travelers from China rank the U.S. fifth in visitor satisfaction according to the China National Tourism Visits
Administration. Singapore, New Zealand, Maldives and Mauritius are ranked higher amongst the satisfaction
index. However, the U.S. is the number one market for long-haul destinations, followed by France and Germany. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce

#:412
John Wayne Airport statistics show
Over 10.4 Million Passengers

being served in 2018, an increase of over two percent compared to the prior year.
However, international travel decreased over 5 percent due to a reduction of flights to Cabo San Lucas that took place in February.
Terminals A & B have completed their improvement projects that consisted of new signage, nursing mother’s lounge, animal relief
area, restroom refurbishing’s, seismic retrofitting, lighting, carpet and paint. In October, a new designated area for passenger pick-
ups using rider apps such as Lyft and Uber were also introduced to decrease traffic congestion.
ANNUAL PERSON TRIPS TO CALIFORNIA (MILLIONS)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TOTAL 212.6 223.1 230.0 242.8 251.3 263.4 268.4 273.7 281.4 288.9 295.9 303.8 311.5
BUSINESS 47.4 48.1 46.6 47.1 47.5 48.9 49.4 49.8 50.7 52.0 52.9 53.8 54.7
LEISURE 165.2 175.0 83.4 195.7 203.8 214.5 219.1 223.9 230.8 236.9 243.1 250.0 256.8
DOMESTIC
TOTAL 199.3 208.6 215.1 227.2 234.8 246.3 251.1 256.1 263.3 270.1 276.3 283.4 290.3
BUSINESS 43.8 44.2 42.6 42.9 43.0 44.3 44.7 45.2 45.9 47.0 47.7 48.5 49.1
LEISURE 155.5 164.4 172.5 184.2 191.8 202.1 206.4 210.9 217.4 223.0 228.6 234.9 241.2
DAY 104.1 109.6 113.3 120.1 124.4 131.2 133.3 136.9 140.8 144.6 148.7 153.5 158.0
OVERNIGHT 95.1 99.1 101.8 107.1 110.5 115.2 117.8 119.2 122.5 125.5 127.5 129.9 132.3
INTERNATIONAL
TOTAL 13.3 14.5 15.0 15.7 16.5 17.1 17.3 17.6 8.1 18.8 19.6 20.4 21.2
OVERSEAS 5.6 6.1 6.2 6.6 7.3 7.7 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.8 9.1 9.5 9.8
MEXICO 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.7 8.0 8.3 8.7 9.1 9.4
CANADA 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9
BUSINESS 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.6
LEISURE 9.7 10.6 11.0 11.4 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.0 13.4 13.9 14.5 15.0 15.6
Source: Tourism Economics; DKSA, TNS Global (domestic); CIC Research, OTTI (international); Dean Runyan, CIC Research (expenditures)
14 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:413
NEW HOTEL ROOM SUPPLY IN OC
Orange County has
over 440 hotels + 57,000 rooms

and continues to grow with new hotel builds throughout the area.
According to CBRE Hotels, Southern California Lodging Forecast, new hotels to OC include mainly select service hotels in Anaheim, Buena Park, Irvine and Lake
Forest. In total, 910 new rooms will hit the market between December 2018 and October 2019. The brands include:
CITY BRAND # OF ROOMS EST. OPENING DATE

IRVINE STAYBRIDGE SUITES 168 SUMMER 2019
LAKE FOREST TOWNPLACE SUITES 114 FALL 2019
BUENA PARK HAMPTON INN & SUITES 102 SPRING 2019
BUENA PARK HILTON 174 SPRING 2019
ANAHEIM HAMPTON INN & SUITES 178 OPENED 2018
ANAHEIM ELEMENT BY WESTIN ANAHEIM 174 SPRING 2019
On the horizon, Anaheim will welcome two hotels in 2020. Orange County’s first JW Marriott will be adjacent to the GardenWalk and will have 466 guest rooms.
The Westin Anaheim Resort adjacent to the Anaheim Convention Center will have 613 guest rooms. Both will be four-star properties.
TOURISM TAKING CENTER STAGE 7.6 – – 740

IN THE CITY OF THE ARTS® 7.4 – – 720
TCM worked with Tourism Economics to conduct a market research initiative 7.2 – – 700
based on the economic impact of tourism in Costa Mesa. An estimated 7.5 million 7.0 – – 680
visitors came to Costa Mesa in 2017, up 3.6 percent from 2016. International
6.8 – – 660
visitors are estimated at 1.9 million or 25 percent of total visitors. The city’s
primary visitors come from California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington and Texas. 6.6 – – 640
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
The greater majority of visitors, nearly 6.7 million came for the day. 6.4 – – 620
6.2 – – 600
In 2017, direct visitor spending accounted for $738 million, up 4 percent, and
generated nearly $81 million in indirect impacts (goods and services as inputs Visitor Volume, mils (L) | Visitor Spending, $mils (R)
into production such as food wholesalers’ utilities and financial or legal services)
and $91 million in induced impacts (employees whose income are driven directly
or indirectly by tourism spend a portion of that income in the local regional
economy).
Costa Mesa Visitor
Volume & Spending
Visitor data from this report reveals that visitor volume and spending has
increased substantially from 2012. In fact, visitor spending in Costa Mesa is
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
outpacing the state. However, the city is pacing behind the county regarding
visitor spending since 2012 with a growth of 23.7 percent vs. OC at 27.3 percent. Visitor Volume (mils) 6.72 6.99 7.13 7.26 7.53
% CHANGE 4.1 1.9 1.9 3.6
It’s no surprise that retail spending in the city is the top spending category for
visitors at over $241 million with food and beverage coming in at a close second 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
with over $238 million in 2017. Lodging accounted for over $151 million and Visitor Spending ($mils) 615.9 6.559 672.1 709.5 737.7
recreation at over $69 million. The food and beverage segment increased the % CHANGE 6.4 2.5 5.6 4.0
most in 2017 at 7.6 percent, followed by recreation at 4.5 percent and lodging at
over 3 percent.

#:414
COSTA MESA HOTEL TRENDS
 Orange County has had several new hotels open within the last two years which has had an
DID effect on our local hotels. Competition to attract new customers in OC is fierce. Although
some hotels have had refreshes and renovations, there has not been a new hotel product to
YOU
KNOW?  offer guests in quite some time. Areas of opportunity other than new product development
specifically fall into the categories of increasing weekend group and contract business relating
to 2018 hotel performance collectively for TCM partnering hotels. With the anticipated
grand opening of Disney’s Star Wars-Galaxy’s Edge, the second half of the calendar year
should provide an increase in visitors to OC as well as our city.
 Based on Tourism Economics 2017 report, demand was slightly outpacing supply and averaged 1.1
over
percent growth since 2013, compared to .6 percent for supply. The last two years (2016 and 2017)
have been flat regarding demand and supply.
8,000 jobs
the amount of tourism-supported
employment COSTA MESA SPENDING PROFILE
$98.1 million $32.0m

generated in tax revenues $69.4m RECREATION
TRANSPORTATION/LOCAL
$41.1 million $241.2m

generated in state & revenues RETAIL
$151.5m
LODGING
$238.2m
FOOD
Sources: CIC Research, Tourism Economics
Visitor spending on retail was relatively flat in 2017. However, retail sales per capita
is the third highest in the state at $48,300 per person. Only Beverly Hills and Ontario
outrank Costa Mesa. The state average is $17,100.
2016-17
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 % ch
LODGING 122.0 130.7 137.7 146.9 151.5 3.1%
FOOD 184.0 197.8 208.2 221.3 238.2 7.6%
RECREATION 57.7 61.2 62.2 66.4 69.4 4.5%

COSTA MESA
RETAIL 215.6 228.5 227.8 239.5 241.2 0.7%
VISITOR SPENDING
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION 32.5 32.8 31.6 30.5 32.0 5.5%
BY CATEGORY
SECOND HOMES 4.1 4.4 4.6 5.0 5.4 9.0%
(US $ MILLIONS)
TOTAL 615.9 655.4 672.1 709.5 737.7 4.0%
% CHANGE 3.3% 6.4% 2.5% 5.6% 4.0%
16 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:415
50 –
ORANGE COUNTY – 14
48 – – 13
The county welcomed 49.4 million visitors in
2017 up over 2 percent from 2016. Spending also
46 – – 12
continues to grow and totaled $13.5 billion, up over
4 percent from the previous year. Residents within
44 – – 11
the state as well as Arizona, Texas, Nevada and
Washington are key markets for OC. International
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
42 – – 10
visitors increased to 4.5 million up 2.2 percent and
accounts for over 9 percent of total visitation for
40 – –9
2017. The top three international key markets for
OC remain the same from 2016 and are Canada, Visitor Volume, mils (L) | Visitor Spending, $bils (R)
China and Mexico. China continues to be an SOURCE: CIC Research, Tourism Economics
important market for OC and is first in terms of
spending and second in terms of visitor volume.
Orange County Visitor
Direct visitor spending for 2017 generated $13.5 Volume & Spending
billion, up 2.3 percent from 2016 and generated
$3.6 billion in indirect impacts and $4.1 billion in
induced impacts. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Visitor Volume (mils) 43.80 44.40 46.40 47.35 48.24 49.36
Overall, visitor spending grew over 4 percent in key % CHANGE 2.1 1.4 4.1 2.5 1.9 2.3
categories in 2017. Food and beverage spending
grew 6 percent and represents the leading growth
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
segment within the key categories of visitor spend. Visitor Spending ($mils) 10,643.6 10,931.14 11,695.0 12,212.9 13,016.9 13,551.7
Lodging grew over 4 percent and retail spend grew % CHANGE 5.2 2.7 7.0 4.4 6.6 4.1
2.7 percent.
ORANGE COUNTY 
VISITOR SPENDING BY CATEGORY
DID
YOU

(US $ MILLIONS)
2016-17
KNOW?
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 % ch
LODGING 2,451.1 2,696.6 2,972.0 3,169.1 3,301.5 4.2%
FOOD & BEVERAGE
RETAIL
2,541.1 2,729.7 2,889.8 3,051.4
2,682.0 2,840.5 2,827.6 3,010.4 3,092.4
3,234.0 6.0%
2.7%

131,190 jobs
RECREATION 2,568.7 2,720.3 2,782.9 3,32.2 3,092.9 2.0%
LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION 440.7 445.5 449.0 464.2 519.2 11.8% direct visitor spending
AIR sustained in 2017
TRANSPORTATION
(LOCAL) 94.9 96.6 98.4 102.5 107.7 5.1%
SECOND HOMES 152.9 165.7 173.2 187.1 204.0 9.0%

$2.5 billion
TOTAL 10,931.4 11,695.0 12,212.9 13,016.9 13,551.7 4.1% tax revenues generated from
% CHANGE 2.7% 7.0% 4.4% 6.6% 4.1% tourism in OC
Tourism employment in OC has expanded more rapidly than total jobs in the county as well as the
$1.2 billion
state. More than 3,400 tourism jobs were added per year since 2010. Approximately 1 in 13 of all state & county revenues
jobs in OC were sustained by tourism. generated from tourism in OC

#:416
FOOD TOURISM
IS THE ACT OF
TRAVELING FOR A
TASTE OF PLACE IN
ORDER TO GET A SENSE
OF PLACE
— AS DEFINED BY WORLD
FOOD TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
EATCATION™
BY TRAVEL COSTA MESA:
A FOOD-CENTRIC
VACATION, WHERE
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
ARE CENTERED
AROUND DINING
FOODIE TRENDS \
TOURISM-EATING
LIKE A LOCAL
Food and beverage clearly enhance a destination’s offerings and can be used to connect visitors with locals. Tasting something new and locally
sourced creates memories for travelers. Unique food and beverage options can also assist in building a brand’s voice. Travelers are searching
for unique culinary options and experiences more than ever before. World Food Traveler Association sites in their 2019 State of the Food
Travel Industry that sustainable practices for restaurants and educating visitors about local food and drink knowledge is as important as serving
a meal.
Skift highlights that in 2019 experiential culinary travel will continue to increase primarily due to the social media giant, Instagram. Another
noteworthy trend as expressed by Expedia Group Media Solutions found that 56 percent of travelers who combined their business and leisure
travel said they were more likely to extend a work trip if the destination has great food or restaurants. According to Specialty Food News, one
key driver for 2019 will be an increase in integrative culinary and cultural events at music and art festivals. They also expect the global culinary
tourism market to increase more than 9 percent within the next four years.
Food tourism has been a marketing focus for TCM for the past several years. The dynamic selection and quality of restaurants in Costa Mesa
makes it the culinary center of Orange County. It contributes greatly to the economic impact of the city. In fact, 2017 food and beverage spend
from those visiting Costa Mesa outranked lodging-related spend and has increased over 7.5 percent compared to the prior year.
18 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:417
PARTNERING WITHIN
 THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY
DID TCM works closely with other destination marketing organizations (DMOs)
YOU
that promote travel to Costa Mesa such as the Orange County Visitors
KNOW?  Association (OCVA) and Visit California. Costa Mesa, along with other cities
work in conjunction with OCVA to further visitor brand marketing and overall
awareness domestically and internationally. Branding the City of the Arts®
as an overnight, leisure destination in OC is critical to the success of our
organization. This partnership has allowed TCM to reach audiences we could
80%
 not reach ourselves, based on a collective approach with other cities within the
county. TCM is actively involved in the North America and Chinese initiatives
with OCVA.
of leisure travelers had been motivated to visit
Over the past several months, OCVA has redesigned their website, VisittheOC.
a particular destination because of a culinary
com. A creative digital initiative will also be launched and media missions
activity or attraction focusing on leisure travel from San Francisco, Arizona and the Pacific
95%
Northwest will continue. Opportunities such as exposure on Samantha Brown’s
Places to Love, which generated over 1 million views last year, would not be
possible without this partnership. TCM also works closely with the meeting
percentage of leisure travelers that had and incentive Chinese markets and continues to partner with other DMOs to
intentionally participated in a culinary tourism increase exposure and ultimately hotel room nights to OC. OCVA works closely
activity in the past two years with organizations that promote and advocate tourism like Visit California, U.S.
Travel Association and Cal Travel. Additional outreach and education to the
77% OC Board of Supervisors and U.S. Beijing Embassy regarding visa policies and
economic impact of the tourism industry are a priority.
the increased percentage in the last two years
of leisure travelers participating in a culinary
tourism activity
OCVA Primary Targets

FAMILY FUN LUXURY CULINARY
OC “STYLE FAM”
Visit California was created over two decades ago to market California
as a premier travel destination to increase the state’s share of tourism-
related revenues. Visit California invests $126 million annually into
global marketing programs. Visit California’s initiatives allow partners
like TCM to extend our media reach through co-ops, programming and
gain valuable insights from research and market trends. TCM is also
able to leverage this relationship by coordinating familiarization trips ARTS, CULTURE, OUTDOOR
and host media influencers from around the world. ENTERTAINMENT RECREATION

#:418
#:419
REBRANDING \
MARKETING
#:420
VISITOR GUIDE
NEW YEAR, NEW BRAND

In fiscal year 2018 we embarked on an exciting new rebrand for Travel Costa Mesa. In June 2018, Travel Costa Mesa contracted
with The James Agency, out of Phoenix, to provide creative and PR services in support of building a new brand. Travel Costa Mesa
had been represented by the same logo and branding strategy for the past 6 years. The 2012 branding strategy was to present Costa
Mesa as a luxury arts destination.
While the focus on the arts and Costa Mesa as the trademarked City of the Arts® is still going strong, we recognized the need and
opportunity for Costa Mesa to present itself to a younger market. Part of the brand refresh included revamping our strategy to focus
more on dining, local shopping and unique entertainment. As we continue to market Costa Mesa as a destination for the weekend
leisure traveler to a short flight or drive market, we adopted the new tagline, “Create your escape” – along with a simple, fresh logo
that continues to highlight the city’s location in Southern California by focusing on sun and sea. An additional “stamp” was also created
with “Orange County, California” to use when marketing to other states or internationally.
22 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:421
MINDFUL OF
CAPTIVATING AREA ART
BRING
AND PLAYFUL AND CULTURE
VIBRANCY
IMAGERY/ WITH DEEP
TO BRAND
MESSAGING SENSE OF
COMMUNITY
SHED LIGHT CONVEY

SHOWCASE ON UNIQUE COSTA
FOOD, ART, ATTRACTIONS MESA AS A
SHOWS, FROM A FUN AND
PARKS LOCALS’ HAPPENING
PERSPECTIVE DESTINATION
NEW BRAND GOALS
$60k Ages Young Weekend Dining 500

to 25–44 Singles Travelers IS PRIMARY Miles
$95k+ YOUNG TRAVELING
VACATION
ACTIVITY DISTANCE ONE
FAMILES WITH FRIENDS WOULD TRAVEL
HOUSEHOLD TO VISIT
INCOME COSTA MESA

#:422
THE CHOICE
IS YOURS.
NEW CITY VIDEO
Created by The James Agency entitled “Split Decisions,” highlighting a variety of hot, trendy destinations in the city and with split
screen, showing how close they are in an eye-catching way. The video runs on the home page.
PHOTO SHOOT, CAPTURING NEW, PLAYFUL, FRESH IMAGES

FOR A YOUNGER TARGET MARKET.
The shoot produced by TCM encompassed several days and included restaurant hotspots, local parks, the LAB and CAMP and public
art installations. We did video and photos at Pacific Amphitheater for the Toto concert.
24 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:423
NEW, PLAYFUL, FRESH \
WEBSITE UPDATES
Along with a brand redo, the TCM website underwent a major refresh as well, focusing on less
copy and more imagery, with brighter colors and theming in line with the new branding.
NEIGHBORHOOD
MAP
HOME PAGE
We created an entirely new map experience focusing on
neighborhoods. By selecting one of the 6 different Costa Mesa
neighborhoods, visitors will see a page filled with top shopping,
dining, recreation and hotels in that particular area.

#:424
BLOG ITINERARIES
Our blog was redesigned for cleaner lines, bigger images and brighter Itineraries now image based rather than pages of written content. Top picks
colors, continuing the simplification and modernization of the site and based on user’s “travel style” and highlighting top spots and attractions for
highlighting the ability for social share. singles, couples, active visitors and families.
CROWDRIFF
TCM integrated the CrowdRiff platform into the website in 2018.
CrowdRiff is a visual marketing tool that allows the creation of photo
galleries on the site that include owned content and user-generated
content from Instagram. We created photo galleries on the home
page, Eatcation™ page and the About page, with more planned for
the future. CrowdRiff also provides a place for vendors and partners
CALENDAR
to easily access Costa Mesa imagery, and a media hub where we can
receive media relations requests.
We made significant upgrades to our calendar, including bigger images,
titles and copy, with the new capability to search by date(s) of stay.
26 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

WEBSITE OVERVIEW
#:425
For the first time ever, TravelCostaMesa.com generated over 1 million pageviews in
calendar year 2018, specifically 1,353,454, shattering last year’s pageview number by more than double. The site also made large increases in
session and new user numbers. New vs. returning users and demographic data stayed similar to 2017, with the biggest increase being users in the
25-34 age bracket, who increased in numbers by approximately 23 percent.
BY THE NUMBERS 24.7% 12.3%

Traffic 01—12/2017 01—12/2018 YOY %
Organic Content Display Other
Pageviews 622,068 1,353,454 +117.57 SEM Direct
Mktg /CCA*
Sessions 353,439 517,958
New Users 1,470,089 1,912,780
+46.55
+30.11
27.4% 16.2% 19.4%
Travel Costa Mesa’s main sources of traffic came from our search TCM TRAFFIC DRIVERS
engine marketing (paid traffic from ads on Google and Bing) and Mobile users continued to dominate the visitor structure, increasing 74.2 percent
search engine optimization (optimizing the site to rank higher in year over year. Mobile users now make up over 65 percent of our total visitors. As
Google organic search results, in essence free traffic). Organic this number increases, we have focused on continually improving and optimizing
traffic was a big focus for us this year and the results were the mobile experience for our visitors. *Contextual Content Ads
extremely heartening, with an approximately 62 percent increase in
organic (free) traffic to the site.
TOP VISITORS BY CITY (OUTSIDE OF OC)

The third largest contributor to our website traffic this year was
from our content marketing program with Taboola, highlighting the
importance of content marketing in our overall strategy. And our
25.0% 6.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5%
Los San San Long
display and contextual content advertising program came in fourth
Angeles Diego Francisco Beach Riverside
as a traffic driver to TravelCostaMesa.com.
TCM VISITORS BY DEVICE TOP 10 PAGES VISITED
65.6% 26.6% 7.8%

1. Home page
2. OC Fair 2018 (content marketing)

MOBILE DESKTOP TABLET
3. Travelzoo Deals page (tactical campaign)
AGE OF TCM VISITORS IN 2018 4. Hotel Specials page

25% –
5. Stay page
20%–
6. Calendar – main page
15%–
7. OC Fair 2018 page (Spanish)
10%–
8. Things to do in OC page
5%–
0%– 9. Calendar – upcoming events page

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
10. Play page – Costa Mesa arts and recreation
TOP WEB VISITORS BY STATE Of the 90% of our visitors from the United States (approximately 10% of our
61.3% 3.94% 2.69% 2.15%

visitors come from 9 other countries including Canada, Mexico, the UK and
Australia), the majority are again from California, as this is where most of
California Texas New York Arizona our marketing efforts are focused.

#:426
SPLIT DECISIONS \
DIGITAL MARKETING
CAMPAIGNS
According to eMarketer, total digital
ad spending in the US will grow 19
percent to $129.34 billion in 2019
– 54.2 percent of estimated total US
ad spending. Mobile will continue its
dominance, accounting for more than
two-thirds of digital ad spending, at
$87 billion this year. For the first time,
U.S. digital ad spending will surpass
traditional in 2019. Travel Costa Mesa
has had a digital-heavy marketing
strategy for the past several years and
continues to grow investment in new
media, including social.
After working on the new logo and

promotional photos and website, TCM
launched a branding campaign in line
with the “split decisions” theme of the
new video in September.
SPECIFIC CAMPAIGNS
As the branding campaign creative is refreshed
quarterly, it was paused when we ran specific
campaigns offering special hotel deals during
our hotel partner need times. We ran a holiday
campaign from mid-November through early
January, where we drove over 850 leads to
our hotel partners offering their best rates.
Our holiday campaign continued the “Split
Decisions” concept with holiday imagery.
28 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:427
TRAVELOCITY
“ROAMING GNOME” VISIT
In a joint project with Destination Irvine, we ran
VALENTINE’S/ an OC Getaways campaign with Travelocity. Along
PRESIDENTS DAY with a program of email and display, we were able

to get a visit from the Travelocity “Roaming Gnome”
We continued a similar campaign
visit. The Gnome is famous to travel enthusiasts,
for the Valentine’s/Presidents
visiting different destinations around the world.
Day weekend, and a spring
The campaign received over 855,000 impressions,
campaign for the spring break
and over 200,000 social impressions from the
period in March and April.
Gnome’s Instagram account.
SPRING CREATIVE:
Spring’s Better Here
Due to the late spring break of

2018, we ran a spring campaign
for the month of March and
most of April to capitalize on the
spring break time periods for
schools throughout the region.
VISITOR GUIDE
We created a new visitor guide in the beginning
of 2019 in line with our new branding, colors
and style.
We will continue to run

these periodic campaigns
during hotel need times,
mixed in with the branding
creative, across all our
channels.

#:428
30 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:429
INCREDIBLE EXPOSURE \
PARTNERSHIPS
AND EVENTS

#:430
THE TASTE – COSTA MESA

TCM, in partnership with The LA Times, created the first multi-day
culinary event at The Met in October 2018. This signature event
highlighted the city as a “foodie” destination and encouraged our primary
target audience to visit with a reason. The TASTE Costa Mesa also
cemented our marketing focus as a top Eatcation™ destination in OC. It
showcased Costa Mesa restaurants, gave us extensive media reach to
our primary target market and was an event that competed with various
food events in OC.

The event garnered incredible exposure for the city with marketing
opportunities that included social media, digital, print and TV. In total
marketing efforts achieved 282 million impressions and TCM’s top
demographic was reached with over 3,300 guests participating over
the course of 3 days. Food tastings, wine pairings, live entertainment,
art and cooking demonstrations were the ideal itinerary for the foodie
enthusiast. The TASTE had a great first year, and we are looking forward
to growing the event in 2019.
3.3k
# of guests
participating in
the 3 day event
32 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:431
$3.8m
value of media
coverage
impressions
282m
# of impressions
achieved in
total marketing
efforts

#:432
As the largest generator of travel to the U.S., IPW 2019 is expected to draw
more attendees than ever from around the world. Being hosted in Anaheim
from June 1 – 5, this will be the first time the show is back in California since
2012 and in Orange County since 2007.
A media marketplace was also held during the first day of IPW. TCM met
with 22 media, which resulted in multiple leads for FAMS and media
coverage around the dining, culture and fashion segments.
$31k
revenue booked
from IPW 2018
To extend the opportunity to engage with media in the local market, Visit
California conducted a media meet and greet and luncheon for California
destinations with 12 Denver-based media.
More than 6,000 buyers, suppliers and media attended from domestic and international sectors. TCM was joined by representatives from Avenue of the
Arts Hotel, BLVD Hotel and The Westin South Coast Plaza where the team conducted 38 individual meetings over a three-day period. As a result of the
tradeshow, $31,026 in revenue has been booked.
20k
Number of
runners in 2018
OC MARATHON 2018
To encourage runners of the annual OC Marathon and Half Marathon to stay
in Costa Mesa, Travel Costa Mesa provided complimentary shuttle to and
from the race for hotel guests for the 8th consecutive year. This race is an
economic driver for the city as hotels, restaurants and retail all benefit from
the 20 thousand runners who participate in it.
34 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:433
INTERNATIONAL
MARKETING

#:434
COUNTRY SOCIAL MEDIA ONLINE SALES MANAGER & PR EMAIL NEWSLETTER
CHINA WECHAT TRAVELCOSTAMESA.CN DESTINATION SALES QUARTERLY CHINESE

VISIT THE OC -SHANGHAI SALES TRANSLATED
CTRIP MANAGERS IN BEIJING NEWSLETTER

MEXICO FACEBOOK TRAVELCOSTAMESA.COM MEXICO CITY MONTHLY NEWSLETTER (US)
INSTAGRAM TRANSLATES TO SPANISH
TWITTER TRIPADVISOR
VISIT THE OC
CANADA FACEBOOK TRAVELCOSTAMESA.COM N/A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER (US)

INSTAGRAM
TWITTER

BAHRAIN, KUWAIT, FACEBOOK IN COUNTRY WEBSITES: N/A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER (US)
UAE, SAUDI INSTAGRAM UAE, KUWAIT, BAHRAIN,
ARABIA, QATAR, TWITTER QATAR, OMAN THROUGH
OMAN OCVA

INDIA, ITALY, JAPAN, TRAVELCOSTAMESA.COM N/A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER (US)
KOREA, PORTUGAL, TRANSLATES TO ALL
RUSSIA, LATIN AMERICA
INTERNATIONAL VISITORS
TCM continues to reach out to international visitors, particularly through our partnerships with OCVA and Brand USA. TravelCostaMesa.com
now translates to 7 languages, and TravelCostaMesa.cn is the Simplified Chinese site.
CTRIP
Ctrip, one of China’s largest online travel agencies, continues
to partner with the Orange County Visitors Association in an
effort to highlight “The OC” as a premier Southern California
destination. Brand USA, Disneyland, Anaheim, Newport and
Huntington Beach are major sponsors of the page, which is
dedicated to driving leisure transient and packaged vacations to
OC. Costa Mesa is featured, along with 10 of our 11 partnering
hotels. This initiative continues to grow for our hotel products
relating to room nights. Marketing channels included banner ads,
social media and instant and mobile messaging. In 2018, Costa
Mesa hotels experienced a 56 percent increase in room nights
booked compared to 2017. Overall, for OC hotel listings, the
market experienced a 33 percent increase from the year prior.
VISIT THE USA – MARKETING THE U.S.

Brand USA is the organization that represents the United States as a tourism
destination for the rest of the world. On VisittheUSA.com, Costa Mesa has a
destination page, featuring 10 city images and content outlining top spots for
visitors. We also worked with Brand USA to create a new video for the meetings
and incentive (MICE) market in China, that currently is available on the Meetings
& Events page on TravelCostaMesa.cn. Meimei Wu was the host for the piece, the
same host we had for the Chinese native traveler video we created in 2017. In the
next year, TCM will be creating a new Chinese meetings guide, and translating our
newly created collateral into Chinese.
36 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:435
SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media continues to serve as an essential marketing and informational

channel for TCM. In 2018, TCM’s social media following increased by 9.13%.
In 2018, we increased our use of user-generated content (UGC), authentic

content created by our own social media followers and travelers to the
5,621 3,103 12,880

area, allowing us to show unique perspectives of Costa Mesa and expand
our brand reach. In a recent study, 60 percent of travelers said that seeing
content from other consumers was more influential than professional images
on travel brands’ website and social media (23 percent) (Bridging the Gap:
FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM TWITTER
Consumer & Marketer Perspectives on Content in the Digital Age, Stackla).
UGC
Incorporating UGC into our social media strategy not only increases
the diversity of our online content and promotes brand authenticity
97%
but also encourages social media users to post more photos of their
activities in Costa Mesa for a greater chance to have their posts
shared.
of millennials use 86%
In the last year, social media platforms have taken strides to improve social media while
consumer trust, removing fraudulent accounts and increasing traveling
advertising transparency. Most notably, Twitter removed 70 million (Forbes, 2016)
accounts from its platform in July, decreasing the overall number of
of people say they’ve become
active users by 20 percent and the average follower rate for brands
interested in visiting a destination
by 6 percent. Google also announced the close of its social media
after seeing social images from
platform Google+ due to declining use.
peers & other consumers (Stackla)

#:436
Explore the OC Fair A Look at Fall Events Costa Mesa: Your Next
Without Breaking the Bank in Orange County Foodie Destination
8,194 209,261,859 3 most

CLICKS PER MONTH TO TCM’S WEBSITE IMPRESSIONS POPULAR PIECES
CONTENT MARKETING:
In 2018, TCM continued to use Taboola, a native advertising and content
platform, to expand our online reach through audience targeting. Twelve
monthly pieces posted to the TCM blog were syndicated through Taboola’s
advertising platform, resulting in an average of 8,194 clicks per month to
TCM’s website and 209,261,859 impressions. The three most popular pieces
were “Explore the OC Fair Without Breaking the Bank,” “A Look at Fall Events
in Orange County” and “Costa Mesa: Your Next Foodie Destination.”
38 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:437
10 “Chef Spotlight” videos, garnered

more than 48,000 views across
VIDEOS
This year, TCM continued its focus on producing quality video content
to provide visitors with a view of Costa Mesa’s unique personality. In
total, TCM videos received more than 20,000 views on YouTube and
Vimeo. This included the continuation of our “Chef Spotlight” series,
where we feature Costa Mesa chefs preparing their favorite dishes. In
2018, we posted 10 “Chef Spotlight” videos, which garnered more than
48,000 views across YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. TCM also creates
short videos to promote blog content on social media.

#:438
more than 293,056 social media

impressions of branded TCM content
INFLUENCER PARTNERSHIPS
TCM continued its work with social media influencers
in 2018 to increase the brand’s reach to new
audiences via direct partnerships and in conjunction
with OCVA visits. As part of the partnerships,
influencers provide social media promotion of their
stay and often a blog post detailing their experience.
Over the year, we worked with travel, style and
foodie experts on social media who served as brand
ambassadors to present Costa Mesa as an ideal
weekend destination.
In 2018, influencer partnerships led to more than

293,056 social media impressions of branded TCM
content, supplementing our own social media reach.
In 2019, we will continue to work with influencers on
a quarterly basis.
40 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:439
PUBLIC
TCM hosted 50 partners
at Leatherby’s Café Rouge
in July ahead of the free
RELATIONS
Friday Night Jazz Series
on the Argyros Plaza,
which proved to be a great
networking opportunity
and introduction to the
energizing events that take
place at Segerstrom Center As a result of hiring a new creative agency to support Costa Mesa’s
for the Arts. rebrand, the focus on the public relations efforts will continue to highlight
Costa Mesa as the City of the Arts®, while also refocusing attention to
a slightly younger, more discerning demographic than in previous years.
Food, fashion and the arts continue to be the key brand pillars guiding
TCM along with
TCM’s storytelling.
representatives from
Anaheim, Disneyland,
While Travel Costa Mesa heavily focuses its marketing and public
Huntington Beach
relations efforts on nearby drive markets and cities within about an hour
and Newport Beach
(by car or by air) of Costa Mesa, visitation by travelers from international
participated in the OCVA
destinations continues to increase.
mission to China.
TCM partners with the Orange County Visitors Association, Visit

California and Brand USA to extend our marketing messaging through
cooperative outreach programs in international markets that primarily
In November, a dozen TCM include Canada, China and Mexico. This collaborative approach allows
partners were treated to a Costa Mesa to establish itself alongside well-known brands including OC,
palate-pleasing experience California and the U.S.
at SOCO and The OC
Mix where we sampled
fresh matcha, learned the
process for tasting olive
oils and dined on Top
Chef-crafted menu items
at Tackle Box.
TCM joined a dozen

other OC destinations
and attractions at the
Disneyland® Resort this
past December to share our
message with 150 LA-based
Chinese tour operators who
will consider booking future
PARTNER AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Partnerships and communications with the local community
group trips to our city.
stakeholders was a significant focus for TCM in 2018. The goal is
to communicate on a regular basis with partners who have direct
involvement with visitors coming to Costa Mesa to share new city
experiences, the dynamic dining scene and cultural attractions only
To kick off 2019, another found in Costa Mesa. The TCM team created multiple opportunities
group of partners were for hotel managers, sales and marketing leaders, restaurants, city
hosted by Segerstrom employees and other tourism industry partners to gather and
Center for the Arts group experience a unique Costa Mesa itinerary.
sales team to experience
the American Ballet
Theater’s West Coast
premiere of Harlequinade.

#:440
TRAVMEDIA INTERNATIONAL
MEDIA MARKETPLACE
To reach a broader media audience including journalists who traditionally are based on the East Coast, TCM has joined Visit California and other OC
destinations annually on a media mission to New York City. For the first time, Visit California joined forces with TravMedia, the largest organization of
travel writers, to conduct a day-long schedule of 20-minute meetings with local journalists. This is one of the quickest ways, similar to the IPW Media
Marketplace, to target and engage with media that share similar interests in our destination’s product offerings.
DESTINATION
THE OC WITH KIDS PARTNERSHIPS
Winter is wonderful for family travel in Orange County
In 2018 TCM partnered with the
OCVA to participate in a variety of
PR efforts including a media mission
to Seattle as well as hosting media
from Vancouver, Portland, Seattle,
San Francisco and the Bay Area as
part of a North America focus.
42 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:441
During the second week in September, OCVA members
representing Disneyland, Anaheim, Newport Beach, Huntington
Beach and TCM embarked upon a China Mission trip that included
several sales call appointments in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen.
Visits to meeting and incentive segments, online travel agencies and
travel and tour operators were conducted along with our dedicated
sales managers in China. Three media press conferences along with
visits to CITS, Grand China MICE, Wei Travel, Caissa, CYTS, UMICE,
Ctrip and Tencent took place. Interest in visiting California remains
high. However, high visa rejection rates are a problem for those first-
timers that are wanting to travel to the U.S. During this mission trip,
the OCVA president met with the U.S. Beijing Embassy to discuss
this issue and opportunities for improvement.
Additional partnerships have been established with select cities throughout OC that
complement Costa Mesa’s offerings and allow each of our cities to be highlighted in shared
editorial. Together with Buena Park and Irvine, TCM hosted Houston Family Magazine as
well as Houston Modern Luxury. A later opportunity included partnering with these same
DMOs, plus Huntington Beach to be featured on a 30-minute Seattle-lifestyle program –
Seattle Refined on KOMO-TV.
In December, all seven Orange County DMOs hosted a reception for San Diego media
at the Paradise Point Resort on Mission Bay. This resulted in more than 50 bloggers and
influencers attending and multiple FAMs being scheduled in the first quarter of 2019.
A highlight of partnering with other destinations during 2018 was a broadcast media
tour with The Travel Mom, Emily Kaufman. Together with Greater Palm Springs and
Sonoma County, Emily appeared on news segments in five target media
markets to promote different aspects of each of our destinations for fall
“Grownup Getaways.” Not only did this result in a significant number
of media impressions, the three-city media tour earned her a Visit
California Eureka Award, awarded to travel writers doing an outstanding
job of highlighting California destinations.
In addition to working closely with local Orange County destinations,

Visit California is a significant resource for helping to share TCMs
message in its online community, in story ideas and media pitching
and engaging TCM in FAMs. TCM consistently provides content for
consideration by the Visit California editorial team. In 2018, Visit
California shared news about The TASTE – Costa
Mesa in its summer newsletter and in the fall, posted
story ideas for media that included Segerstrom
Center for the Arts sensory-friendly programming
for families.
Visit CA also brought significant media

opportunities to Costa Mesa this year. An
opportunity with Men’s Health magazine resulted
in a feature of a Costa Mesa chef offering a recipe
idea and a media FAM conducted by Visit CA’s
These types of partnerships, which
Tokyo office brought Costa Mesa four top writers
include Costa Mesa in larger, shared
and influencers who stayed, shopped, dined, and
story lines, are not only cost-effective
captured and shared a lot of photos!
but continue to help bring greater
awareness to Costa Mesa and its
proximity to higher-profile destinations
in OC like Huntington Beach and
Newport Beach.

#:442
ANAHEIM RESORT TRANSIT (ART) TRANSPORTATION TO DISNEYLAND® RESORT

TCM has continued to partner with Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) to offer daily transportation from 11 Costa Mesa hotel
properties direct to Disneyland® Resort making it easy for visitors to stay in Costa Mesa, and also enjoy popular attractions in
Orange County. This service will become even more valuable for Costa Mesa and visitors to the area as we approach summer
2019 with the opening of the much-anticipated Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge – the new themed land opening at Disneyland Park.
FAMILIARIZATION TRIPS
One of the best ways to engage media in a story about Costa Mesa is to host them for a familiarization (FAM) tour of the destination. TCM creates
customized itineraries based on the areas of interest (arts, food, shopping, etc.) and includes activities to help these visitors become immersed in
the destination. The FAM itineraries focus on Costa Mesa’s six neighborhoods that include 17th Street dining and shopping, The Triangle, The
LAB and The CAMP, South Coast Plaza, SOCO and The OC Mix and Segerstrom Center for the Arts.
In 2018, TCM hosted 27 FAM tours for 97 travel

agents, tour operators, journalists, broadcast media and
bloggers.
Media visited from the Houston, Los Angeles, Portland,

San Diego, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and
internationally from China, Mexico and Japan.
Travel and tour representatives visited us from

Bravolinks Integrated Marketing Co., Ltd., Beijing
International Conference Service Co., Grand China
MICE Holdings, Co. Ltd., CYTS International MICE Co.,
Ltd., UMICE, H&H Travel, MyTrip.com, Ctrip Media,
CITS, Jebsen Holidays Ltd., Hilton Worldwide, American
Airlines
44 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:443
MEDIA COVERAGE
New to Costa Mesa in 2018 was a partnership with Los Angeles Times to host The TASTE – Costa Mesa at The MET
from October 19-21, 2018. This event was intended to draw attention to Costa Mesa as a culinary mecca. A variety
of media coverage was garnered leading up to and following the fall event. Some samples of media outlets who
covered The TASTE are listed above.
Travel Costa Mesa reached an

audience of 116,339,076 through our
2018 media relations efforts.
MEDIA COVERAGE
- INTERNATIONAL
China Media Mission – September 2018
3.14 million
US News Express – Chinese Domestic
and International News
impressions
Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico
151,000 Media
Impressions

#:444
Seattle Refined – 30-minute travel, lifestyle program

Hosted by Gaard Swanson on KOMO-TV, Seattle
50,000 Media
Impressions
BROADCAST MEDIA COVERAGE

TCM took advantage of multiple broadcast opportunities in target markets including Arizona, LA, Chicago, Oregon, Seattle and Washington D.C.
“Grownup Getaway” – Fall 2018
208,402 Media
Impressions
46 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //
#:445
288,100 750,000
Monthly readership Monthly readership
PRINT AND ONLINE
1,100,000 1,816,878
Monthly readership Monthly readership

#:446
NOTEWORTHY
THE OC FAIR &
EVENTS CENTER
BREAKS RECORD
ATTENDANCE OF 1.47
MILLION VISITORS
DURING THE 2018
SEASON.
AVENUE OF THE
ARTS NAMED AN AAA
4-DIAMOND HOTEL
FOR THE FIFTH YEAR
IN A ROW.
COSTA MESA IS
FEATURED IN THE
REAL CITIES OF
ORANGE COUNTY
BY SMART MEETINGS
MAGAZINE.
MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL
NAMED AVENUE
OF THE ARTS – A
TRIBUTE PORTFOLIO
HOTEL – AS HOTEL
OF THE YEAR.
48 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:447
GAYOT.COM ADDED CASA

BARILLA, CENTER 360
AND THE CRACK SHACK
TO ITS TOP 10 NEW AND
NOTABLE RESTAURANTS
IN ORANGE COUNTY.
ORANGE COUNTY
REGISTER FOOD
CRITIC BRAD
JOHNSON’S “20 BEST
PLACES I ATE IN 2018”
FEATURES 5 COSTA
MESA RESTAURANTS.
ORANGE COUNTY’S
GOLDEN FOODIE
AWARDS NAMED CHEF
NOAH VON BLÖM OF
ARC FOOD & LIBATIONS
AS ORANGE COUNTY’S
CHEF OF THE YEAR.
TACO MARÍA
RECOGNIZED AS
ONE OF ONLY THREE
ORANGE COUNTY
RESTAURANTS
IN THE TOP 101
RESTAURANTS WE
LOVE IN 2018 LIST IN
THE LOS ANGELES
TIMES.

#:448
TRAVEL COSTA MESA

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Susan O’Brien Moore CHAIRPERSON, GENERAL MANAGER, Ayres Hotel Costa Mesa
Mike Hall VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL MANAGER, The Westin South Coast Plaza
Sue Cooke TREASURER, GENERAL MANAGER, Residence Inn by Marriott
Paul Sanford SECRETARY, GENERAL MANAGER-ASSET MANAGER, Avenue of the Arts, A Tribute Portfolio Hotel
DIRECTORS
Naj Ekhlas GENERAL MANAGER, Best Western Plus
TBD GENERAL MANAGER, Hilton
Ronnie Dalgado GENERAL MANAGER, Holiday Inn Express & Suites
Dane Bora PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER, City of Costa Mesa
Timothy Hilario GENERAL MANAGER, BLVD Hotel
Katrina Foley MAYOR, City of Costa Mesa
Marina Dutton GENERAL MANAGER, Marriott
Ross Stibor GENERAL MANAGER, Ramada
Nermin Khalil GENERAL MANAGER, Crowne Plaza
ADVISORS
Sarah Kruer DIRECTOR OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, South Coast Plaza
Eileen Benjamin PRESIDENT/CEO, Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce
STAFF
Paulette Lombardi-Fries PRESIDENT
Kim Glen DIRECTOR OF MARKETING
Jessica Placentia OPERATIONS MANAGER
Jenny Wedge PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER
Mackenna Wilson SOCIAL MEDIA and CONTENT MANAGER
50 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

#:449
#:450
T RA V ELCOS TA MES A . COM

7'14'31
&YWMRIWW¶¶ 'SQTERMIW
1RSiiS_Q\S_KmP>GKolapF\KIv>oKlm>maS\
o>_[KlmªGa_o>S_KlG>llSKlm>_IGlpSmK\S_Km
moaiG>\\S_Qa_ RS_>PalPK>laPG>oGRS_Q
oRKGala_>uSlpm
4SVXGEPPWF]GSRXEMRIVGEVVMIVWJIPPTIVGIRXMR*IFVYEV]JVSQE]IEV
EKSEGGSVHMRKXS'PEVOWSRW
3MPWLMTQIRXXS'LMREJVSQXLI1MHHPI)EWXJIPPXSTIVGIRXSJ[LEXMX
[EWE]IEVEKSSR*IFVYEV]
8STMG¶`¶¶8VERWTSVXERHPSKMWXMGW
6]ER7[MJX
4YFPMWLIHEQ*IF

-aloG>\\moa RS_>>lKFKGa^S_Q\KmmPlKkpK_oª>mPK>laPG>oGRS_QoRKGala_>uSlpm>_I>
m\avIav_S_oRK RS_KmKKGa_a^xR>uKIKoKllKIGlpSmK\S_KlmªGa_o>S_KlmRSimªaS\o>_[Klm>_I
Fp\[G>llSKlm>\S[KPla^moaiiS_Q>ooRKGap_olxÉmR>lFaplm¯
a^^KlGS>\uKmmK\mR>uKmoaiiKI>llSuS_QªvSoRialoG>\\mP>\\S_QFx>_KmoS^>oKIiKlGK_oS_
KFlp>lxª>_IGa_o>S_KloRlapQRipoKmoS^>oKIoaIKG\S_KFxFKovKK_>_IiKlGK_oª
>GGalIS_Qoa \>l[ma_m¾>mRSiiS_QlKmK>lGRGaî>_x¯1KuK_aPoRKval\IÉm\>lQKmo
Ga_o>S_Klialom¹º>lKS_ RS_>ªS_G\pIS_Qa_Qa_Q¯

2RKGala_>uSlpmapoFlK>[ªvRSGRR>mmSG[K_KIâlKoR>_ª>lap_IoRKval\I>_I[S\\KI
âlKoR>_ªªSm>IIS_QoaoRKvaKmaP>_S_IpmolxoR>oSm>\lK>Ixmp|KlS_QPlaôRK31¿
RS_>ol>IKv>l¯m^>_x>maPoRKªi>mmK_QKlma_oRKGlpSmKmRSiS>â_I-lS_GKmm
¾âalKIS_;a[aR>^>apomSIK2a[xa¾Ga_ol>GoKIoRKuSlpmvRS\KS_G\amKilawS^Soxoaa_K
>_aoRKlªvRSGRPploRKlIKoKllKIuKmmK\mPla^G>\\S_Qa_^>S_\>_I RS_>ªvRKlKâlKoR>_
iKlGK_oaPGa_l^KI>~SGoSa_m>_IIK>oRm>lK¯
m RS_>Ém\>FaplPalGKlKopl_moaval[S_iR>mKm>PoKl>_KwoK_IKI p_>l#Kv;K>lRa\SI>x

SîamKIFxoRKQauKl_^K_oS_>_K|alooaGa_o>S_oRKKiSIK^SGªmRSix>lIm>lKm\av\xl>îS_Q
piGa_molpGoSa_¯

1oS\\ªuKmmK\av_KlmKwiKGoIK\SuKlxoaFKIK\>xKI¯#S_KaPoRK RS_KmKmRSix>lImmpluKxKIFx
\>l[ma_mipooRKSlx>lIma_Gaî\KoKmpmiK_mSa_a_KFlp>lxªvSoR_a_K>oPp\\ilaIpGoSa_¯
Æ9KPalKmKKoRKIK\>xoaFKFKovKK_a_Koaovaâ_oRmªIKiK_IS_Qa_oRKG>i>FS\Sox>_I
lKmS\SK_GKaPIS|KlK_omRSix>lImªÇm>SI=RapS>_¿K_Qª^>_>QS_QISlKGoalaP9>Rva_Q
">lSoS^K2l>_mialoa\IS_QmªvRSGRR>movamRSimp_IKlGa_molpGoSa_>o RS_KmKmRSix>lImª
>_IR>mmKuKl>\aoRKlilaZKGomp_IKlv>x¯
2l>IKmRavm>_IFpmS_Kmm^KKoS_Qm>lK\S[K\xoaFKiamoia_KIªvRSGR^K>_moR>ooRKlKvS\\FK
PKvKlFpS\IS_QGa_ol>GommSQ_KIS_oRKmRalooKl^ª>GGalIS_Qoa>KZS_ KKª^>lSoS^K>_>\xmoPal
1">l[So¯
i>loPlaôRKIK\SuKlxIK\>xª RS_>ÉmuKmmK\av_Klm>_ImRSiiS_Q\S_Km>lKP>GS_QIS}Gp\ox
_IS_QGlKvª>mm>S\alm>_Ia}GKlmPla^^>S_\>_I RS_>^pmoPa\\avkp>l>_oS_KlKQp\>oSa_m
oR>o>ii\x>oKuKlxialoG>\\ª>IIS_QGaî\KwSoSKm>_IIK\>xm¯

RS_>SmoRKmKGa_I¿FSQQKmomaplGKaP^>lSoS^KGlKvªFKRS_Ia_\xoRK-RS\SiiS_Kmª>_I>RK>IaP
_IS>ªlKKGK>_I>moKl_plaiKª>GGalIS_QoaI>o>FxoRKa_Qa_Q1RSi%v_KlmmmaGS>oSa_
»1%¼¯
RS_>ÉmmRSiFpS\IS_QS_IpmolxR>mKwi\aIKIS_mS{KauKloRKi>moovaIKG>IKmmS_GKoRK_>oSa_Ém
^K^FKlmRSiS_oRK9al\I2l>IK%lQ>_Sm>oSa_»92%¼ª>_IS_oRKKGa_a^SGlKGauKlxmS_GKoRK
apoFlK>[aPoRKmKuKlK>GpoKlKmiSl>oalxmx_Ila^K»1>lm¼¯ RS_>ÉmmR>lKaPQ\aF>\
^>lSoS^KGa_molpGoSa_Fxoa__>QK>\âmoolSi\KIPlaîKlGK_oS_oaiKlGK_oFx
ªFKGa^S_QoRKval\IÉm\>lQKmomRSiFpS\IS_Q_>oSa_¯
RS_KmKmRSiiS_Q\S_Km\S[K amGa>_IoRK_>_GS>\\K>mS_Q>l^maPoRKGap_olxÉmFSQQKmoF>_[m
>lKGa\\KGoSuK\xoRKmKGa_I¿\>lQKmouKmmK\av_Klma_oRKi\>_KoªvRSGRp_IKlmGalKmoRKSl
>QQlKmmSuK\K>mS_Q>GoSuSoxauKloRKi>moIKG>IKoaG>llxoRK_>oSa_ÉmmR>lKaPQ\aF>\Ga^^KlGK¯
8LI(MEQSRH4VMRGIWWGVYMWIWLMTEXXLI(EMOSOY4MIV'VYMWI8IVQMREPMR=SOSLEQESR*IFVYEV]4LSXS)4%
)*)

2RKval\IÉmmKGa_I¿\>lQKmoKGa_a^xª RS_>>GGap_oKIPaliKlGK_oaP>\\Ga_o>S_KlSmKI
G>lQaKwialom\>moxK>lªiKlGK_oaPmK>Fal_KGlpIKaS\ªiKlGK_oaPIlxFp\[mRSiiKIªiKl
GK_oaP\SkpKKIQ>m>_IiKlGK_oaP>\\mK>Fal_KSla_alK¯
2R>oR>mo>[K_>Il>moSGopl_ª>moRKGala_>uSlpmapoFlK>[Q>oRKlKIi>GKS_KFlp>lx¯ lpIKaS\
o>_[KlmR>uKmoaiiKIm>S\S_QPal RS_>mS_GKoRKmo>loaPoRKâ_oRªGaî>lKIvSoR¯FS\\Sa_
oa_¿^S\KmKuKlxI>xa_>uKl>QK\>moxK>lª>GGalIS_Qoam>oK\\SoKI>o>ilauSIKIFx8KmmK\m8>\pK¯
1RSi^K_omPlaôRK"SII\K>moª RS_>Ém\>lQKmomaplGKaPoRKGa^âISoxªvKlK^S\\Sa_
IK>IvKSQRooa__KG>lQa^S\Kma_KFlp>lxª>^KlKiKlGK_oaPoRK¯FS\\Sa_92¿^S\K
mRSiiKIa_oRKm>^KI>xS_ª>GGalIS_QoamRSiiS_Q>_>\xoSGml^lKvlxªvRa_aoKoR>o
Q\aF>\PlKSQRol>oKmIlaiiKI¯iKlGK_oS_oRKmKGa_IvKK[aPKFlp>lxªIKG\S_S_Q>_aoRKl¯
iKlGK_ooRSmvKK[¯
2R>ovap\IipomSQ_SG>_oÆmolKmmÇa_ialolKuK_pKSPoRK\avua\p^KGa_oS_pKmFKxa_I">lGRª
FKG>pmKâmoplaiK>_>_I"SII\K>moialomR>uKmSQ_SG>_oKwiamplKoa RS_>ª>GGalIS_Qoa
SoGR0>oS_QmQK_Gx¯
">_xaPoRKval\IÉm\>lQKmoGa_o>S_KlmRSiiS_Q\S_KmªS_G\pIS_QoRK"KISoKll>_K>_1RSiiS_Q
aî>_x»"1 ¼ª-"a\\Kl">Klm[ª "¿ ">_Ia_Qa_QÉmav_%% R>uK>\\G>_GK\\KI
m>S\S_Qma_oRKSlG>lQalapoKmPla^mS>oaplaiK>_I#aloR^KlSG>S_lKGK_ovKK[m¯

8LI;IWXIVHEQGVYMWIWLMTEXXLI'EQFSHMERTSVXSJ7MLERSYOZMPPISR*IFEJXIVFIMRKXYVRIHE[E]F]¡ZISXLIV
%WMERLEVFSYVW4LSXS<MRLYE
2R>ovap\IGlSîQ\aF>\Ga^^KlGKª>GGalIS_Qoa \>l[ma_mI>o>ª>moRKlKmK>lGRGaî>_xGpo
SomQlavoRPalKG>moaPoRKval\IÉm^>lSoS^Kol>IKoa¯iKlGK_oPla^>_K>l\SKlKmoS^>oK
aP¯iKlGK_o¯
2RKm\avKlQlavoRvap\I>|KGoR>lFaplaiKl>oalm\S[KpoGRSma_-aloa\IS_Qmª>p_SoaP
oxGaa_ S>¿mRS_QÉm poGRSma_Ga_Q\a^Kl>oK¯2RKGaî>_xªoRKval\IÉm\>lQKmoaiKl>oal
aPGa_o>S_KlialomS_G\pIS_QoRKv>S2mS_QoKl^S_>\mS_a_Qa_QªvS\\mKKÆ_KQ>oSuK
QlavoRÇS_oRSmxK>lÉmoRlapQRipoª>PoKl\>moxK>lÉmiKlGK_oIKG\S_Kª"aaIxÉm_uKmoalm
1KluSGKm>SIa_KFlp>lx¯

2RKmRSiiS_QS_IpmolxR>m>\lK>IxmolpQQ\KIvSoRoRKmvSoGRoa\avmp\iRplPpK\m>m^>_I>oKI
Fx"%ªvRSGRilaRSFSommp\iRplKwR>pmo¯3_GKlo>S_ox>FapooRK>u>S\>FS\SoxaP\av
mp\iRplPpK\m>_IoRKSlGamoR>m\KIoa>_p^FKlaPG>lQa\S_KmoaooRKSlmRSimvSoR
ÆmGlpFFKlmÇªvRSGRlKâuKmp\iRplPla^mRSiÉmKwR>pmo¯ \>l[ma_mKmoS^>oKIoR>oiKlGK_o
aP>\\mpGRlKomvKlKFKS_QIa_K>o RS_KmKmRSix>lIm¯
K\>xmvS\\G>pmKRK>I>GRKmoamRSiiKlmvRaFKoa_oRKGamoFK_KoaPmGlpFFKlmuKlmpmpmS_Q
\avmp\iRplPpK\m¯
1aplGK30 ©Rooim©µµmGî¯Ga^µFpmS_KmmµGaî>_SKmµ>loSG\KµµmRSiiS_Q¿\S_Km¿P>GK¿
olapF\KI¿v>oKlm¿aS\¿o>_[Klm¿Ga_o>S_Kl
S_[m
¹ºRooim©µµvvv¯mGî¯Ga^µFpmS_KmmµGaî>_SKmµ>loSG\KµµGRS_>¿R>m¿mSw¿val\Im¿¿
FpmSKmo¿Ga_o>S_Kl¿ialom¿mipllKI¿Faa^S_Q

2/24/2020 Transcript Document
Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE for CDC Telebriefing:
19-13 UpdateFiled
on COVID-19 | CDC Online
02/24/20 Page Newsroom
1 of 7| CDC
Page ID #:463
CDC Newsroom
Transcript for CDC Telebrie ng: Update on COVID-19

Press Brie ng Transcript
Friday, February 21, 2020
Audio recording  [MP3 – 6 MB]
Please Note: This transcript is not edited and may contain errors.
Telebrie ng Audio
   
>>> Good afternoon and thank you all for standing by. For the duration of today’s conference, all listeners are on
silence mode until the question and answer section. After that time, press star one. Today’s call is recorded. If you
have objections, disconnect at this time. It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Paul Fulton. Thank you, sir. You may
begin.
>> Thank you for joining us on the brie ng of the COVID-19 response. We’re joined by secretary for consular a airs
for the department of state, Ian G. Brownlee, and Nancy Messonnier, the Director for the National Center for
Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who will give opening remarks before taking your questions. At this time, i
will turn the call over to acting assistant secretary for counselor a airs Brownlee.
>> Good morning. I’d like to say a word about the cruise ship travel alert that the State Department posted yesterday
afternoon. U.S. Department of State has no higher priority than the safety and welfare of U.S. citizens overseas.
February 20th, the department advised all U.S. citizens to reconsider travel by cruise ship to or within Asia. Many
countries implemented strict screening procedures to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. This is a dynamic
situation, and U.S. citizens traveling by ship may be impacted by travel restrictions a ecting their itineraries or may
be subject to quarantine procedures implemented by local authorities. While the U.S. government has successfully
evacuated hundreds of our citizens in recent weeks, such repatriation ights do not re ect our standard practice and
should not be relied upon as an option for U.S. citizens under potential risk of quarantine by local authorities. We
urge U.S. citizens to evaluate the risks associated with choosing to remain in an area that may be subject to
quarantine and to take all appropriate proactive measures. People who plan to travel by cruise ship should contact
their cruise ship line companies for further information on the current rules and restrictions, and should continue to
monitor the travel.state.gov website for updated information. We encourage all U.S. citizens traveling overseas to
enroll their travel plans in the smart traveler enrollment program, step.state.gov. They can receive important
messages about their destination, including timely alerts and updates to travel advisories. Finally, you can nd the
text of the travel alert on that same website, travel.state.gov. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, acting assistant secretary Brownlee. Thank you all for joining us today. This is Nancy Messonnier. I
want to start with how we will be reporting our cases of COVID-19 beginning today and going forward. We are
making our case counts in two tables. One only tracks people who were repatriated by the state department, and
the second tracks all other cases picked up through U.S. public health network. CDC will continue to update these
numbers every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. We are keeping track of cases resulting from repatriation e orts
separately because we don’t believe those numbers accurately represent the picture of what is happening in the
community in the united states at this time. As of this morning, when you break things up this way, we have 13 U.S.
cases versus 21 cases among people who were repatriated. The repatriated cases include 18 passengers from the
“diamond princess” and three from the wuhan repatriation ights. I want to update you on the status of the
repatriation e orts. Yesterday, nearly all of the remaining people who returned from Wuhan, China, via state
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0221-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html 1/7
19-13 UpdateFiled
2 of 7| CDC
Page ID #:464
department chartered ights, who have been quarantined at four department of defense installations across the
U.S. have completed their 14-day quarantine. We are truly thankful to those released from quarantine for their
cooperation and patience and wish them well as they return to home, work, and school. I want to be clear that
someone who has been released from quarantine is not at risk for spreading the virus to others. Speci cally, they
are not infected. Additionally, i want to extend my thanks to the men and women on all of the dod bases and their
families for their graciousness while hosting these guests. We are also thankful that Travis Air Force Base and Joint
Base San Antonio-lackland opened their doors to the recently returned passengers from the “Diamond Princess”
cruise ship. Now, the “Diamond Princess.” 329 U.S. citizens earlier this week returned to the united states aboard
two state department chartered ights. So far, 18 have tested positive at CDC. Another 10 were reportedly positive
in Japan. 11 are receiving care at the university of Nebraska medical center. Five are receiving care around Travis.
Two are receiving care around Lackland. Because the passengers on the “Diamond Princess” were in a close setting,
where there has been a signi cant spread of COVID-19, they are considered at high risk for infection. We do expect
to see additional con rmed cases of COVID-19 among the passengers. Additionally, since many of these people are
over the age of 60, we are also prepared for other medical issues to arise that will require hospitalization. We’re
going to do everything we can to make their quarantine as easy as possible while monitoring them to see if they
develop illness. Our goal for these people who have been repatriated is to be sure that each and every person is
properly cared for and that those who are in need of medical care receive it. To ensure this, we are working closely
with local hospitals as well as other facilities across the country who are prepared to provide this care. I want to take
a minute to extend my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones who were infected on the “Diamond
Princess.” we heard yesterday that two Japanese passengers of the “Diamond Princess” died. There are several
Americans with COVID-19 who are hospitalized in japan and who are seriously ill. Sadly, we may see poor outcomes
in others, not just people who were on board the “diamond princess,” but among others who become sick with this
virus. Despite the increasing cases in china and around the world, we believe our aggressive travel precautions are
working. As I said, the number of cases detected through the recent U.S. surveillance systems has increased to 13.
The most recent patient was announced last night by Humboldt county in California. This patient had traveled to
mainland china. The fact we have been able to keep this number low is good news, especially given what we are
seeing among some countries in Asia that are beginning to experience community spread. This is when cases are
detected in a community but it is not known what the source of the infection was. This is being reported in
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, as well as Hong Kong and Japan. The last two countries we
issued level one travel notices for earlier this week. We are working in close coordination with the state department
to keep travelers informed with up-to-the-minute guidance, including on cruise ship travel, as discussed by
Mr. Brownlee. We never expected we’d catch every traveler with novel coronavirus from China. It would be
impossible. We’re not seeing spread here in the United States yet, but it is possible, even likely, that it may eventually
happen. Our goal continues to be slowing the introduction of the virus into the U.S. This buys us more time to
prepare our communities for more cases and possibly sustained spread. This new virus represents a tremendous
public health threat. We don’t yet have a vaccine for this novel virus, nor do we have a medicine to treat it
speci cally. We are taking and will continue to take aggressive action to reduce the impact of this virus, that it will
have on the communities in the U.S. we are working with state, local, and territorial health departments to ready our
public health work force to respond to local cases and the possibility this outbreak could become a pandemic. We
are working closely with health care systems across the country to reinforce infection control principles and plans for
surges of people seeking and requiring care. We’re collaborating with supply chain partners to understand what
medical supplies are needed and available. This will help CDC understand when we may need to take more
aggressive measures to ensure that health care workers on the front lines have access to the supplies they need.
We’re working with businesses, hospitals, pharmacies, clinicians, manufacturers, and distributors to communicate
about these measures and what they can do to get ready. I want to direct everyone to a document that will be very
informative in terms of what people can expect in the coming weeks if the virus starts spreading in our community.
This is an MMWR recommendations and report titled “community mitigation guidelines to prevent pandemic
in uenza, united states–2017.” we are reviewing the materials and adapting them to COVID-19. These materials will
serve as a blueprint for the community interventions we will use here in the U.S. if you’re watching the news, you
may be hearing about schools shutting down and businesses closing in countries in Asia to reduce the potential
spread of this virus. The day may come where we need to implement such measures in the U.S. communities. By
next week, we expect to be posting a new web page focused on what CDC is already doing to mitigate transmission in
communities. We recognize the uncertainty of the current situation. As always, CDC public health experts strive to
make the best recommendations based on the most up to date data. Our guidance will change as we learn more
about this virus. When that happens, we will share it with you. We’d be happy to take questions now.
19-13 UpdateFiled
3 of 7| CDC
Page ID #:465
>> Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please unmute your phone. Press star 1, and when prompted,
record your rst and last name clearly so i may introduce you. To withdraw your question, press star 2. Again, to ask
a question, press star 1. Our rst question comes from Jason Gale with Bloomberg news. Your line is open.
>> Thanks for taking my question. It has two parts. We’ve heard something like 40% of COVID-19 patients
hospitalized in China have received corticosteroids. Could this be worsening the disease or helping patients by
calming the damaging immune response? The second bit is, what is the worst threat, the virus or the body’s
response to it?
>> This is CDC. I would say, in general, that CDC clinical guidance does not recommend the use of steroids for this
virus based on the information we have now. I’ve also seen the reports out of China, but i would consider it to be
unveri ed at this point. As we’ve talked about before, folks are rushing appropriately to get information out.
Sometimes, it is di cult to know which of those have been fully reviewed. I wouldn’t want to comment more directly
on what clinical practice is or is not in china. As many of you know, there is a team on the eld now in china working
speci cally on this outbreak. We, like everyone else, are waiting for the reports to come out so we can learn more
about what they’re nding in china. Also point out that there is also a WHO overseeing clinical group that is involving
not just the U.S. but all the countries that are treating patients with this, so that we can be sharing experiences and
using best practices that are available across the globe. In terms of your second question, and i really do think it is
premature to hypothesize why some patients are having poorer outcomes than others, but i would remind us that
emergent data still says that the people who have the worst outcomes are those who are older and with underlying
illnesses. That seems to be true, continue to be true. Next question?
>> Our next question is from Lisa Krieger with “San Jose Mercury News.” your line is open.
>> Thank you very much. Ten Americans tested positive in Japan, and 18 tested positive here with the CDC test upon
their arrival. Does that suggest that they were infected en route, or might be there some other explanation?
>> This is CDC again. What i would say is, as we said when this started, these group of people we judge to be at high
risk for COVID-19 based on what the attack rates were on the cruise ship. Therefore, it is possible that some of these
people were already incubating the disease when they left japan. That is similar to, for example, what we’ve seen in
just some of the travelers in the U.S. I’ll remind you that some of the U.S. cases were asymptomatic when they came
back in the U.S., and then developed symptoms several days later. It is entirely possible that that’s what’s going on
here. I think that more information will become available over the next couple days, as we fully evaluate these
repatriated travelers and as we line up the lab results from japan, as well as the testing in the united states. So more
than that, i think it is really premature to say. Next question.
>> Actually, for state, just one clari cation to that. The positive results that you saw in folks that were repatriated
either before they were transported, becoming positive or immediately upon arrival, it is important to note that
those test samples were obtained 48 to 72 hours prior to the evacuation and repatriation ight. So the results that
you’re seeing don’t represent infection en route. They actually represent infection that existed prior to the
evacuation that is only now coming to light.
>> Our next question is from Lenny Bernstein with the “Washington Post.” your line is open.
>> Thank you very much for taking my call. Dr. Messonnier, you say you expect to see more infections from
“diamond princess” passengers. Is that based on preliminary testing? Is that just a prediction? If you can say, how
many more? Is this going to be a very large number?
>> As i think you know if you’ve been listening to me give these telebrie ngs for weeks, i’m never going to make
predictions that way. I guess what we would say is that this was a high-risk situation. Based on what we know about
the attack rates and the exposures, we should expect to see additional cases. Some of these passengers are still in
what we would consider the incubation period, which we know to be 10 to 14 days. Until we’re through that period,
we won’t have a good feel for how many additional cases there are. But i’m — we do think, based on epidemiology
and risk assessment, that there may be additional cases. Next question?
>> Our next question is from Luke Simmons from San Antonio. Your line is open.
19-13 UpdateFiled
4 of 7| CDC
Page ID #:466
>> Thank you for taking my call. I was wondering if you could clarify on the group that is over at Lackland. Is that two
more patients that have tested positive, not including the one that had originally come here? Also, we had some
elected o cials that were concerned with them being taken, you know, for testing at the local hospitals. It seems like
you may have changed course a little bit with the Texas center for infectious disease. I’m just wondering if you can
kind of clarify what that process is once you guys, you know, start testing in this type of incident.
>> I’m going to maybe answer the second question rst. So as we’ve said with these repatriated groups, our
assessment of the groups, in terms of their risk, drives our stance in terms of what kind of testing we do. So because
these returning passengers — because these repatriated individuals were judged to be at high risk, we have done
additional testing on them. It is — in addition to that testing, we also are continuing to do surveillance for illness,
which is clearly our focus. Identifying people that are ill and making sure they are getting appropriate treatment so
they don’t have poor outcomes. When somebody is identi ed as being ill, those are the folks that are being
hospitalized, if that’s what you’re asking me. So there are people who are in quarantine. There are people who are in
local hospitals. They’re getting care. Is that what you’re asking me?
>> Yes. Well, and also, it just seems like, you know, some of the elected o cials were concerned about the testing
itself, making sure that that was happening at lackland. They didn’t necessarily need to go to a hospital at that point.
And then can you also talk about the texas center for infectious disease? Is that where you plan to take these people
now who are testing positive, and not just local hospitals, you know, with the general population?
>> I would say we probably need to defer back to dod for this. But in every situation, we’re trying to make the best
decision possible for the health of these individual patients. In each of these bases, and each of these situations, the
individual patient level decisions end up being a little bit di erent as we make those decisions with the health
department and with the dod, folks that have been kind enough to let us keep the passengers on these bases. Our
focus is on the individuals, again, making sure they’re getting the care possible, but also we want to make sure that
the rest of the communities, as well as the folks on the dod bases, also are assured of their own safety. So working
those issues together, each individualized situation ends up being a little di erent. Next question.
>> Our next question is from John Woolfolk from “Bay Area News Group.” your question?
>> Thank you, doctor. I have to ask you to go over the numbers of infections, both from the previous cases and the
“diamond princess.” you talk awful fast. If you could clarify, have you subtracted from the total the two that we know
of that have been declared recovered, or is that still being counted in? And is this new case out of Humboldt County
in California being added to that? If you could just go over the numbers of who is infected, that would be a big help.
>> Yeah. And i am sorry for going through those quickly. What i would start by saying is that the numbers should be
up on the CDC website within the hour. Because it is a little complicated to work through the details. Let me start by
saying that if you’re a case, you remain a case. Even if you recover, you remain a case. We’re not subtracting cases.
The patient from Humboldt County who was announced overnight should be added into those numbers. If, for
example, somebody was identi ed as being a con rmed case this afternoon, that number won’t be posted until
Monday. That’s the distinction, you know. We pick a time to post our numbers. It is Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday. We are separating out the folks that are repatriated because we think they really do — are a separate
category, and that it doesn’t re ect transmission and risk in general in the U.S. so what you’ll see us separating is the
U.S. cases versus the cases among repatriated individuals. Those are in two groups. The rst set of repatriated
individuals are the folks who came back from Wuhan on the repatriated ights. There are three patients that are
con rmed COVID-19 associated with their ight, those ights. Then there are the repatriated folks from the
“diamond princess.” that also will be a separate category. So far, that number is 18. We are still trying to adjudicate
the Japanese results, as well. So we likely will be including in that number, eventually, patients that were con rmed
in japan. We’ll really try to make sure, on our website, to post those numbers di erently. Bottom line is, there is one
new U.S. case since our last brie ng, which was a week ago. Then there is a separate category of folks that were on
the “diamond princess.” we will continue to keep those numbers separately. Please, within the hour, it’ll be on the
website and hopefully make it clearer. Next question.
>> Our next question is from Julie Steenhuysen from Reuters. Your line is open.
>> I have a couple questions. First of all, can you tell us how many states have testing capacity? We’re hearing that
only three states at the moment are capable of testing for the coronavirus because of issues with the test kits. And
secondly, and you touched on this, at what point does it make sense to still screen passengers at airports, given how
19-13 UpdateFiled
5 of 7| CDC
Page ID #:467
many countries now are seeing widespread — or seeing additional cases and starting — you know, at what point do
you shift to community-based measures to control this virus? Thirdly, do — where do we stand in our understanding
of whether this virus is spread in asymptomatic patients? Thank you.
>> So i have to say that i thought that this was one question and one follow-up, but i will try —
>> I know. Sorry.
>> In terms of the test kits, you know what, i think we’ve been as transparent as one could be about this issue. I’m
happy to report that we’re fully stood up at CDC. There is no lag time for testing at this point. That is the focus of
testing in the united states, the testing here at CDC. We’ve had no issues at all in terms of the quality of that. As
we’ve pushed tests out to the state, they did what we would expect as part of the normal procedures, which is do the
veri cation in their own laboratories. There were problems identi ed with the test kits. That is a normal part,
unfortunately, of these processes. We obviously would not want to use anything but the most perfect possible kits,
since we’re making determinations about whether people have COVID-19 or not. So that is still where we are. We
are working with FDA, who is the one that have oversight over us. Under this e.u.a. on redoing some of the kits. We
still consider it a priority to get the kits out to patients as soon as possible. It is overridden by the priority to make
sure that the test is correct. The second question is about screening. I guess what i would say in general is that if you
look at global data, the focus still of most of the cases is in china and, speci cally, in wuhan. That is why the layered
approach that the U.S. government has put in place has focused on those places at higher risk. We continue to
reevaluate this. Screening at the airport is two di erent things. There is routine screening for any passenger coming
back with — CDC works with them on it, and it is screening ill people returning from overseas. That’s routine. That’s
ongoing. That is not driven by these countries separately. We do have focused e orts focused on people returning
from china. We continue to look at those e orts to make sure the focus is appropriate, given where the burden of
disease is, and given where transmission is. We still think that, as of today, that is the right focus. It is also important
for you to realize, that’s not all we’re doing. In addition to what’s going on at the airports, we have clinicians all over
the country on the lookout for patients. We have patients who are traveling, getting information from us as to
potential risk, so that they can be part of this — of the important work of identifying cases in the U.S. we also
haven’t — this is not a turn on, turn o way of approach. That is, we’re often doing community surveillance. The
reason we’ve moved quickly to stand up community surveillance is with the understanding that we want to make
sure that we also have other ways, outside of just travel-associated screening, to look for cases in the U.S. that is
starting at a few sites, but we’re rapidly working to make that all over the united states. It will be community-level
surveillance for patients ill with respiratory diseases, so that we can also look at a community level, both to make
sure our screening is still focused appropriately, and also with the understanding that there is still the possibility in
the future that this is going to spread. The nal question is asymptomatic disease. There is certainly more data
coming out that suggests that there are people who are reportedly asymptomatic who have this virus with the swab.
We need to fully understand what that means in the individual patients. Are those patients, for example, that are
being caught early, that may eventually go on to get disease? How hard are folks looking to ask them for symptoms?
In other similar illnesses, we have found that if you dig deeper, you actually nd many of these patients can recall
some sort of mild symptom. I don’t think there is anything especially new about our posture on this. We are still
gathering information. When it is enough information to impact how we operationalize, we obviously will make sure
all our partners, as well as the public, knows it. Next question.
>> We have time for two more questions.
>> Our next question is from Dan Vergano with “Buzzfeed” news. Your line is open.
>> Thanks. I wanted to ask the state department o cial about some of the reports that there might be a spread or
outbreak in Iran, and whether our status with them, UN sanctions, would prevent us from aiding that country, or any
other with UN sanctions, in the case of stopping an outbreak for medical help. As a follow-up, i wanted to clarify,
was there a disagreement between CDC and state department about the passengers transferred back to the U.S.
from the cruise ship? Thanks.
>> This is CDC. I’ll take the reports out of Iran in terms of cases. You can answer the second question. So, you know,
as folks know, at CDC, we look carefully at both formal reports from other countries, as well as rumors. There have
been emerging reports informally of additional cases in Iran. Some of that isn’t con rmed yet. I expect this will be
something that we are looking at and talking about over the next couple days. It’s a little premature right now.
19-13 UpdateFiled
6 of 7| CDC
Page ID #:468
Really, that data is new as of today, and we need some time to evaluate it. I would also say that this is something
where, obviously, we’re working closely with the World Health Organization. State Department, I’ll leave the next
question to you.
>> This is Dr. Walters from the State Department. With regard to decision making during the evacuation, it is
important to remember that this was an emerging and unusual circumstance. We had 328 people on buses. We had
a plan. We were executing the plan. Then we received lab results on otherwise asymptomatic, un-ill people that
were on their way to an airport. I think the folks on the ground did just the right thing by, out of an abundance of
caution, moving those 14 people into an isolation area where they pose no threat to themselves or anyone else. It
provided room for an inter-agency discussion between not just CDC and state but the operational elements of HHS,
which were from the assistant secretary of preparedness and response. At the end of the day, the state department
had a decision to make, informed by our inter-agency partners. We made ahead and made that decision. The
decision, i think, was the right one, in bringing those people home.
>> This is CDC. Maybe i’ll just add that, you know, these are di cult decisions that we’re faced with every day. We’re
making those decisions in real time. When you make those kind of complicated decisions, there are going to be
di erent perspectives that are brought to the table. We are one U.S. government working together, and we will
continue to operate under that stance, as we have forever, since this started and as we will into the future. Our focus
is on, right now, the forward-looking health of these repatriated citizens, and to continue to manage the response
seamlessly within the government. Next question.
>> Our next question is from Andrew Joseph. Your line is open.
>> Hi. Following up on some of the testing questions. Has testing started through the in uenza network yet? Also,
you mentioned, you know, how clinicians are on the lookout for patients. Have you all thought about broadening the
recommendation? As it stands now, i think online, it’s either fever and — or sorry, symptoms and either travel history
to wuhan or contact with a con rmed case or person or investigation. As you mentioned, it seems to be spreading
pretty e ciently outside Wuhan. Have you thought about expanding that evaluation guideline? Thank you.
>> Certainly, our plan. I’d like to under promise and over deliver, but we expect it to be on track for next week. In
terms of case de nition, you may know that on our web page we do go through in detail our current case de nition.
The current case de nition does say that patients that have fever, symptoms of lower respiratory infection, requiring
hospitalization, and a history of travel from mainland china meet the case de nition for testing. We are regularly
looking at the epidemiological situation globally. With our state and local health department partners, evaluating our
case de nition to make sure it is sensitive and speci c enough. We will continue to do that. Including conversations
today on this issue. We are certainly sensitive to the question of when and if this starts spreading more broadly in
communities globally, how that impacts how we de ne a patient under investigation here in the U.S. We want to
make sure that we’re targeting our e orts appropriately. We also obviously don’t want to mistransmit in the United
States. Balancing those things going forward, we are going to continue to look at travel history and see when and if
there’s the right reasons to expand that beyond China.
>> Thank you, Dr. Messonnier. Thank you, all, for joining us today for today’s brie ng. Check CDC’s 2019 COVID-19
website for the latest updates on CDC response e orts. If you have further questions, please call CDC’s media line.
404-639-3286. Email media@CDC.gov. Thank you.
>> This concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may disconnect at this time.
###
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 
CDC works 24/7 protecting America’s health, safety and security. Whether disease start at home or abroad, are
curable or preventable, chronic or acute, or from human activity or deliberate attack, CDC responds to America’s
most pressing health threats. CDC is headquartered in Atlanta and has experts located throughout the United States
and the world.
19-13 UpdateFiled
7 of 7| CDC
Page ID #:469
Page last reviewed: May 21, 2018
Report 3: Transmissibility of 2019-nCoV

Natsuko Imai, Anne Cori, Ilaria Dorigatti, Marc Baguelin, Christl A. Donnelly, Steven Riley, Neil M.
Ferguson
WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease
Analysis, J-IDEA, Imperial College London, UK
Correspondence: neil.ferguson@imperial.ac.uk
Note: This is an extended version of an analysis previously shared with WHO, governments and
academic networks between 22/1/20-24/1/20
Summary
Self-sustaining human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) is the only
plausible explanation of the scale of the outbreak in Wuhan. We estimate that, on average, each
case infected 2.6 (uncertainty range: 1.5-3.5) other people up to 18th January 2020, based on
an analysis combining our past estimates of the size of the outbreak in Wuhan with
computational modelling of potential epidemic trajectories. This implies that control measures
need to block well over 60% of transmission to be effective in controlling the outbreak. It is likely,
based on the experience of SARS and MERS-CoV, that the number of secondary cases caused
by a case of 2019-nCoV is highly variable – with many cases causing no secondary infections,
and a few causing many. Whether transmission is continuing at the same rate currently depends
on the effectiveness of current control measures implemented in China and the extent to which
the populations of affected areas have adopted risk-reducing behaviours. In the absence of
antiviral drugs or vaccines, control relies upon the prompt detection and isolation of symptomatic
cases. It is unclear at the current time whether this outbreak can be contained within China;
uncertainties include the severity spectrum of the disease caused by this virus and whether
cases with relatively mild symptoms are able to transmit the virus efficiently. Identification and
testing of potential cases need to be as extensive as is permitted by healthcare and diagnostic
testing capacity – including the identification, testing and isolation of suspected cases with only
mild to moderate disease (e.g. influenza-like illness), when logistically feasible.
Introduction
A new human coronavirus, now termed 2019-nCoV, emerged during December 2019 in the
Chinese city of Wuhan. As of 1900 GMT 24th January 2020, over 900 cases have been reported
in China (with 26 deaths), and cases have been detected in at least 9 regions or countries
outside mainland China. Initial phylogenetic analysis suggests that the new virus is similar to
the SARS coronavirus when compared with other coronaviruses known to infect humans.
In our report published on January 22nd, we used an estimate of the frequency of international
travel from Wuhan to estimate that 4000 cases (uncertainty range: 1000-9700) had occurred
there with onset of symptoms up to 18th January [1].
Here we report estimates of the human-to-human transmissibility of 2019-nCoV. We generate
a set of simulated epidemic trajectories using a mathematical model of 2019-nCoV transmission
and examine the extent to which each trajectory is consistent with our prior estimates of
outbreak size.
For our baseline estimates, we assume that two key characteristics of 2019-nCoV are similar to
those observed for SARS: that there is high level of variability in the number of new infections
generated by each infectious individual (negative binomial offspring distribution with k=0.16 [2]);
and that the generation time (the average time between generations of infection) is the same
as was estimated for SARS (mean of 8.4 days [3]). We also explore an alternative scenario
which assumes that 2019-nCoV shows less case to case variation in infectiousness and has a
shorter generation time. This scenario might be more realistic if a majority of 2019-nCoV cases
have mild to moderate (‘flu-like’) symptoms and if both milder and severe cases are able to
transmit infection onwards.
The estimates of transmissibility we derive depend upon the number of cases infected from the
original animal source of this virus, which is currently unknown. Therefore, we explicitly consider
a range of numbers of human cases caused by zoonotic exposure to the virus.
The transmissibility of a virus is measured by the reproduction number, R, which measures the
average number of new infections generated by each infected person. When R is greater than
1, the outbreak is self-sustaining unless control measures are introduced to reduce R and slow
or stop transmission. When R is less than 1, while some human-to-human transmission occurs,
the number of new cases decreases over time and, eventually, the outbreak will stop. At the
start of an outbreak, when the population is largely unaware of the new threat and everyone is
susceptible, it is reasonable to assume that R is constant for a period of time. We call this initial
transmissibility the basic reproduction number R0.
Here, we describe different estimates of R0 and assess the degree to which they are consistent
with our estimates of the size of the outbreak in Wuhan: we measure the proportion of
simulations that are statistically compatible with 4000 total cases by 18th January. Our best-case
(most optimistic) estimate is the value of R0 for which 5% of simulated trajectories match or
exceed 4000 cases by 18th January. Our central estimate of R0 gives 50% of simulated
trajectories matching or exceeding 4000 cases. Our worst-case (most pessimistic) estimate is
the value for which 95% of simulated trajectories match or exceed 4000 cases. Figure 1
illustrates our approach. As a sensitivity analysis, we also generate estimates assuming 1000
or 9700 cases by 18th January, the lower and upper bounds of the uncertainty range around our
central estimate of 4000 cases by that date.
Results
Our analysis indicates that it is highly likely that the human-to-human transmissibility of 2019-
nCoV is sufficient to support sustained human transmission (R0>1) unless effective control
measures are implemented.
We judge that the most likely estimate corresponds to the smallest level of zoonotic exposure
explored here (40 cases), namely R0=2.6 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Uncertainty caused by the
intrinsically random nature of epidemics and the uncertainty in the level of zoonotic exposure
gives a range of 1.5-3.5, assuming a total of 4000 cases by 18th January. Central estimates of
R0 for the (unlikely) scenario that the true outbreak size in Wuhan was at the lower end of the
uncertainty range of our previous estimates (namely 1000 cases) vary from 1.7 to 2.6,
depending on the level of zoonotic exposure. Estimates of R0 assuming 9,700 cases by 18th
January (our highest estimate from report 2) were higher, at R0=3.1 (uncertainty: 1.9-4.2), for
40 cases caused by zoonotic exposure.
The only scenario which supports R0<1 requires a low number (1000) of cases overall in Wuhan
by 18th January and a very large number (200) of those cases being caused by zoonotic
exposure (Table 1), and even then, R0 is <1 only for our best case (most optimistic) estimate.
Infection of 200 individuals with a novel virus with very limited genetic diversity would represent
an unprecedently large point source zoonotic exposure event for the initial seeding of this
epidemic. Current evidence of very limited genetic diversity in the published genetic sequences
of the virus suggests a smaller seeding event (perhaps smaller than the 40 cases assumed in
our lowest zoonotic seeding scenario) [4–6].
Our baseline analysis assumes SARS-like levels of case-to-case variability in the numbers of
secondary cases generated by each case (i.e. it includes super-spreading type events), and a
SARS-like generation time. We also examined sensitivity to these assumptions. Assuming a
shorter generation time (mean of 6.8 days rather than 8.4 days) reduces our central estimate of
R0 to 2.1 (uncertainty range: 1.3-2.7), but does not change overall conclusions about the
likelihood of self-sustaining human-to-human transmission. Increasing the generation time to
10.7 days results in a higher central estimate of R0 of 3.1 (uncertainty range: 1.7-4.3) but again
does not change basic conclusions.
Table 1: Best-case, central and worst-case estimates of 2019-nCoV human-to-human R0

compatible with either 4000 (top half of table) or 1000 (bottom half of table) total cases by
18/01/2020. Values of R0 >1 represent self-sustaining human-to-human and are highlighted in red.
Baseline estimates highlighted in bold.
Number of cases Assumed total Best-case R0 Central Worst-case

caused by number of cases (median) R0 R0
zoonotic by 18/01/2020
exposure
40 4000 2.1 2.6 3.5
80 4000 1.8 2.2 2.7
120 4000 1.7 2.0 2.4
160 4000 1.6 1.8 2.2
200 4000 1.5 1.7 2.0
40 1000 1.4 1.9 2.7
80 1000 1.2 1.5 2.0
120 1000 1.1 1.3 1.7
160 1000 1.0 1.2 1.5
200 1000 0.9 1.1 1.3
Figure 1: Illustration of estimation method

for central estimate of R0=2.6. Red curve
represents median cumulative case
numbers over time, calculated from 5000
simulated trajectories of the epidemic,
assuming zoonotic exposure of 40 cases in
December 2019 and the generation time and
variability in infectiousness of SARS. The
grey region indicates the 95 percentile range
of trajectories – individual simulated
epidemics (a random subset of which are
shown as light grey curves) are highly
variable, reflecting the random nature of
disease transmission. Dotted lines indicate
January 18th (vertical) and 4000 cumulative
cases (horizontal).
Assuming a lower level of variability in infectiousness (at the minimum level statistically
consistent with SARS data [1]) narrows the uncertainty range of R0 but changes the central
estimate only marginally: R0=2.5 (uncertainty range 1.6-2.9), for a negative binomial offspring
distribution with k=0.64. Assuming a lower level of variability in infectiousness (at the minimum
level statistically consistent with SARS data [2]) narrows the uncertainty range of R0 but changes
the central estimate little: R0=2.5 (uncertainty range 1.6-2.9), for a negative binomial offspring
distribution with k=0.64.
If the current virus causes more cases with mild to moderate symptom severity than SARS, and
these cases are infectious – a scenario consistent with some recently published data on a family
cluster of cases [7], both the generation time and level of heterogeneity in infectiousness may
be lower than for SARS. This scenario might be more realistic if a majority of 2019-nCoV cases
have mild to moderate (‘flu-like’) symptoms and both milder and severe cases are able to
transmit infection onwards. This results in both a lower central estimate of R0 and a narrower
uncertainty range: R0 = 2.0 (uncertainty: 1.4-2.3) for a mean generation time of 6.7 days and
k=0.64.
Discussion
The unprecedented quarantining of multiple cities in Hubei province, China on 23rd January
2020 clearly marks a new stage of the public health response to this outbreak. Here, we
explored a range of different scenarios for the extent of zoonotic (animal) exposure to estimate
transmissibility of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan up to 18th January. We conclude that self-sustaining
human-to-human transmission of the virus must have occurred, with a reproduction number
estimate of 2.6 (uncertainty range: 1.5-3.5), to explain our previous central estimate of the scale
of outbreak (namely 4000 cases by 18th January). Even assuming our lowest estimate of 1000
cases by 18th January, it is highly likely that sustained human-to-human transmission was
occurring. Assuming that our upper bound estimate of 9700 cases occurred, R0 estimates are
correspondingly higher.
Whether transmission continues at the same rate now critically depends on the effectiveness of
the intense control effort now underway in Wuhan and across China. We note the large body of
evidence that suggests that the reproduction number for SARS changed considerably when
populations became fully aware of the threat. If a similar change to contact patterns is occurring
in this outbreak, rates of transmission are likely to be lower now than during the period for which
these estimates were made, due to control measures and risk avoidance in the population.
Whether the reduction in transmission is sufficient to reduce R to below 1 – and thus end the
outbreak – remains to be seen. Reports point to mildly symptomatic but infectious cases of
2019-nCoV, which were not a feature of SARS. Prompt detection and isolation of such cases
will be extremely challenging, given the larger number of other diseases (e.g. influenza) which
can cause such non-specific respiratory symptoms. While more severe cases will always need
to be prioritised, control may depend upon successful detection, testing and isolation of suspect
cases with the broadest possible range of symptom severity.
Our results emphasise the need to track transmission rates over the next few weeks, especially
in Wuhan. If a clear downwards trend is observed in the numbers of new cases, that would
indicate that control measures and behavioural changes can substantially reduce the
transmissibility of 2019-nCoV. Genetic data from Wuhan after the implementation of strong
public health measures may also provide valuable insight into the patterns and rate of
transmission.
Despite the recent decision of the WHO Emergency Committee to not declare this a Public
Health Emergency of International Concern at this time, this epidemic represents a clear and
ongoing global health threat. It is uncertain at the current time whether it is possible to contain
the continuing epidemic within China. In addition to monitoring how the epidemic evolves, it is
critical that the magnitude of the threat is better understood. Currently, we have only a limited
understanding of the spectrum of severity of symptoms that infection with this virus causes, and
no reliable estimates of the case fatality ratio – the proportion of cases who will die as a result
of the disease. Characterising the severity spectrum, and how severity of symptoms relates to
infectiousness, will be critical to evaluating the feasibility of control and the likely public health
impact of this epidemic.
References
1. Imai N, Dorigatti I, Cori A, Riley S, Ferguson NM. Report 2: Estimating the potential total
number of novel Coronavirus cases in Wuhan City, China. [cited 24 Jan 2020]. Available:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-
coronavirus/
2. Lloyd-Smith JO, Schreiber SJ, Kopp PE, Getz WM. Superspreading and the effect of
individual variation on disease emergence. Nature. 2005;438: 355–359.
doi:10.1038/nature04153
3. Lipsitch M, Cohen T, Cooper B, Robins JM, Ma S, James L, et al. Transmission dynamics
and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science (80- ). 2003;300: 1966–1970.
doi:10.1126/science.1086616
4. Bedford T. Nextstrain / narratives / ncov / sit-rep / 2020-01-23. [cited 24 Jan 2020].
Available: https://nextstrain.org/narratives/ncov/sit-rep/2020-01-23?n=0
5. Rambaut A. Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of 11 nCoV2019 genomes, 2020-01-19 -
Novel 2019 coronavirus - Virological. [cited 24 Jan 2020]. Available:
http://virological.org/t/preliminary-phylogenetic-analysis-of-11-ncov2019-genomes-
2020-01-19/329
6. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected
with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 0. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(20)30183-5
7. Chan JF-W, Yuan S, Kok K-H, To KK-W, Chu H, Yang J, et al. A familial cluster of
pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person
transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet. 0. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30154-
9
2/24/2020 How Document
Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE long can the new19-15
coronavirus last on02/24/20
Filed surfaces? | Live Science1 of 10 Page ID
Page
#:475
TRENDING Coronavirus Podcast Climate Change Life's Little Mysteries Live Science Gear!
Live Science is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an a liate commission. Learn more
How long can the new coronavirus last on surfaces?

By Yasemin Saplakoglu - Sta Writer 5 days ago
Some coronaviruses can linger on surfaces for up to 9 days.
        Comments (0)
https://www.livescience.com/how-long-coronavirus-last-surfaces.html 1/10
Page
#:476
(Image: © NIAID-RML)
China's central bank is taking steps to deep clean and even destroy its cash out of fears that the new coronavirus can survive on the
surface of money and potentially spread, according to CNN.
But how long can the new coronavirus linger on surfaces, anyway? The short answer is, we don't know. But if this new coronavirus
resembles other human coronaviruses, such as its "cousins" that cause SARS and MERS, it can stay on surfaces — such as metal,
glass or plastic — for as long as nine days, according to a new study. (In comparison, u viruses can last on surfaces for only about 48
hours.)
ALL ABOUT COVID-19


Page
#:477
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

—See live updates on the new coronavirus
—How deadly is COVID-19?
—How does the new coronavirus compare with u?
—Why are children 'missing' from coronavirus outbreak?
In the new study, researchers analyzed several dozen previously published papers on human coronaviruses (other than the new
coronavirus) to get a better idea of how long they can survive outside of the body. The authors found that these coronaviruses can
linger on surfaces for over a week but that some of them don't remain active for as long at temperatures higher than 86 degrees
Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius). The authors also found that these coronaviruses can be e ectively wiped away by household
disinfectants.
RECOMMENDED VIDEOS FOR YOU...
Robots deployed to assist in coronavirus battle

China has developed robots to take body temperatures and disinfect hospitals and clinics to help battle the coronavirus.
PLAY SOUND
2/24/2020 Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE How Document
long can the new19-15
Page
For example, disinfectants with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen#:478
peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (bleach) can "e ciently"
inactivate coronaviruses within a minute, according to the study. "We expect a similar e ect against the 2019-nCoV," the researchers
wrote, referring to the new coronavirus. But even though the new coronavirus is a similar strain to the SARS coronavirus, it's not clear
if it will behave the same.
It's also not clear how frequently hands become contaminated with coronaviruses after touching a sick patient or contaminated
surface, according to the study. The World Health Organization recommends alcohol-based hand rubs for decontamination of the
hands, the authors wrote.
It's possible that a person can be infected with the virus by touching a contaminated surface or object, "then touching their own
mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "But this is not thought to be
the main way the virus spreads."
Rather, the virus is most likely to spread from person to person through close contact and respiratory droplets from coughs and
sneezes that can land on a nearby person's mouth or nose, according to the CDC.
The study was published on Feb. 6 in The Journal of Hospital Infection.
The 9 deadliest viruses on Earth

27 devastating infectious diseases
11 surprising facts about the respiratory system
Originally published on Live Science.
OFFER: Save at least 53% with our latest magazine deal!
With impressive cutaway illustrations that show how things function, and mindblowing photography of the world’s
most inspiring spectacles, How It Works represents the pinnacle of engaging, factual fun for a mainstream audience
keen to keep up with the latest tech and the most impressive phenomena on the planet and beyond. Written and presented in a style
that makes even the most complex subjects interesting and easy to understand, How It Works is enjoyed by readers of all ages.
VIEW DEAL
MORE ABOUT... LATEST
Coronavirus cases spike in South 'Superspreader' in South Korea infects

Korea: Live updates on COVID-19  nearly 40 people with coronavirus 
SEE MORE RELATED  SEE MORE LATEST 
NO COMMENTS YET COMMENT FROM THE FORUMS 
Why are children 'missing' from coronavirus outbreak cases?

Adults, even healthy young adults, are felled by the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV much more readily than children. Here's why.
Livescience
The Genius Trick Every Bath & Body Works Shopper Should Know
Page
Wikibuy | Sponsored #:479
This Is Why Hotel Guests Should Always Put Coins In The Sink
amomedia.com | Sponsored
Forget Expensive Roofing (Do This Instead)

Insider Financial Tips | Sponsored
Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears

Refinance Gold | Sponsored
New coronavirus may spread through poop

Livescience
New coronavirus may have 'jumped' to humans from snakes, study finds
Livescience
Stock Market Event Of The Decade Is Approaching

Stansberry Research | Sponsored
MOST POPULAR
Is it dangerous to eat right before you swim?

By Isobel Whitcomb February 23, 2020
READ MORE 
Why was whaling so big in the 19th century?

By Emma Bryce February 22, 2020
READ MORE 
12 trippy objects hidden in the zodiac

2/24/2020 Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE How Document
long can the new19-15
Page
By Brandon Specktor February 21, 2020 #:480
READ MORE 
Tomb of Rome's mythical founder Romulus unearthed

By Tom Metcalfe February 21, 2020
READ MORE 
Coronavirus-stricken cruise ship passengers returned to US against CDC advice

By Stephanie Pappas February 21, 2020
READ MORE 
Bones of Neolithic immigrants killed in massacre found in Spanish cave

By Tom Metcalfe February 21, 2020
READ MORE 
Wreckage of lost American WWII planes finally found, in a Pacific lagoon

By Mindy Weisberger February 21, 2020
READ MORE 
Dozens of ancient Egyptian graves found with rare clay coffins

By Laura Geggel February 21, 2020
Page
#:481
READ MORE 
Your brain waves could predict if an antidepressant will work for you
By Lucy Hicks February 21, 2020
READ MORE 
Despite a 'double-barreled' flu season, the vaccine is mostly doing its job
By Rachael Rettner February 20, 2020
READ MORE 
Specialized respirators are key to stopping spread of coronavirus to medical staff

By Nicoletta Lanese February 20, 2020
READ MORE 
New coronavirus may spread through poop

By Yasemin Saplakoglu February 20, 2020
READ MORE 
Advertisement
Page
___ #:482
SIGN UP FOR E-MAIL

 NEWSLETTERS
Get breaking science news on

monster snakes and dinosaurs,
aliens, spooky particles and more!
Your Email Address
SIGN M
No spam, we promise. You can unsubscribe at any time and

we'll never share your details without your permission.
Advertisement
MOST READ MOST SHARED
Page
#:483
1 Worms Frozen for 42,000 Years in Siberian Permafrost Wriggle to Life
2 Ripples in space-time could explain the mystery of why the universe exists
3 How ancient microbes could help save coastal cities from rising seas
4 This is the most violent object in the solar system
5 Neuroscientists discover 'engine of consciousness' hiding in monkeys' brains
Advertisement
2/24/2020 Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDEHowDocument
long can the new coronavirus
19-15 last on
Filed surfaces? | Live
02/24/20 Science
Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#:484
Live Science is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
About Us
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Cookies policy
Accessibility Statement
Topics
Advertise with us
Web noti cations
California Privacy Rights
© Future US, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10036.
2/24/2020
Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE Spread of coronavirus
Document 19-16 underestimated, review finds --Page
Filed 02/24/20 ScienceDaily
1 of 4 Page ID #:485
Your source for the latest research news
Science News from research organizations
Spread of coronavirus underestimated, review finds

Date: February 14, 2020
Source: Umea University
Summary: The coronavirus probably has a stronger ability to spread than the World Health Organization has
estimated so far, according to a review of previous studies of the coronavirus' transmissibility.
Share: abegd
FULL STORY
The coronavirus probably has a stronger ability to spread than the World Health
Organization has estimated so far. This according to a review of previous studies of the
coronavirus' transmissibility performed not least by researchers at Umeå University in
Sweden.
"Our review shows that the coronavirus is at least as transmissible as the SARS virus. And that says a great deal
about the seriousness of the situation," says Joacim Rocklöv, professor of sustainable health at Umeå University
and one of the authors of the study, published in the scientific Journal of Travel Medicine.
The World Health Organization estimates that the coronavirus has a transmissibility, expressed as a reproduction
number, of between 1.4 and 2.5. A reproduction number is a measurement of how many people a contaminated
person transmits the virus to in a previously healthy population. The higher the number, the more transferable the
virus is and the higher the risk for rapid spread. When the reproduction number falls below 1.0, the epidemic is
likely to die out.
Researchers in Umeå in Sweden, Heidelberg in Germany, and Zhangzhou in China have carried out a review of
several scientific studies of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. In total, the researchers found twelve studies of
sufficiently high quality. The studies consisted of estimations of the growth rate based upon the cases observed in
the Chinese population, and based upon statistical and mathematical methods.
The earliest studies of the coronavirus indicated a relatively low transmissibility. Thereafter, the transmissibility
rose rapidly to stabilise between 2-3 in the most recent studies. The reproduction number in the studies summed
up to a mean of 3.28, and a median of 2.79, which is significantly higher than the World Health Organization's
estimation of 1.4-2.5.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200214111519.htm 1/4
2/24/2020
"When looking at the development of the corona epidemic, reality seems to correspond well to or even exceed the
highest epidemic growth in our calculations. Despite all intervention and control activities, the coronavirus has
already spread to a significantly higher extent than SARS did," says Joacim Rocklöv.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Umea University. Original written by Ola Nilsson. Note: Content may be edited for style and
length.
Journal Reference:
1. Ying Liu, Albert A Gayle, Annelies Wilder-Smith, Joacim Rocklöv. The reproductive number of COVID-19 is
higher compared to SARS coronavirus. Journal of Travel Medicine, 2020; DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taaa021
Cite This Page:

MLA APA Chicago
Umea University. "Spread of coronavirus underestimated, review finds." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 February
2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200214111519.htm>.
RELATED STORIES
Novel Coronavirus Receptors Show Similarities to SARS-CoV, According to New Analysis

Jan. 31, 2020 — Previous studies have shown how the SARS virus (SARS-CoV) interacts with animal and human
hosts in order to infect them. The mechanics of infection by the Wuhan coronavirus appear to be ... read more 
New Coronavirus Emerges from Bats in China, Devastates Young Swine

Apr. 4, 2018 — A newly identified coronavirus that killed nearly 25,000 piglets in 2016-17 in China emerged from
horseshoe bats near the origin of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), which ...
read more 
Coronavirus Breakthrough: Protein Mutation Affects Spread and Virulence of Respiratory Virus
Nov. 10, 2015 — Researchers have discovered that a mutation in a coronavirus protein slows the spread of the
virus in the central nervous system and reduces its neurovirulence. It is the first time that this ... read more 
Possible Path Toward First Anti-MERS Drugs

2/24/2020
July 27, 2015 — If you haven't heard of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, thank geography, NGOs, and
government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization
(WHO) ... read more 
FROM AROUND THE WEB
Below are relevant articles that may interest you. ScienceDaily shares links with scholarly publications in the
TrendMD network and earns revenue from third-party advertisers, where indicated.
Reframe chronic pain treatment with a different mechanism of action

Sponsored by BioDelivery Sciences
Discover a Schedule III long-acting opioid

Advance the opioid conversation and reframe chronic pain treatment

Reframe their chronic pain treatment with a Schedule III long-acting opioid
Calculate patient doses with this quick and easy opioid calculator
Schedule III opioids provide pain relief that patients need with less potential for abuse than Schedule II
opioids
Convert SAO to LAO dose with this calculator

Easy. Quick. Accurate. Use the opioid dosing calculator

Powered by
Free Subscriptions
Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly
updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:
 Email Newsletters
 RSS Feeds
Follow Us
2/24/2020
Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks:
 Facebook
 Twitter
 LinkedIn
Have Feedback?
Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems
using the site? Questions?
 Leave Feedback
 Contact Us
About This Site | Staff | Reviews | Contribute | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Editorial Policy | Terms of Use
Copyright 2020 ScienceDaily or by other parties, where indicated. All rights controlled by their respective owners.
Content on this website is for information only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice.
Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily, its staff, its contributors, or its partners.
Financial support for ScienceDaily comes from advertisements and referral programs, where indicated.
2/24/2020
Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE Coronavirus
Document impact:19-17
France sees tourism
Filed numbers fall by
02/24/20 30% to
Page 140%
of 5 Page ID #:489
BREAKING Futures are extending their losses before the open, with the Dow now s 
TOUR I S M
France has seen a 30% to 40% fall in tourists

following the coronavirus outbreak: Finance minister
PUBLISHED SUN, FEB 23 2020•3:56 AM EST
Abigail Ng
@ABIGAILNGWY
SHARE    
KEY POINTS
The drop off in tourist numbers is an “important impact” on France’s
economy, Bruno Le Maire, the country’s finance minister, said.
France is one of the most visited countries in the world, and tourism accounts for
nearly 8% of its GDP.
Le Maire said France welcomes around 2.7 million Chinese tourists to the country
each year, but it “won’t be the same” in 2020.

MARKETS

WATCHLIST

CNBC TV

MENU
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/23/coronavirus-impact-france-sees-tourism-numbers-fall-by-30percent-to-40percent.html 1/5
2/24/2020
France sees tourism
02/24/20 30% to
Page 240%
of 5 Page ID #:490
VIDEO 01:02
French finance minister on coronavirus impact on economy
France’s tourism sector has taken a beating following the coronavirus outbreak,
according to the country’s finance minister.
“We have less tourists, of course, in France, about 30%, 40% less than expected,”
Bruno Le Maire told CNBC’s Dan Murphy on Sunday at the G-20 Finance Ministers and
Central Bank Governors’ Meetings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
“That’s, of course, an important impact for the French economy,” he said.
The new coronavirus infection first surfaced in late 2019 in the Chinese city Wuhan,
and the disease has since killed nearly 2,500 people in China.
Amid travel bans and trip postponements, demand for air travel has fallen, leading to
more than 200,000 flight cancellations.
France is one of the most visited countries in the world. According to the country’s
Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 89.4 million visitors toured France in 2018
and tourism accounts for nearly 8% of its gross domestic product.
It also welcomes around 2.7 million Chinese tourists each year, Le Maire said. “It won’t
be the same, of course, in 2020.”
France has reported 12 confirmed cases of the virus and one death, according to a
WHO report dated Feb. 22.
— CNBC’s Leslie Josephs contributed to this report.

MARKETS

WATCHLIST

CNBC TV

MENU
2/24/2020
France sees tourism
02/24/20 30% to
Page 340%
of 5 Page ID #:491
TRENDING NOW
Futures are extending their losses before the open, with the Dow now set lose
900 points
1
Warren Buffett interview highlights: ‘Good’ when stocks fall, likes Apple a lot,
coronavirus impact
2
Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders is the front-runner because of how we raised our kids
Coronavirus live updates: Buffett warns of virus impact, global markets roiled
Cramer on market plunge: Coronavirus impact on companies could be ‘more

severe than thought’
5
Sponsored Links by Taboola
FROM THE WEB


MARKETS

WATCHLIST

CNBC TV

MENU
2/24/2020
France sees tourism
02/24/20 30% to
Page 440%
of 5 Page ID #:492
The Dead Giveaway
BREAKING That
Futures are Tells Youtheir
extending When Amazon’s
losses beforeGiving Youwith
the open, A Better Pricenow
the Dow Than
s 
Wikibuy

Unsold 2019 SUVs On Sale Below MSRP

Cars | Search Ads
Subscribe to CNBC PRO Licensing & Reprints

CNBC Councils Supply Chain Values
Advertise With Us Join the CNBC Panel
Digital Products News Releases
Closed Captioning Corrections
About CNBC Internships
Site Map Podcasts
AdChoices Careers
Help Contact
      
News Tips
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
GET IN TOUCH
 CNBC Newsletters
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox

MARKETS

WATCHLIST
SIGN UP NOW 
CNBC TV

MENU
2/24/2020
France sees tourism
02/24/20 30% to
Page 540%
of 5 Page ID #:493
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
Privacy Policy - New


Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Terms of Service
© 2020 CNBC LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Division of NBCUniversal
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes. Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and
Analysis.
Market Data Terms of Use and Disclaimers

Data also provided by

MARKETS

WATCHLIST

CNBC TV MENU


jkeller@kelleranderle.com
2
Irvine, CA 92612
5 T: (949) 476-8700
6 F: (949) 476-0900


10
11
12 CITY OF COSTA MESA, and Case No. 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE
KATRINA FOLEY,
13
FURTHER DECLARATION OF
Plaintiff, JASON DEMPSEY IN SUPPORT
14
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
DISEASE CONTROL AND
CALIFORNIA, FAIRVIEW
21 DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
FURTHER DEC. OF JASON DEMPSEY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
2 DECLARATION OF JASON S. DEMPSEY

3 I, Jason S. Dempsey, declare:
4 1. I am the Emergency Services Manager for the City of Costa Mesa
5 (hereinafter "the City") and have been so employed since August 2018. I hold
6 three certifications. I am a Certified Emergency Manager with the International
7 Association of Emergency Managers, a Certified Business Continuity Professional
8 with Disaster Recovery Institute, and I am certified by the state of California as an
9 Emergency Management Specialist. I take close to a few hundred hours a year of
10 training in emergency management related topics. I have two master's degrees.
11 One is in Public Administration from University of Southern California and the
12 other one is in Homeland Security from Pennsylvania State University. As a retired

13 Marine Corps Officer, I have extensive training in biological weapons obtained at
14 exclusive facilities often requiring Top Secret, compartmentalized clearances. This
15 training provided me a clear understanding of the considerations associated with
16 biological and pandemic threats such as the challenges with properly and
17 consistently using personal protective equipment, conducting thorough
18 decontamination, cross contamination, quarantine, and testing. If called upon, I
19 would and could competently testify to all of the facts contained within this
20 declaration based upon my personal knowledge, except where stated upon
21 information and belief.
22 2. In my role as the City's Emergency Services Manager, I routinely
23 coordinate with the County, State, and Federal authorities on issues relating to
24 public safety and emergency management.
25 3. Even for routine events, such as sporting or cultural events that may
26 draw large crowds, I work with County and State authorities on detailed plans to
27 ensure close coordination, open lines of communication, a unified response in the
28 -1-
FURTHER DEC.OF JASON DEMPSEY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
1 event ofan emergency.

2 4. Attached to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Event
3 Action Plan I created and shared with my County and Regional counterparts for
4 Costa Mesa's hosting of the Chargers' Training Camp. This 21-page document
5 outlines our critical safety objectives, identifies the responsibilities of different
6 parties and organizations, provides contact information for all involved, identifies
7 critical resources, and explains efforts to mitigate risks. I would expect far more
8 detailed information from State and Federal authorities than this Event Action Plan
9 for something as significant as the isolation and treatment of a significant number
10 of individuals with a highly communicable disease within the City. Such a plan
11 should have significant information regarding contingency planning incorporated
12 to address failures in the process. Instead, the email I received from Jim Acosta
13 was the extent of the information provided to the City by Friday for a proposed
14 transfer of infected people to Costa Mesa as early as Sunday night.
15 6. As of February 23, 2020, the City still has not received critical
16 information we need to keep the public safe and to be an effective partner if needed
17 in responding to any emergency arising from the use ofFDC to isolate Coronavirus
18 patients.
19 7. For example, the City still does not have the following broad categories o
20 information:
21 • The identities of the lead agencies, their roles, and the incident
22 commanders for each agency;
23 • Operational details of how FDC will be used: when it is
24 expected to begin operations as an isolation location, how long
25 it is expected to be used for this purpose, will the site be
26 expanded, what is the maximum number of patients to be
27 housed, whether the number of buildings used on site will
28
-2-
FURTHER DEC. OF JASON DEMPSEY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
change over time, have the state and federal agencies

2 considered overflow sites;
3 • Information sharing: how information will be shared among the
4 different levels of government, how requests for resources and
5 mutual aid will be made, how media and public inquiries will
6 be handled, how emergencies will be communicated;
7 • General safety information the City's first responders need to
8 be aware of: how far the Coronavirus can travel, whether it is
9 airborne, whether there be physical baniers preventing access
10 to FDC, how tall and secure those baniers will be, how far they
11 will be from the buildings and publicly accessible areas, how
12 the facility will be guarded;
13 • Conditions of the facilities and plans to maintain and repair
14 them given the aging and obsolete infrastructure;
15 • Housing, feeding, and movement of FDC support personnel;
16 • When patients will be moved on and off the facility, testing
17 procedures for patients, and protocols for removal to local
18 hospitals, if necessary;
ree-wv
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
20 that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed thiszjday of at Costa
21 Mesa, California.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
FURTHER DEC. OF JASON DEMPSEY IN SUPPORT OF EX PA RTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
#:498
#:499
#:500
#:501
#:502
#:503
#:504
#:505
#:506
#:507
#:508
#:509
#:510
#:511
#:512
#:513
#:514
#:515
#:516
#:517
#:518
#:519

Irvine, CA 92612
5 T: (949) 476-8700
6 F: (949) 476-0900

9
11
12
KATRINA FOLEY,
14
DECLARATION OF BRYAN
15 Plaintiff, GLASS IN SUPPORT OF EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
16 vs. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
17 ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
18 AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE
DISEASE CONTROL AND
26
Defendants.
27
28
DECLARATION OF BRYAN GLASS IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY


Irvine, CA 92612
5 T: (949) 476-8700
6 F: (949) 476-0900

9
11
12
KATRINA FOLEY,
14
DECLARATION OF DIEDRE
15 Plaintiff, THU-HA NGUYEN IN SUPPORT
17 RESTRAINING ORDER AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
DISEASE CONTROL AND
26
Defendants.
27
28
DECLARATION OF DIEDRE THU-HA NGUYEN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

INJUNCTION
#:526

Irvine, CA 92612
5 T: (949) 476-8700
6 F: (949) 476-0900

9
11
12
KATRINA FOLEY,
14
DECLARATION OF LORI ANNE
15 Plaintiff, FARRELL HARRISON IN
SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
16 vs. APPLICATION FOR
17 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF
18 AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DISEASE CONTROL AND
26
Defendants.
27
28
DECLARATION OF LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

INJUNCTION
#:527
1 I, Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, declare:

2 1. I am the City Manager for the City of Costa Mesa and have been so
3 employed with the City of Costa Mesa (hereinafter “the City”) since July 2019.
4 2. I am a local government executive with 28 years of experience at both the
5 state and local levels. I hold a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from
6 Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and a Bachelor’s
7 Degree from Barnard College of Columbia University.
8 3. In the course of my 28-year career, I have received extensive training in
9 Federal and State emergency management, procedures and protocols, including the
10 procedures necessary for comprehensive, thorough and effective federal, state and
11 local emergency preparedness, advanced planning and cost recovery as required by
12 numerous Federal and State laws and regulations including the Federal Stafford
13 Emergency Assistance Act, the Federal Public Health Service Act, the Federal
14 Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, and the Federal National Incident
15 Management System, among others.
16 4. I have served in multiple capacities and government entities requiring
17 knowledge of laws for emergency management in the public sector throughout my
18 career. Most recently, I worked for the City of Huntington Beach as Assistant City
19 Manager from 2017 to 2019. Prior to serving as Assistant City Manager, I served
20 as the Chief Financial Officer for 7 years. Prior to this role, I served as the City
21 Controller and later as the Chief Financial Officer, for the City of Long Beach. I
22 worked for the State of New York in various capacities in the New York State
23 Division of the Budget overseeing a $2 billion budget, from 1991 to 1996, and for
24 the City of New York, at the Administration for Children’s Services from 1996
25 through 1999. I was appointed to the Board of Harbor Commissioners for the Port
26 of Long Beach, and served for five years, and served as President of the Board for
27 two years. I also served on the Board of Directors for Long Beach Transit, a
28 public transit agency serving the second largest transit operation in Los Angeles
1
INJUNCTION
#:528
1 County. In all of these roles, having experience in emergency management was

2 central to my duties in order to help these cities receive Federal and State
3 reimbursement for local costs related to an emergency.
4 5. As the City Manager for the City of Costa Mesa and per the Costa Mesa
5 Municipal Code Chapter 1, Sec. 6-5, the City Manager is the City’s Director of
6 Emergency Services (Ord. No. 80-20, § 3, 11-3-80).
7 6. It is the Costa Mesa City Manager’s duty and responsibility to “provide
8 for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and
9 property within this city in the event of an emergency; the direction of the
10 emergency organization; and, the coordination of the emergency functions of this
11 city with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations and affected private
12 persons.” (Ord. No. 80-20, Section 3, 11-3-80). Moreover, the Director of
13 Emergency Services, must “represent the city in all dealings with public or private
14 agencies on matters pertaining to emergencies” as per Municipal Code Chapter 1,
15 Section 6-6.
16 7. Essential to the role of the City Manager and Director of Emergency
17 Services is the knowledge and application of State and Federal laws and policies
18 related to emergencies and disasters in addition to the City’s Municipal Code.
19 8. The City of Costa Mesa is a full-service city in Orange County,
20 California, a county of 34 cities and over 3 million residents. The City of Costa
21 Mesa has a population of 116,000 residents and covers 17 miles and is bordered by
22 the cities of Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and
23 Irvine. The City of Costa Mesa, when combined with the six cities that it borders,
24 is in the heart of a population center with over one million residents. As such, fire
25 and police mutual aid responses are critical to serve all of the cities in this densely
26 populated region. The City has 492 full time and 137 part-time positions.
27 9. The Costa Mesa Police Department is a full-service department proving
28 police services to the community of Costa Mesa, which includes both the Office of
2
INJUNCTION
#:529
1 Emergency Service and Communications Center for the City. The department
2 operates from the Police main facility (99 Fair Drive) and two substations (South
3 Coast Plaza Substation at 3333 Bristol Street and the West Side Substation at 567
4 W. 18th Street. The Department’s full-time staffing is comprised of 136 sworn
5 police officer and 76 professional staff positions. In 2019, the department
6 responded to 137,384 calls for service. The Communications Center is a public
7 safety answering point (PSAP) responsible for answering calls to an emergency
8 telephone number for police, fire, and ambulance services. In 2019, the
9 Communications Center received 48,476 911 emergency/public safety calls and
10 205,404 telephone calls. The department is a part of the Orange County Mutual
11 Aid Agreement for mutual aid assistance when needed and contracts air support
12 services with the City of Huntington Beach. The FDC is only one mile away from
13 Costa Mesa City Hall and the main Police facility, which included the City’s
14 Emergency Operation Center and Communications Center.
15 10. Costa Mesa also has its own Police Department and a Fire and Rescue
16 Department. Costa Mesa also serves as a public safety answering point responsible
17 for answering calls to an emergency telephone number for police, firefighting and
18 ambulance services. The Fire Department has six fire stations and serves the
19 public 24 hours a day, seven days a week and responds to 13,000 calls for service
20 each year including calls for emergency medical services. When the City requires
21 additional police, fire and/or medical mutual aid, it relies on its neighboring cities,
22 as well as the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County Fire
23 Authority.
24 11. As a full-service city with police and fire operations, the City is subject
25 to compliance with numerous federal and state statutes related to emergency and
26 disaster preparedness and response in order to ensure the protection of the
27 community, as well as the protection of the 220 First Responders and city staff
28 called to participate in the response. Among the many laws the federal, state,
3
INJUNCTION
#:530
1 county and local governments are subject to is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
2 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act).
3 12. The Federal Stafford Act authorizes the delivery of federal emergency
4 technical, financial, logistical, and other assistance to states and localities. The
5 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates administration of
6 emergency and disaster relief resources and assistance to states. The President can
7 declare an emergency without first receiving a gubernatorial request if the
8 emergency involves an area of federal primary responsibility. A Stafford Act
9 declaration can be used to trigger other public health emergency response
10 authorities in the case of a national public health emergency such as a pandemic.
11 13. To ensure that all 50 states and all of their localities provide uniform,
12 standardized and coordinated emergency responses consistent with applicable
13 laws, the Federal government created the National Incident Management System
14 (NIMS).
15 14. According to the FEMA website, “NIMS provides a common, nationwide
16 approach to enable the whole community to work together to manage all threats
17 and hazards. NIMS applies to all incidents, regardless of cause, size, location or
18 complexity.” The FEMA website further states “NIMS guides all levels of
19 government, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to
20 work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from
21 incidents. NIMS provides stakeholders across the whole community with the
22 shared vocabulary, systems, and processes to successfully deliver the capabilities
23 described in the National Preparedness System. NIMS defines operational
24 systems, including the Incident Command System (ICS), Emergency Operations
25 Center (EOC) structures, and Multiagency Groups (MACS) that guide how
26 personnel work together during incidents. NIMS applies to all incidents, from
27 traffic accidents to major disasters.”
28
4
INJUNCTION
#:531
1 15. On January 7, 2020, the national Centers for Disease Control and
2 Prevention (CDC) announced that it was monitoring an outbreak of a novel
3 coronavirus in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China that began in December 2019.
4 The CDC established an Incident Management System to coordinate domestic and
5 international public health response. On January 21, 2020, the CDC activated its
6 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to provide ongoing support to the COVID-19
7 response.
8 16. On January 31, 2020, the Federal Department of Health and Human
9 Services declared a public health emergency for the United States related to
10 COVID-19.
11 17. Subsequently, and over the next few weeks, the Federal government
12 began transferring Americans infected with or exposed to the Coronavirus to
13 military bases throughout the United States, including the State of California.
14 18. The transfers were exclusively to military bases and military installations
15 throughout the nation including military bases in the State of California. No non-
16 military facilities were identified or used for the quarantine, isolation or treatment
17 of Americans exposed to or testing positive for Coronavirus.
18 19. It is unclear whether the Federal Department of Health and Human
19 Services activated its Emergency Operations Center or created an Incident
20 Management System for each state that received patients testing positive for
21 COVID-19, including California, as required by Federal law to ensure proper
22 tracking, coordination, planning and emergency response.
23 20. Additionally, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES),
24 despite having dozens of Americans testing positive for this infectious and
25 contagious disease with no immediate cure, has not declared a public health
26 emergency, activated its Emergency Operations Center, created a robust Incident
27 Management System or otherwise followed its normal protocols for each
28
5
INJUNCTION
#:532
1 jurisdiction housing COVID-19 positive individuals related to this national public

2 health emergency and event.
3 21. The lack of proper NIMS protocols in this case is startling given the use
4 of NIMS by CAL OES in the past that I myself have participated in for incidents
5 far less serious including floods, winter storms and minor earthquakes.
6 22. On Thursday, February 20, 2020, in the early evening hours, I was
7 contacted by Bryan Glass, the City of Costa Mesa’s Acting Chief of Police,
8 regarding a conference call that the California Office of Emergency Services held
9 with City of Costa Mesa Police Captain Keith Davis and Costa Mesa Emergency
10 Services Administrator (ESA) Jason Dempsey.
11 23. The call included state and regional representatives from the California
12 Office of Emergency Services, the Orange County Emergency Management
13 Director, and a representative from the Orange County Health Care Agency
14 relating to preparations being made to potentially utilize Fairview Developmental
15 Center (FDC), a state-owned property located in the heart of Costa Mesa.
16 Specifically, Mr. Dempsey relayed that state officials had indicated that buildings
17 were being readied for the transfer of 30 to 50 persons infected with the 2019-
18 nCoV virus at FDC as early as Sunday, February 23, 2020, or within 72 hours.
19 Upon receiving this information, I arranged emergency conference calls with
20 members of the Costa Mesa City Council to brief them on this information and
21 prepare them for the possibility of an emergency meeting on Friday, February 21,
22 2020.
23 24. On Friday, February 21, 2020, I contacted the City Attorney and City
24 Clerk to arrange for an Emergency Closed Session meeting for the City Council to
25 be scheduled for 1 p.m. to notify them of this significant public health matter. I
26 also directed the Assistant City Manager, Susan Price, to contact the County of
27 Orange regarding their knowledge of the planned transfer of positive tested
28 coronavirus patients to the Fairview site. The County confirmed the only
6
INJUNCTION
#:533
1 information they had been able to obtain was the same scant information provided
2 on the conference call held by Cal OES the day prior.
3 25. At approximately 12 P.M., Fire Chief Dan Stefano and Acting Chief
4 Bryan Glass conducted a site visit of FDC to identify the location being considered
5 by Federal and State officials for the quarantine.
6 26. On Friday, February 21, 2020, the City Manager directed the CMPD
7 Office of Emergency Management to activate the City of Costa Mesa’s Emergency
8 Operation Center in an abundance of caution for the safety of Costa Mesa
9 residents, First Responders, and overall public safety preparedness based on the
10 limited information that had been received and the actions taken by Federal and
11 State officials to prepare FDC to quarantine 2019-nCoV virus patients within as
12 little as 48 hours.
13 27. Also on Friday, February 21, 2020, I requested a conference call with the
14 Director of Cal OES, Mark Ghilarducci, to discuss the planned transfer of patients
15 to FDC and the City’s serious concerns regarding the lack of preparation,
16 coordination, transparency and the overall non-compliance with Federally required
17 procedures and protocols for a nationally declared public health emergency such as
18 this. The City’s opposition to the use of this site, as it would be the only
19 community-based, non-military facility housing positive testing COVID 19
20 patients in the entire country was also planned to be discussed. We never received
21 a reply to our request for a call.
22 28. I have completed many hours of training through the FEMA Emergency
23 Management Institute and earned several certifications. Federal and State laws and
24 guidelines for emergency management have at their core the coordination,
25 preparation and documentation of plans and protocols at the federal, state and local
26 levels of government related to both potential and actual emergency or disasters,
27 both man made and naturally occurring. I have assisted in the overall management
28 of emergency responses and disaster cost recovery over the course of my career in
7
INJUNCTION
#:534
1 multiple cities, including functions related to advanced planning, documentation,

2 business continuity and disaster recovery for local floods, winter storms, and
3 power outages of critical city facilities, to name a few. No such preparations were
4 made by Federal or State officials to coordinate with the Orange County Health
5 Agency, the Orange County Emergency Management Services, and City of Costa
6 Mesa First Responders as it relates to this critical public health emergency, despite
7 the close proximity to hundreds of single family residences in one of the most
8 densely populated areas in the country.
9 29. The actions by Federal and State officials as it relates to the preparation
10 of FDC for the quarantine and isolation of patients testing positive for COVID-19
11 are inconsistent with Federal and State practices regarding coordination, assistance,
12 and preparation across all levels of government.
13 30. The National Incident Management System (NIMS)— is a system of
14 incident command developed by the Department of Homeland Security to
15 coordinate emergency response efforts at all levels of government and the private
16 sector. It is a scalable system that can be used for events and incidents of all sizes
17 regardless of whether a federal emergency or disaster is declared under the
18 Stafford Act. The National Response Framework (NRF)—A Department of
19 Homeland Security policy document that uses a national, all-hazards approach to
20 describe and integrate roles for governments at all levels and the private sector in
21 preparing, responding, and recovering from emergencies of all sizes, regardless of
22 whether an emergency is declared. The NRF uses NIMS to coordinate response
23 activities. The NRF includes 15 Emergency Support Function (ESF) supplemental
24 documents that detail the roles and responsibilities of governmental and certain
25 private sector capacities in key areas. Relevant to public health are ESF-8 (public
26 health and medical services) and ESF-6 (mass care, emergency assistance, housing,
27 and human services).
28
8
INJUNCTION
#:535
1 31. To my knowledge, neither of these national systems has been used to

2 coordinate the roles of the Centers for Disease Control, Federal Department of
3 Health and Human Services, California Department of Public Health, California
4 Department of General Services, Orange County Emergency Management
5 Services, Orange County Health, and the City of Costa Mesa for the transfer of
6 patients infected with COVID-19 at the Fairview site. Information has been scant,
7 inconsistent and unavailable.
8 32. For a national public health emergency of this magnitude, the acts and
9 omissions of Federal and State officials as it relates to the use of a community-
10 based facility such as Fairview Developmental Center, just 200 yards from single
11 family residences is unfathomable.
12 33. From my perspective, there has not been even a bare minimum effort by
13 the State or Federal government to coordinate with or communicate with the City.
14 We have not received the information we need to communicate to the public to
15 prevent alarm. We were also forced to cancel without notice youth sports that take
16 place on the FDC recreational fields that we lease from the State this weekend
17 because the State and Federal governments’ efforts have forced us to give up our
18 right to use that space. We have had to divert substantial staff time to try to
19 understand this process and to educate our first responders on potential risks and
20 mitigation strategies because we received none of that information from our State
21 and Federal counterparts. These are merely the impacts the poor planning process
22 has had on the community. Actually hosting a coronavirus isolation center in our
23 City could have far more significant impacts.
24 34. As of today, 29 elected officials and staff from across the Orange County
25 region support the City of Costa Mesa’s injunction.
26 35. As of February 23, 2020, information related to the potential utilization
27 of FDC to quarantine 2019-nCoV virus patients has been limited and only vaguely
28
9
INJUNCTION
#:536
1 specified in both the Federal and State responses to the temporary restraining order
2 obtained by the City.
3 36. As of this date, it is unclear the objective, data-driven and scientific basis
4 for the selection of a community-based, non-military facility within 200 yards of
5 residences for this purpose. Fairview is the only facility of its kind in the nation on
6 the national list of sites for the transfer of COVID-19 patients. A facility located in
7 the middle of a densely populated area bordering six cities with a combined
8 population of one million residents is not appropriate or feasible.
9 37. If called upon, I would and could competently testify to all of the facts
10 contained within this declaration based upon my personal knowledge, except
11 where stated upon information and belief.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
13 the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th day of February at Costa
14 Mesa, California.
15
16
17 LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
INJUNCTION

US DIS CACD 8 20cv368 REPLY in Support of Amended Ex Parte Application A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

US DIS CACD 8 20cv368 REPLY in Support of Amended Ex Parte Application A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US DIS CACD 8 20cv368 REPLY in Support of Amended Ex Parte Application A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:20-cv-00368-JLS-JDE Document 19 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:320

1 Jennifer L. Keller, SBN 84412

11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND

3 II. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS DRAMATICALLY FAVORS PLAINTIFFS........... 1

4 A. President Trump’s Promise to Alabama Confirms that Coronavirus Patients Pose

10 D. The Federal and State Defendants’ Conflicting Narratives Undermine Their

3 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) ...........................................15

19 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) ...............................................................23

25 Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) ......................................................................18

1 Plaintiffs submit the following Reply in Support of their Amended and

coincidence that UNMC is one of the 35 facilities

1 5 U.S.C. § 702 (emphasis added). “This waiver of immunity found in § 702 is

B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Due Process and Civil

1 C. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their APA Claim

1 Moreover, legal consequences will flow from Federal Defendants’ decision.

1 and trained personnel to handle isolation of highly infectious individuals because a

IV. THE STATE DEFENDANTS’ FLAWED “SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY”

C. The State Defendants Ignore How the Fourteenth Amendment

V. AT A MINIMUM, THE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE PLAINTIFFS

1 Jennifer L. Keller, SBN 84412

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

FURTHER DECLARATION OF NAHAL KAZEMI IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

1 I, Nahal Kazemi, declare as follows:

1 7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a February 22,

2018/ 19 ANNUAL REPORT

An economic report from Tourism Economics was commissioned

The LA Times and TCM launched The TASTE in October, which

The economic benefits of tourism are vital to the success of our

// TRAVEL COSTA MESA // 5

FISCAL YEAR 2018-2019

8 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

// TRAVEL COSTA MESA // 9

YOU of Visitor in Millions

KNOW?  The amount of Meeting & Incentive

 $164.7 billion Japan 3.6

89.3% MARKET CONDITIONS

10 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

TOP LONG-HAUL MARKETS PRIMARY WESTERN MARKETS

Data provided by Visit California

DOMESTIC TRAFFIC / 2018 vs 2017

// TRAVEL COSTA MESA // 11

$733M +4% 607K by air/

12 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

// TRAVEL COSTA MESA // 13

John Wayne Airport statistics show

Over 10.4 Million Passengers

ANNUAL PERSON TRIPS TO CALIFORNIA (MILLIONS)

14 // 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT //

over 440 hotels + 57,000 rooms

CITY BRAND # OF ROOMS EST. OPENING DATE

LAKE FOREST TOWNPLACE SUITES 114 FALL 2019

BUENA PARK HAMPTON INN & SUITES 102 SPRING 2019

BUENA PARK HILTON 174 SPRING 2019

ANAHEIM HAMPTON INN & SUITES 178 OPENED 2018

ANAHEIM ELEMENT BY WESTIN ANAHEIM 174 SPRING 2019

TOURISM TAKING CENTER STAGE 7.6 – – 740

// TRAVEL COSTA MESA // 15

$98.1 million $32.0m