A group of Long Beach residents have mounted an effort to recall Councilwoman Jeannine Pearce for “unethical” and “extremely inappropriate” behavior stemming from a recent late night encounter with police that resulted in a public integrity probe by Los Angeles County prosecutors.

Official paperwork to form a political action committee was mailed Friday to the California Secretary of State, according to Ian Patton, a political consultant retained by the 2nd District residents who say they are concerned with a lack of transparency and accountability from the councilwoman following the arrest of her former staffer after a confrontation between the two.

“It is essential for an elected official to maintain the basic faith and confidence of her constituents in order to perform her duties as public trustee and as the district’s community leader,” the committee said in a written statement released Friday.

Pearce could not be reached for comment.

Discontent has grown among constituents since a June 3 incident in which CHP officers found Pearce and Devin Cotter, her former staffer, arguing in a car parked on a center painted median of the 710 Freeway at approximately 2:40 a.m. Long Beach police got involved in the situation shortly after when the CHP asked them to respond because Pearce or Cotter — police wouldn’t say who — made accusations about domestic violence. Pearce later stated publicly that she had been a victim of domestic violence since December, though she did not name her accused perpetrator.

Pearce, who admitted she had been driving the vehicle, registered a .06 blood-alcohol level when officers gave her a breath test on the side of the road, according to law enforcement sources. She then “successfully completed” a field sobriety test, according to police statements made after the incident. A friend then picked up Pearce from the scene and officers drove Cotter home.

Later that morning, police arrested Cotter outside of Pearce’s home. Authorities said he confronted Pearce there. He’s been charged with public drunkeness and pleaded not guilty.

Since those events transpired, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has opened a public integrity case based on allegations of “inappropriate behavior and potential conflicts of interest.” Additional details surrounding the investigation have not been released to the public.

City Prosecutor Doug Haubert also recused himself from a misdemeanor domestic violence investigation involving Pearce and Cotter. That case was sent to county prosecutors for consideration last month.

Patton, a political consultant for the firm Adouki & Associates, said the recall campaign started organically through a Facebook page that has about 80 members. It is being spearheaded by a team of 2nd District residents: Jonathan Crouch, Gary Harrison, Lauren Boland and Chuck Barrick.

Patton said once the PAC is certified by the secretary of state, its members will begin fundraising efforts as soon as next week, with a goal of $100,000. Once the group has secured some funding, they will retain a law firm to file the required recall paperwork with the city, which includes a statement of intent to begin gathering signatures.

City Clerk Monique DeLaGarza said the group would need to collect signatures from 20 percent of persons registered to vote in the 2nd District, which, based on current voter registration numbers, is approximately 6,400 signatures.

DeLaGarza said the committee provided a copy of its formation paperwork to the city clerk’s office on Friday afternoon.

Provided the committee does gather the required number of signatures in the allotted time frame, DeLaGarza said the city would need to hold two special elections: one to recall Pearce and another to elect her replacement. That could come at a cost of approximately $500,000 in taxpayer expense, she said.

The last time Long Beach held a recall election was in 1970, she said, when constituents tried to recall four councilmembers: Burt Bond, Paul Beats, E.F. Cruchley and Russell Rubley. That effort failed.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article misstated the number of signatures needed to qualify for a recall election. It would require 20 percent of registered voters’ signatures, not 10 percent.