Concord City Council
January 9, 2024

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Edi E. Birsan, Mayor
Carlyn S. Obringer, Vice Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano
Laura M. Hoffmeister
Laura M. Nakamura
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Regular Meeting of the
Concord City Council
Tuesday,
January 9, 2024
6:30 p.m. - Open Session Council Chamber
1950 Parkside Drive
and/or Various
telephonic/electronic
locations
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: Council Chamber, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA.

Please note the following change to the City’s public comment procedures: Unless a Councilmember is participating in the meeting remotely pursuant to AB 2449, remote public comment will not be accepted. Public comment may be provided in-person or via email, as set forth below. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.

Spanish interpretation is available in the Council Chamber during the meeting.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The public is invited to participate in the City Council meeting using any of the following methods:

1. IN PERSON:
a.Members of the public can provide in-person comments in the Council Chamber.

Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to fill out a speaker card. The Council Chamber will have seating available for members of the public to attend in person up to full seating capacity.
2 2. REMOTE:
a. Zoom:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/89618692111?pwd=Ee4aiICu4eIbRjQfHkz6tFqRzI7CSQ. vjqlYZkaE4SLyXMX or Zoom Webinar ID: 896 1869 2111 and Passcode: 995300 b.Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (669) 900-6833 or (346) 348-7799 or (253) 215- 8782.
c.During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participants may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. If calling in via Zoom use *9 to raise and lower your hand. The meeting host will call on you, by name, and promote you to panelist in the webinar so you can be seen via your camera. Please enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. In order to ensure the orderly administration of the meeting using this method, providing your name is encouraged, but is not required. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date at [email protected]).

3. EMAIL:
a.Public comments can also be submitted via email to [email protected]. Please note that emailed comments will not be read aloud by staff. Any public comments received up until 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date will be:

1. distributed to the Council before the meeting,

2. posted online for public inspection at
https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/Search, and

3. inserted into the meeting record.
b.As emails containing public meeting comments are part of the official record, note that personal contact information may be published if it is included with your email.

4. TO WATCH OR LISTEN ONLY:
a.Watch on TV on Comcast Channel 28, Astound/Wave Channel 1026, and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
b.Watch the TV broadcast through the City’s website by following THIS LINK c.Watch Live Streaming of the meeting by following THIS LINK d.Join the Zoom webinar by following THIS LINK
3 OPEN SESSION

1. OPENING
Roll Call – Announcements/Consideration and Approval of Requests by Councilmembers to Participate Remotely Pursuant to AB 2449 Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Hoffmeister

2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
This is a 15-minute Public Comment Period for items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction that are not on this agenda. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes.

State law prohibits the City Council from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the Public Comment Period. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Written Public Comment

3. PRESENTATION
a. Proclamation – to Catherine Hensiek, Concord Art Association, honoring the Concord Art Association's 60-year commitment to the betterment of the City of Concord. Presentation by Mayor Birsan.

4. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the Consent Calendar before or during the City Council’s consideration of the Consent Calendar. Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council, provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.

If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – approval of the minutes from the December 5, 2023, special meeting, and December 5 and 12, 2023, regular meetings. Recommended by the City Clerk.
b. Considering – amending the City’s existing Professional Services Agreement with California Wood Recycling, Inc., DBA Argomin, by extending the term to December 31, 2025, and increasing the payment thereunder by $227,634 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $269,022 in order to procure composting services in compliance with SB 1383, and allow for a contingency of $30,978 that allows staff to procure compost for unidentified City projects; and authorizing the City Manager to execute such an amendment in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (Project 2667) Recommended by the Director of Public Works.
4 CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378. c. Considering – the adoption of a Resolution amending Policy & Procedure No. 2, City Council Meeting Procedures, to update the City Council meeting start time to around 6:00 p.m., clarify the process to pull items off the consent calendar, authorizing the Mayor to determine City Council dais seating arrangements, and to make other non-substantive changes to reflect current practice and procedure. Recommended by the Assistant City Manager. d. Considering – acceptance of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report with the Independent Auditors' Report and Required Communications Letter for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023. Recommended by the Director of Finance.
e. Considering – adoption of a Resolution approving the request to Metropolitan Transportation Commission by the City of Concord for an allocation of $296,000 of Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Funding for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. This funding will support the Village Rd/Cowell Rd Crossing Improvement Project (PJ2717), located on Cowell Road at Quail Court and Village Road at Silverwood Drive. Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15282(j), 15378, 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, Public Resources Code Section 21065, and/or 21080.19.
f. Considering – the adoption of a Resolution that authorizes for the next five years (until January 8, 2029) the following: (1) submittal of Individual Grant Applications for all CalRecycle grant programs for which City of Concord is eligible, and authorizes the Public Works Director, or designee, to sign all related grant documents; and (2) authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to accept and appropriate such funds when received.

Recommended by the Director of Public Works.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15262, 15273, and/or 15378.
g. Considering:

1. Acceptance of improvements for the Monument Boulevard Class 1 Path (City Project No. 2455 and Federal Project No. CML-5135(059) located along Monument Boulevard between Systron Drive and Cowell Road; and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

2. Approval of an amendment to a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $60,000 (for a new not-to-exceed amount of $348,489.40) with 5 Park Engineering; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Recommended by the Director of Community Development.
h. Considering:

1. Award of a Construction Contract in the amount of $378,091 to FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. for the Citywide Accessibility Improvements No. 10 (Project No. 2603) and authorizing staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders up to 10% of the contract amount; authorizing the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and making the NEPA and CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report; (Funded by Community Development Block Grant Funds, Measure V Lease Revenue Funds);

2. Approving related budget transfers in the total amount of $160,000 from Citywide Pothole & Base Repair (Project No. 2453), Citywide Arterial & Collector (Project No. 2458), and Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Project (Project No. 2493); and

3. Authorizing the City Engineer to accept the improvements upon completion of Project No. 2603; and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

NEPA: Categorical exclusion per Section 24 CFR 58.25 (a)(2).

CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15302, 15304, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.
i. Considering – the adoption of a Resolution accepting and appropriating SB 104 funding from the State of California in the amount of $1,000,000 for the Yellow Roof Foundation; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all the necessary documents, subject to City Attorney approval. (Fund 830 Custodial Fund) Recommended by the Assistant City Manager.

CEQA: Not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.

5. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – approval of artwork for six utility boxes as Phase III.b of the Utility Box Artwork Program located on Clayton Road and Concord Boulevard, between Kirker Pass Road and the downtown area, and the replacement of artwork for three utility boxes on Willow Pass Road near Todos Santos Plaza, without prior Council approval of the art; appropriating 6 and authorizing the City Manager to provide $3,000 in restricted City Arts in Public Places Funds ($1,520 from Fund 285 and $1,480 from Fund 286) to the Concord Art Association for the art replacement on the three utility boxes; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the artist agreements in a form approved by the City Attorney. Report by Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager.

CEQA: Exempt/not a project per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15378, 15061(b)(3), and/or 15300.2.

6. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the public hearing is opened, except on public hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment.

After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the Council level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council. No public hearing shall commence after 10 p.m. unless approved by majority vote of the City Council. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering:
(1) Direction on Permanent Relocation Assistance policy options identified in the draft Residential Tenant Protection Program Ordinance, and (2) Introduction of an Ordinance amending the Concord Municipal Code by amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 “Residential Tenant Protection Program” to increase “just cause” eviction protections, expand the City’s rent registry, and establish a rent stabilization program, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. (Continued from December 12, 2023; This item was opened on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, and further discussion was continued to Tuesday, January 9, 2024. Please note that public comment on this item was taken on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, and the public comment period has been closed). Report by Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.

7. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda.

8. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Closed Session Announcements
City Manager or Staff Reports
Council Reports

9. ADJOURNMENT
7 Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 1/23/2024 6:30 p.m.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California law to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the hearing or in a written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the hearing.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require a copy of a public hearing notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator Tianjun Cao at (925) 671-3243 or [email protected], at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

From: lason Pfister <cajayson 8301@ com cast. n et>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 6:19 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Constituent Comment for Tomorrow's City Council Meeting Written Public Comment
Agenda ltem No. 2.a
January 9,2024
ITEM NUMBER: 2

COMMENT
Councilmembers
As you likely know, the City of Concord & Concord PD are now in a huge lawsuit filed by three former female Concord PD officers & a current female Concord PD officer alleging gender discrimination. I am attaching the complaint to enter into the record.

This complaint represents a very disappointing, fractured agency at Concord Police. lt also shows that current management needs to change as well. Valerie Barone has been City Manager since rougly 2O11 and 95% of what is reported in this complaint was under her authority/management. I do not believe for one second that Ms. Barone did not know about any of these very offensive and disturbing claims made by these four brave women. After all, per the complaint, she is cited as dismsising a sensitive, legitimate grievance. She is also a manager and therefore it is her job to ensure operations are efficient, smoothe and productive, alongside implementing City Council legislation/goals. lt is clear Valerie Barone has fallen very short in permitting this hyperdiscord, disheveled enivronment.

Ms. Barone owes all four women a sincere apology for allowing this hostile work environment to occur for well over ten years now. She also owes me an apology on a semi-related note and, based off my recent correspondence to all councilmembers in the past couple of weeks, I need not elaborate further. Should she wish to apologize to me, I request it be done in person, face to face with herself and all five councilmembers present. I will not take emailed apologies or ones over the phone. As a taxpayer, I have the right to request what I feel to be a suitable approach (considering that Ms. Barone has been unprofessionally dismissive in past email communicatons with me) & to be respected since I feel Ms. Barone has problematic issues in relaying respect to people, especially to these four dedicated current and former Concord Police officers. I will not apologize for how I feel. Thank you.
-Jason Pfister

2.a

I
2 3
4 5
6 l
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t1
18 l9
20 2t
22 t3
25 26
21 28
lectronically Filed Superior Court of CA County of Contra Costa 121412023 2:37 PM By: S. Gonzalez, Deputy DAVID S. RATNER (SBN 3 I6267)
SHELLEY A. MOLINEAUX (SBN 277884)

RATNER MOLINEAUX, LLP
Walnut Creek cA 94596
Atomeys fbr PIaintiff's
AMY HENDRICKS; BETH LONG;
HARLEY VALADEZ; KRISTEN KRIEGER

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
AMY HENDRICKS; BETH LONG; HARLEY
VALADEZ; KRISTEN KRIEGER,
Case No. C23-02544

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
P la inti t}'s.
l. Retaliation, Cal. Gov't Code $12940(h)

2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment, Cal.

Gov. Code $ 12940(i)

3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and
Harassment, Cal. Gov. Code $ 12940

4. Gender Discrimination, Cal. Gov't Code
$ 12940

5. Cal. Pregnancy Discrimination, Cal. Gov. Code
$ 12940

6. Retaliation, Labor Code Ql 102.5
CITY OF CONCORD; CONCORD POLICE
DEPARTMENT; and DOES I through 50,
inclusive.

Detendants

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
I . Plaintiff AMY HENDRICKS ("Hendricks"), BETH LONG ("Long'), HARLEY VALADEZ ("Valadez"), KRISTEN KRIEGER ("Krieger"), bring this action against Defendants CITY OF CONCORD ("City of Concord'), CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT ("Concord PD"), and DOES I through 50, inclusive.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Hendricks is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a resident ofOakley, Califomia and Clayton, California.

AMENDI.D COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 I
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
16 17
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 3. PlaintiffLong is, and at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of Martinez, Califomia.

4. Plaintiff Valadez is, and at all times relevant to this action, was a resident ofOakley, Califomia.

5. PlaintiffKrieger is, and at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of Lafayette, California.

6. The events giving rise to this action arose in Concord, California.

7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant City of Concord is a California is a municipal corporation and is authorized to do business in Califomia.

8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Concord PD is a public entity and is authorized to do business in California.

9. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendants Does I through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues them by those fictitious names. The names, capacities, and relationships ofDefendants Does I through 50, inclusive, will be alleged by amendment to this Complaint when the same are known to Plaintiffs.

10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants Does I through 50 ("Does"), inclusive and each of them, are not known to Plaintiffs at this time. Such Does are legally responsible for the events and happenings described herein and for the damages proximately caused thereby. Plaintiffs will seek the leave ofthe Court to amend this complaint to set forth the true names and capacities ofany such Does when they have been ascertained.

I l. On information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, defendants, inclusive and each of them, including without limitation any Does, were acting in concert and participation with each other; were joint participants and collaborators in the acts complained of; and were the agents and/or employees ofone another in doing the acts complained of herein, each acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment.

12. City of Concord, Concord PD, and Does I through 50, inclusive, are collectively referred to hereafter as "Defendants".

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 AMI.:NDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

13. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because at all times relevant, they were authorized to transact, and are transacting business in Califomia.

14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $ 395, because the acts, events and omissions complained ofherein occurred in Contra Costa, California.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

15. On or about January 6,2023, Plaintiff Hendricks obtained her Right to Sue Letter from the California Civil Rights Department attached hereto as Exhibit A.

16. On or about October I I,2022, Plaintiff Long obtained her Right to Sue Letter from the California Civil Rights Department attached hereto as Exhibit A. 17 . On or about April 3,2023, Plaintiff Valadez obtained her Right to Sue Letter from the California Civil Rights Department attached hereto as Exhibit A.

18. On or about October 18, 2022, PlaintiffKrieger obtained her Right to Sue Letter fiom the California Civil Rights Department attached hereto as Exhibit A.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

19. Each Plaintiff is a seasoned, career Police Officer with a history of accomplishments in the Concord Police Department. Over the years, the Concord PD rewarded Plaintiff's' individual accomplishments with promotions, special assignments, and pay increases.

20. However, as this complaint will detail, the Concord Police Department is dominated by misogynistic men who are unwilling to allow these four eminently qualified women to grow and thrive.

As a result, not only has the Concord Police department damaged the Plaintiffs' careers and damaged the Plaintiffs emotionally and psychologically, but, more important, the Concord Police Department has damaged the citizens ofConcord, California by preventing extremely well qualified officers to serve to the best oftheir ability.

A. Plaintiff Amy Hendricks

21. Amy Hendricks ("Hendricks") is 46-year-old female who began working for Concord PD in March of 2000, sworn in February of 2003, as a Police Officer, until her wrongful termination in December of202l by means offorced retirement.

J
I
2 J
4 5
6 l
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 22. Ms. Hendricks received pay increases, bonuses, and positive feedback throughout her time with Concord PD. Ms. Hendricks had been a well-regarded, valued employee that Concord PD subjected to gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and constructive termination.

23. In August of 2001, Ms. Hendricks went on maternity leave for the birth of her first child.

Concord PD had initially told her not to worry about childcare. They informed Ms. Hendricks that she could bring her child into the office and breastfeed. However, one day outside of the police academy building, Sergeant Phil Johnson made comments about her "boobs flopping all over the place." Shortly after, a male supervisor instructed her via chain-of-command that she was unable to bring her child into the office. Ms. Hendricks was not provided with any explanation for the sudden change in policy. Ms.

Hendricks was not offered any support in sourcing childcare.

24. lnitially, Ms. Hendricks began her employment as a non-swom employee. Near the end of 2001 , Ms. Hendricks applied for a Police Trainee position. She was given a conditional job offer to attend the Police Academy. Concord PD withdrew the offer soon after and allowed her to retum to her previous non-swom position. This occurred four days prior to her academy start date. Ms. Hendricks was told that her background revealed she was "too authoritative" and said she was "not a team player." As a woman 5'4' in height in a male dominated environment, Ms. Hendricks needed to be more pronounced to be taken seriously amongst her male superiors and colleagues. Ms. Hendricks felt publicly humiliated as it was common knowledge she was supposed to be enrolled in the academy and suddenly was withdrawn.

25. After adjusting to meet Concord PD's expectations, Ms. Hendricks received more conflicting feedback of"not being tough enough" and "being a bitch." Her male colleagues were allowed to carry the same attitude and character, only to receive praise and acceptability while Ms. Hendricks was judged and criticized on the basis of her gender.

26. Ms. Hendricks was assigned certain types ofpolice calls. Her gender influenced the types ofassignment received. She was assigned calls relating to babies, kids, and sexual assaults. These types of calls were very mentally and emotionally tolling for her. As a woman and mother, Ms. Hendricks was not provided with the same level ofsupport afforded to her male counterparts. This inevitably contributed to her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD").
2'1. Throughout her time at Concord PD, Ms. Hendricks recollected only shedding tears on a 4 AMI:NDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 4
5 6
1 8
9 l0
t1
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 zt
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 5
,l,MENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
call twice. On one call, she had to tell an eleven-year-old girl that her mother died. She was not allowed to be human on the job as being a woman made her "emotional" and "overreacting." Concord PD placed unrealistic standards on her, which were not extended to her male counterparts.

28. On February 3,2003, Ms. Hendricks was swom in as a Concord Police Officer.

29. On April 5, 2004, Ms. Hendricks filed for divorce. She had one child with her fbrmer partner. It was emotionally draining and events in her personal life became common knowledge throughout department. Some of Ms. Hendricks' supervisors and colleagues would provide unsolicited feedback and their opinion on her decision to divorce. One male supervisor encouraged her to stay with her husband and stated to her that, "All men cheat" and "You don't want to break up your family."

30. On January 3, 2005, Ms. Hendricks began a temporary transfer program as a Detective for the Financial Crimes Unit. She was one of few individuals selected for this program based on her exceptionaljob performance. Ms. Hendricks received 'Exceeds Standards' regarding her work habits and report writing on employee performance appraisals.

31. On February 16,2005, Ms. Hendricks was interviewed by an attomey, Linda Tripoli, regarding an Intemal Affairs ("1A") investigation for a sexual harassment complaint brought forth by Noelle Bolstad, a non-swom female staff member. This complaint was not initiated by Ms. Hendricks.

However, Ms. Hendricks disclosed that the subject of the investigation, Sergeant Johnson, had discriminated, sexually harassed, and retaliated against her on the basis ofgender.

32. During the investigation, Ms. Hendricks disclosed that Sergeant Johnson created a hostile work environment from the very start ofher employment with Concord PD. Sergeant Johnson asked about her thoughts on monogamy. He stated, "There are things a guy needs that youjust can't do with your wife." He also made comments about her divorce. Sergeant Johnson stated, "Don't break up your family." He made inappropriate sexual comments about her "having a penis" and being'Just like man." He spoke loudly to another male colleague stating, "l need pussy every day."

33. Sergeant Steve Dyer instructed Ms. Hendricks to not disclose any information about the investigation regarding sexual harassment with anyone aside from a legal representative. After some time, Ms. Hendricks was informed that Sergeant Johnson voluntarily resigned from Concord PD in lieu of termination.

34. On October 15, 2005, Ms. Hendricks married her husband, Anthony Hendricks ("Mr.

Hendricks").

35. On December 3, 2005, Ms. Hendricks tested for the Youth Services Bureau Detective Position. Ms. Hendricks was denied a promotion despite continuing to exceed expectations in her role.

Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion, although it could be assumed that Concord PD began retaliating against Ms. Hendricks for her complaints during the IA on Sergeant Johnson.

36. On December 28,2005, Ms. Hendricks was notified that she was assigned to a Dispatch role based on her pregnancy. She was instructed to perform temporary modified work which began on January 2, 2006. Concord PD placed Ms. Hendricks under the direct supervision of Sergeant Garrett Voerge.
37 . On August 10, 2006, Ms. Hendricks went on maternity leave for the birth of her second child.

38. On August 29, 2007, Ms. Hendricks started a bachelor's program at California State University Long Beach. She pursued higher education for personal development and to expand her career opportunities at Concord PD.

39. On October 10,2007, Ms. Hendricks was selected for the Patrol Rifle Program, an ancillary assignment. She received employee performance appraisals and other positive feedback.

40. On March 29,2008, Ms. Hendricks tested for a Sexual Assault Investigator Position in the Youth Services Bureau. She was denied a promotion despite consistently exceeding expectations in her role. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion.

41. On April 25,2008, Ms. Hendricks was reassigned to Dispatch due her pregnancy status.

Some of her colleagues made backhanded comments, "Oh, she's pregnant again." Her pregnancy was treated as an inconvenience to the department.

42. OnMay 24,2008, Ms. Hendricks lost her baby during pregnancy. She retumed to work four days later. Feeling isolated, Ms. Hendricks was not offered any type of support at Concord PD, neither mental health seryices or leave options. Peer Support did not reach out to her despite being aware ofthe situation and her immediate retum to work.

43. On October 10, 2008, Ms. Hendricks was reassigned to Dispatch due her pregnancy status. 6 I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
12 13
14 l5
16 t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
1t
t2
l3
I4
t5
l6
t'1
l8
l9
20 21
22 23
25 26
27 28

44. On November 10, 2008, Ms. Hendricks tested for the Special Victims Unit Detective. She was denied a promotion despite continuing to exceed expectations in her role. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion. Ms. Hendricks continued to seek opportunities to grow and expand on her career, yet Concord PD continued to overlook and dismiss her efforts.

45. On January 12,2009. Mr. Hendricks entered the Napa Police Department Academy.

46. On February 20, 2009, Ms. Hendricks was interviewed by attomey, D'Anne Louise Gleicher, regarding Lisa Capocci's sexual harassment complaint against a male officer. Ms. Hendricks disclosed that she believed the subject of the investigation, Corporal Michael Hansen, was "a male chauvinist pig." At the same time, she spoke out against Ms. Capocci's sexual harassment complaint. Ms.

Hendricks was given positive attention for speaking against her female colleague. Concord PD pitted female officers against one another rather than addressing concems ofsexism in the department. 47 . On May 18, 2009, Ms. Hendricks's husband failed out of the police academy, losing his job sponsored by the Richmond Police Department. He failed the firearms exam due to unknowingly being left eye dominant. Ms. Hendricks was forced to go back to work and quickly weaned her daughter off breastfeeding. She was working seventy to seventy-five hours a week to support her family, without support from her peers, supervisors alike.

48. Ms. Hendricks' work environment caused her a great deal of stress and anxiety. Rumors regarding her husband's work status began to circulate around the department. Her colleagues stated a search warrant was going to be placed on Ms. Hendricks's house. She strongly believes her personal life wouldn't be a subject ofworkplace gossip had she been man.

49. On May 27, 2009, Ms. Hendricks eamed her bachelor's degree from California State University Long Beach. She was credentialed for part{ime Teaching in Law Enforcement. Ms. Hendricks continued to make herself more competitive. She strengthened her skills, undergoing extensive training and workshops.

50. On October 6, 2009, Ms. Hendricks was interviewed by attorney, Maureen McClain, regarding Lisa Capocci's sexual harassment complaint. Concord PD forced her participation while the department offered her no support for her addressed concems of sexism, harassment, and lack ofsupport.

51. The following retaliation ensued after Ms. Hendricks' continued complaints of gender 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 zt
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 discrimination and harassment during Intemal Investigations.

52. On November 9,2009, Ms. Hendricks submitted a 'Memo of lnterest' for the Tactical Negotiations Team. She was passed up on the assignment by Captain Daniel Siri with no explanation.

53. On January 22,201 0, Ms. Hendricks' submitted a 'Memo of lnterest' for Defensive Tactics Instructor. Again, she was passed up on the assignment for a male colleague despite being the most qualified and skilled candidate and with no explanation.

54. On April 22,2010, Ms. Hendricks submitted for Patrol Corporal. She was denied a promotion despite being overly qualified and continuing to exceed expectations in her role. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion.

55. On May 15, 2010, Ms. Hendricks tested for Financial Crimes Unit Detective. She was denied a promotion despite continuing to exceed expectations in her role and skillset. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion.

56. On May I 5, 2010, Ms. Hendricks tested for Special Victims Unit Detective. She was denied a promotion despite continuing to exceed expectations in her role. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion.

57. On June 23, 2010, Ms. Hendricks was ordered to testiry in a deposition hearing for Lisa Capocci v. City ofConcord. The experience was very stressful and yet Concord PD offered no support or resources to Ms. Hendricks.

58. On February 14,2011, Ms. Hendricks tested for Financial Crimes Unit Detective. She was denied a promotion despite her continuing to far exceed expectations in her role. Again, Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion.

59. On February 14,2011, Ms. Hendricks also tested for Special Victims Unit Detective. After facing many promotion denials despite being overly qualified, Concord PD finally promoted Ms.

Hendricks. This time, Concord PD's representative responsible for Ms. Hendricks' promotionwas afemale Sergeant, Tiffiny Leftwich-Barraco. All previous promotion denials were from male supervisors. Ms.

Hendricks began her assignment as a Special Victims Unit Detective in June 201 l.

60. In 201 l, Ms. Hendricks was pressured into a relationship with her peer, Jeff Ross. He later became her supervisor. He took advantage of Ms. Hendricks when he saw her vulnerable. ln 2016, after 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 ll
t2
13 14
15 l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 numerous attempts by Ms. Hendricks, this relationship ended. Corporal Ross later reported their sexual relationship to the department's IA after Ms. Hendricks filed a workers' compensation claim. Concord PD had knowledge oftheir relationship and failed to take any corrective action or even speak to Ms. Hendricks.

There was no investigation done into the matter. Instead, Concord PD used this trauma against Ms.

Hendricks to condone abuse, slut-shame her, and sway her from continuing to pursue her workers' compensation claim.

61. Concord PD did not investigate the supposed sexual relationship between a male supervisor and a female subordinate. Instead, Concord PD disclosed their knowledge ofthe sexual relationship in a letter to the Qualified Medical Evaluator ("QME"), Doctor Kipperman. The letter dated January 14,2021, stated, "The applicant had engaged in a seven-year affair with a Sergeant Ross." The letter falsely claims the sexual conduct was made public by Ms. Hendricks. Concord PD used this information to question her mental health status. At Concord PD, it was acceptable and admired for male officers to engage in relationships outside oftheir maniage while female officers were shamed and harassed.

62. On May 30, 2012, Ms. Hendricks submitted a 'Memo of lnterest' for the position of Computer Voice Stress Analyzer ("CVSA'). As a form of retaliation for her complaints of gender discrimination and affair, she was denied the assigrunent despite continuing to exceed expectations in her new role. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion. In fact, Lieutenant Ivan Menchaca passed up Ms. Hendricks for two less experienced andjunior detectives in the unit.

63. In winter 2012, Ms. Hendricks was shamed and harassed by her superiors and colleagues for not divorcing her husband. She received unsolicited comments about her marital status and certain colleagues stopped talking to her while rumors circulated through the department. Her career situation became more impacted by her husband's career. Ms. Hendricks was treated differently in her own work environment due to her husband's actions. Concord
PD did not offer any support or community to Ms. Hendricks. Instead, she was isolated andjudged for her husband's actions.

64. On January 10, 2013, Ms. Hendricks tested for Community Service Desk Corporal. She was pre-selected by Captain Bill Roche for the position. This resulted in her promotion, as a male superior with authority and influence happened to decide on her promotion. The gender bias in promotions was reflected ()

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

in Concord PD's unfair and non-transparent selection processes. This was the first and only time Ms.

Hendricks benefited from the biased selection for positions that was consistent in Concord PD's history.

Ms. Hendricks began as Community Service Desk Corporal in May 2013. However, this wasn't really a role that she was interested in, but she took it as her previous attempts at promotion had been denied. The unit was in disarray when she took over and Ms. Hendricks was later credited with re-organizing and revitalizing it.

65. On March 14,2014, Ms. Hendricks sent a memo to her supervisors regarding a personal safety concem related to a case she handled. Her concems were dismissed and unaddressed. As a Special Victim's Unit Detective, Ms. Hendricks served as an expert in the county. She assisted with placing an individual in prison. She received a social media friend request from the brother of said individual, who was on parole. The brother also had a criminal history. She was concerned that a felon had managed to obtain her personal information and attempted to stalk her on the internet. She notified Concord PD as she feared for the safety of her home and family. Due to Ms. Hendricks gender status, Concord PD minimized her experiences and stated she was "overacting." She was assigned a detective, but no additional safety measures were taken or offered to Ms. Hendricks and her family.

66. In spring 2014, Ms. Henricks received the initial elder abuse complaint regarding her colleague and friend, Matthew Switzer. She immediately notified her supervisor and Officer Switzer was terminated. He was arrested over an incident related to his long{erm struggles with drug abuse. He was predisposed to addiction due to a lifetime of trauma. Ms. Hendricks helped to support Mr. Switzer's wife and children. Mr. Switzer's wife, Angela Rose, also worked for Concord PD. It took a heavy toll on Ms.

Hendricks to witness the aftermath of Mr. Switzer's mental health struggles. Supervisors and colleagues were aware of Ms. Hendricks' relationship with Officer Switzer and her efforts to console his family.

However, Concord PD did not offer Ms. Hendricks any form of support and no one from Peer Support reached out.

61. On April 29,2014, Ms. Hendricks tested for Police Sergeant. As continued retaliation, she was denied a promotion despite continuing to exceed expectations in her role, being more than qualified, and standing out from her peers. Concord PD provided no reason or explanation for denying her promotion.

68. On May 23, 2014, Ms. Hendricks began seeing a psychiatrist for work related insomnia, l0
I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1l
12 t3
t4
15 l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
1,L
23 25
26 27
28 ,4TIEIDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 '7
8 9
l0
lt
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t1
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 nightmares, and anxiety. She met with Doctor Simrita Singh to discuss the ways she was being treated unfairly at work. She handled numerous traumatic calls, including some difficult cases that involved torture and homicide. Her conversations always centered around work, which Dr. Singh identified as the source ofstress. Concord PD instructed her to not talk about her struggles as it was a sign of"weakness." She had to seek her own mental health services. On top ofthat, the department therapist lacked ethical boundaries, as she would discuss employee's problerns with other employees.

69. On June 12,2014, Ms. Hendricks tested for Patrol Corporal. As continued retaliation, she was denied a promotion despite continuing to exceed expectations in her role.

70. On December 3, 2014, Ms. Hendricks tested again for Patrol Corporal. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion.

71. On January 20,2015, Ms. Hendricks started in the Master's program for Emergency Services Administration at California State University Long Beach through distance learning. Her efforts to grow in her career were not being recognized by Concord PD. She believed continuing her education would allow her the opportunity to expand on her career at Concord PD. She worked to make herselfmore attractive for promotions, yet due to Concord PD's showcase of gender discrimination, she continued to be overlooked.

72. On March 25,2015, Ms. Hendricks participated in a Mock Sergeant's Exam Oral Board.

This exam was recorded by Marin Consulting in the Concord Police Department's facilities. She was ranked 3 out of 7. Ms. Hendricks was told she was "extremely competitive for future interviews" and a clip of her live interview was later posted as a positive example on Marin Consulting's website. She continued to perform at a higher level as a competitive candidate. She documented her successes by tracking her promotions. Her career trajectory did not match how she was treated or rewarded for her efforts. She was promoted at a significantly slower pace than her male counterparts.

13. On May 15, 2015, Ms. Hendricks electively returned to Patrol Division as an Officer, in order to pursue promotional opportunities.
7 4. On July 7, 2015, Ms. Hendricks tested for Police Sergeant. Concord PD implemented a new exam process at the time which began with a reading assignment and essay. She scored 78/100 overall.

The exam was very subjective in format. There was also no clear score breakdown to provide candidates ll

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 l0
ll
t2
t3
t4
l5
I6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 21
28 with areas to improve upon. Ms. Hendricks was denied a promotion.

75. On August 7,2015, Ms. Hendricks participated in an oral board panel as part ofthe ongoing Police Sergeant testing process. Ms. Hendricks had a brief conversation with her colleague, Paco Ramirez, after a Command Staff Interview. Captain Siri overhead a comment Ms. Hendricks made to Officer Ramirez. Officer Ramirez later informed Ms. Hendricks that Captain Siri had ordered him to write a memo against her about race concerns. This resulted in a lormal complaint against Ms. Hendricks during the promotional exam process and she was accused ofbeing racially biased. It was concluded Ms. Hendricks' joke was "rude and discourteous," but not racially bias. Captain Siri was Officer Ramirez's supervisor. Ms.

Hendricks felt the entire investigation was meant to prevent her from promotion. Eventually, she was denied a promotion despite continuing to exceed expectations in her role. Concord PD told Ms. Hendricks that she needed to "be less emotional" and "avoid taking credit for anything" in their feedback. This incident caused her a great deal of emotional distress.

76. On September 14,2015, Ms. Hendricks began a shift with a newly promoted, woman of color, Sergeant Renee Williams. Ms. Hendricks and Sergeant Williams attended the police academy together. Unlike Ms. Hendricks, Sergeant Williams was fast tracked into different positions, despite not a lot of patrol experience. Colleagues had widely believed Sergeant Williams was promoted in order to promote diversity as she was not experienced enough for the posirion.

77. Concord PD often promoted certain types ofwomen. Lesbians or women ofcolor were fast tracked while heterosexual non-women of color struggled with promotion. Sergeant Williams was a Black female, lacking qualifications and acted subordinately to her male counterparts.

78. Ms. Hendricks reported Sergeant Williams for repeatedly being unsafe on various incidents.

In one incident, Sergeant Williams did not properly assist Ms. Hendricks during an anest where the suspect was resisting. Sergeant Williams let Ms. Hendricks fight with a guy alone during the arrest rather than getting involved, standing behind her and watching, which violated a basic requirement of policing.

Another incident involved Sergeant Williams driving past an in-progress crime where teammates had individuals at gunpoint. Sergeant Williams was supposed to stop to assist during the in-progress crime, but she failed to do so and went on to be with the officer interviewing the victim. In another incident, Sergeant Williams attempted to take blood lrom Ms. Hendricks for a minor traffic incident, both illegal and

AMENDI)D COMPLAINT I-OR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
u
t2
l3
t4
t5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 inappropriate. Sergeant Williams did so in front of four of Ms. Hendricks' colleagues. Corporal Ross taunted Ms. Hendricks over the incident and rumors started spreading about Sergeant William attempting to take Ms. Hendricks' blood.

79. On September 18, 2015, Ms. Hendricks was served with a 'Notice of Interview' for her comment to Officer Ramirez. The racially biased accusation was dropped. She received an informal one year'Employee Discussion' as a form of retaliation.

80. On October 4, 2015, Ms. Hendricks submitted a standard training request for the Women Leaders in Law Enforcement Symposium, an annual statewide training, she had attended for the past three years. She submitted her request to attend this conference to Sergeant Williams. Shortly after, Sergeant Williams informed Ms. Hendricks that Lieutenant Menchaca denied her request. He requested a detailed list ofbreak-out trainings that Ms. Hendricks was going to attend. Ms. Hendricks had never been required to provide this information previously nor after this incident. She received unfair treatment by Lieutenant Menchaca. Another colleague informed Ms. Hendricks that Lieutenant Menchaca was intimated by her intelligence and confidence. He would avoid her while talking to other people surrounding her.

81. On December 13,2015, Ms. Hendricks was served with an 'Employee Discussion.' She received negative remarks on her record for submitting reports [ate. This was issued by Sergeant Williams as a form of retaliation for her complaints against her. It was also Sergeants Williams' effort to assert her authority as the new supervisor over Ms. Hendricks.

82. On December 14,2015, Ms. Hendricks reported several concems about safety related to Sergeant Williams's deficiencies as a supervisor to a Peer Support Lead, Rob Zywicki. He advised her to make a formal complaint. Ms. Hendricks filed a report. She was scheduled to meet with Captain Garrett Voerge on December 16,2015.

83. On December 15,2015, Ms. Hendricks filed a claim with human resources ("HR") and attempted to take stress leave due to the ongoing safety concems being brushed under the rug. Concord PD prioritized keeping a Black female in a position for which she was ill-equipped. Ms. Hendricks participated in the claims process but ultimately withdrew when Concord PD's solution was to remove Sergeant Williams from a patrol position and keep her as a supervisor in a non-patrol capacity. Also, Concord PD made it difficult for Ms. Hendricks to go out on paid leave. She did not feel it was worth fighting for two

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
TJ
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 weeks of sick time and as a result, she did not take paid stress leave.

84. On December 16, 2015, Ms. Hendricks met with Captain Voerge to formally file complaints. They removed Sergeant Williams from Patrol, implying all Ms. Hendricks' concems were valid. Concord PD only looked into her concems after Ms. Hendricks filed for stress leave and filed a formal complaint. Concord PD responded when a woman reported another woman unlike when a woman reported a man within the department.

85. On January 2, 2016, Ms. Hendricks tested for Patrol Corporal. She interviewed in April 2016. There were four positions and five candidates. The first three positions were given to male candidates with less experience. O{ficer Jeff Sherwin, a male, was selected for the fourth position but he declined the position due to the required work hours. Ms. Hendricks was offered the position as a last choice despite expressing interest in the role. She began on May 9,2016.

86. On January 22,2016, Ms. Hendricks began working weekend dayshift under Sergeant Cody Harrison's supervision. He became a bully, hypercritical, and micromanaging towards her. Sergeant Hanison gave Ms. Hendricks sexual assault reports to her in excess. These types ofreports were very time consuming and emotionally draining. Sergeant Harrison continued to provide Ms. Hendricks with a burdensome workload.

87. On February 6, 2016, Ms. Hendricks received a negative 'Employee Discussion' for late reports from Sergeant Harrison. Concord PD placed unreasonable expectations on her, requiring her to meet impossible deadlines and overloaded her with work. She was more closely monitored and criticized compared to her male counterparts.

88. Around April or May 2016, Ms. Hendricks was asked by Lieutenant Sean Donnelly to volunteer for reassignment to Dispatch. This was a full-time role and essentially placed any pursuit for promotion on hold. She declined the reassignment due to family and career goals as a police officer. This went against her career trajectory with Concord PD.

89. On May 19.2016, Ms. Hendricks stafied as Provisional Patrol Corporal on weekend graveyard shifts. Her first shift involved a major homicide investigation. Ms. Hendricks served as the scene supervisor. Ms. Hendricks received positive feedback for her performance in her new role. This incident was mentioned when she tested for Sergeant, attesting to her skills and ability to perform well. t1
)lMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMA(iES

90. On June 30, 2016, Ms. Hendricks received a phone call from Captain Voerge while off- duty. Captain Voerge instructed her that she was being reassigned full-time to Dispatch, effective immediately, in spite of her recent offer decline by Lieutenant Donnelly. Ms. Hendricks knew of circumstances involving Captain Roche retaliating against the female Dispatchers, which intentionally caused a staffing shortage. He told Ms. Hendricks that the Dispatchers were "bitches" and he was going to "make it miserable for them." Captain Roche said he was going to "force them out" and get the "good ones"jobs elsewhere. Ms. Hendricks spoke out about this decision to the Police Association Board.

91. On July 9, 2016, Ms. Hendricks submitted three training requests related to recommendations by her patrol supervisor. All three requests were initially denied by Lieutenant Nicholas Gartner because they were no longer relevant to her assignment in Dispatch. Captain Voerge eventually overtumed the declines and allowed her to attend the trainings.

92. On July 13,2016, Ms. Hendricks, Beth Long, and Christie Corey met with POA Board.

Concord PD had selected these three female officers to be reassigned to Dispatch full+ime. The three female officers felt Concord PD retaliated against them by placing them in Dispatch roles, essentially demotions. After the meeting, Ms. Hendricks, Ms- Long, and Officer Corey addressed their concems over gender bias and discrimination at the General POA Membership Meeting.

93. On July 24,2016, Ms. Hendricks attended the West Coast Post-Trauma Retreat tbr six days.

This was an event held for First Responders. Concord PD's psychologist discouraged her from seeking support at Concord PD regarding her mental health and wellness. Ms. Hendricks paid out ofpocket for the help and felt compelled to keep her participation hidden.

94. On September 22,2016, Ms. Hendricks tested for Police Sergeant. She received a low combined score of67 out of 100. This exam was completely subjective with no clear break down ofscore or scoring criteria, nor constructive feedback on areas to improve. She was denied a promotion. Ms.

Hendricks believes she received a low score for speaking out against gender discrimination and the various forms of retaliation that followed.

95. On December 2, 2016, Ms. Hendricks received the first unwanted item, a pair of men's pants, in her department mailbox. She sent out an email asking if it was accidental or case related. She did not receive a response.
l5

IMENDED COMPLAINT F'OR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
12 t3
t4
l5
r6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 96. On December 5, 2016, Ms. Hendricks was served with a negative 'Employee Discussion.' An lA investigation determined she was never noticed for an accident which occurred on December 6, 2015. This negative mark was a year late, not a common occurrence at the department to delay such citations. This followed her formal reports ofgender discrimination and retaliation.

97. On December 9,2016, Ms. Hendricks tested for Patrol Corporal. She was offered a promotion, but was held in the Dispatch role until February 12,2017,long after the new patrol shift started.

98. Around January 12,2017, Ms. Hendricks found an unexpected note in her mailbox from Sergeant Harrison regarding her new assignment. The note included an offer for her to seek guidance from him as needed. This was inconsistent with how he had treated her previously.

99. On May 26, 2017 , Ms. Hendricks earned her Master of Science degree in Emergency Services Administration from Califomia State University Long Beach. Concord PD was provided with a copy ofher degree.
100. From September l,2017,to September 13,2017, Ms. Hendricks attended the Police Unity Tour in Israel, as she represented Concord PD. She posted a picture of her trip on social media for fundraising. Her male colleagues made negative comments over her involvement. They stated she was "too cop." While in lsrael, Ms. Hendricks crashed during a mountain bike ride and received stitches. l0l. On September 14,2017, Ms. Hendricks retumed to work. She found a band-aid in her mailbox, mocking her biking accident. Her boss, Sergeant Steve Price, told her that he had "spies", in reference to her injury sustained in Israel. Rather than ask Ms. Hendricks if she was okay, he demeaned her. Sergeant Price's actions and comments made Ms. Hendricks very uncomfortable. lt was commonly known that Sergeant Price had a habit ofstaring at women's breasts while in conversation. Ms. Hendricks experienced this herself. Overall, Sergeant Price had a reputation for perpetuating the sexist, hypersexual, and male dominated environment at Concord PD. She reported the incident to Lieutenant Donnelly in person on October 20,2011, along with other mailbox items and the harassment she was experiencing. She noted the unprofessionalism and her discomfort. Lieutenant Donnelly did not take her reports seriously.

She was provided with less concem than her male colleagues, as hejoked about her concems and hardships. 102. On October 6,2017, Corporal Ross accused Ms. Hendricks ofnot publicly congratulating a newly promoted colleague, Sergeant Nicholas Boccio. She had congratulated Sergeant Boccio in private

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
r0
1t
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
t8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 prior to the accusation. This served as an example of the power dynamic Corporal Ross had over Ms.

Hendricks.
103. On October 10,2011, Ms. Hendricks was penalized for her "Sangria Post" posted on her private social media account. She was informed by Detective Blakely that her post was discussed in briefing with Lieutenant Donnelly and Officer Ramirez on October 13,2011. Lieutenant Donnelly questioned her about the post. He asserted the post was geared towards her colleagues at Concord PD. As a female officer, Ms. Hendricks was closely monitored and scrutinized. 104. On October 20, 2011, Ms. Hendricks continued to be harassed by receiving another unwanted item in her mailbox, a box of tissue. She reported this to Lieutenant Donnelly in person on October 20, 201 7. He again dismissed her concems.
105. On October 20,2017, Ms. Hendricks was summoned to Lieutenant Donnelly's office. He questioned her about multiple issues, including how she allegedly rolled her eyes in briefing at the newly promoted Sergeant Boccio announcement. Lieutenant Donnelly continued to question her about the "Sangria Post." and what she meant by it. She was served with two'Employee Discussions' at the same time, both negative. One was for rolling her eyes and the other about her patrol rifle being left in her assigned patrol vehicle, which involved Captain James Nakayama. An IT staff member, Ryan Smiley, had worked in her vehicle while Ms. Hendricks was off duty which is likely how her vehicle was left unlocked.

However, Lieutenant Donnelly was specifically targeting Ms. Hendricks. 106. On October 25,2017, Ms. Hendricks continued to be harassed. She found a soiled gym towel on top ofher patrol vehicle. This vehicle was assigned only to her. Lieutenant Donnelly claimed he looked for video footage but there was an obstruction. She was aware that Sergeant Harrison always carried a towel with him, and he had been working during the timeframes of all the previous unwanted items as well as the towel. She reported the issue, but her male supervisors did not address her concems. 107. On November 16, 2017, Ms. Hendricks found another unwanted item in her mailbox, a Kenny Loggins CD. She reported this to Lieutenant Donnelly. Her reports continued to lack any intervention efforts by Concord PD.
108. On November l7 ,2017, Ms. Hendricks was summoned to Lieutenant Donnelly's office to discuss her mailbox problem. She had no direct evidence as to who was responsible for leaving unwanted 11 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 items in her mailbox, but believed it was Sergeant Harrison based on plenty of circumstantial evidence and timing.
109. Lieutenant Donnelly minimized Ms. Hendricks' concems. He played it off as "common for male behavior." He provided her with "options" that offered no viable solution. For one option, Lieutenant Donnelly stated that he could send out an email to the department directly addressing Ms. Hendricks' mailbox concerns. He noted it had been done in the past and it would potentially incite more unwanted items. He assured her that it would only make the issue worse. He swayed her from publicly addressing the issue. For the second option, Lieutenant Donnelly stated that they could do nothing and hopefully it would end on its own. For a third option, Lieutenant Donnelly stated that he could send out a general reminder to everyone with no specific information regarding Ms. Hendricks, about proper use of the mailboxes. Lieutenant Donnelly chose to go with option tkee, sending out a general reminder with no specifics to Ms. Hendricks.
ll0. ln 2017, Ms. Hendricks continued to receive employee performance appraisals. She received 'Meets Standards' as opposed to her typical 'Exceeds Standards.' This change in performance review began after she reported gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at Concord PD.

I I l. On January 19,2018, Ms. Hendricks began anewshiftacting as Sergeant for l0 ofl3 shifts until Sergeant Kyle Colvin began on February 16" 2018. He was ten years herjunior in years as a police officer. Sergeant Colvin also had less than five years ofexperience in total. He had recently been promoted to Sergeant.
ll2. On March 6, 2018, Officer Tony Killion was selected over Ms. Hendricks for a Provisional Sergeant position. Officer Killion was a male colleague with less tenure and less time on as a Corporal than Ms. Hendricks. It was obvious, based on common practice, that Ms. Hendricks had intentionally been skipped.

I13. On June l, 2018, Ms. Hendricks was served with an 'Employee Discussion' for talking about her Sergeant Colvin's gender bias. She had taken on all the responsibilities of Sergeant without the pay and title prior to his assignment to the team. Rather than promote Ms. Hendricks, Concord PD opted for a less tenured and less qualified male oflicer, Kyle Colvin, as he was friends with Lieutenant Donnelly.

Sergeant Colvin seemed set on asserting his authority. Ms. Hendricks made comments about him being AMEI\DED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

t9
I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES
promoted and taking an excessive amount of time off. As a form of retaliation, Sergeant Colvin removed Ms. Hendricks' responsibilities from her, informally demoting her. Ms. Hendricks attempted to have her Employee Discussion record amended to accurately reflect the situation. However, she was denied the amendment by Captain John Nunes.
ll4. On September 18, 2018, Sergeant Harrison acted in hostility towards Ms. Hendricks on a "double squad night," meaning two separate teams worked on the same time to meet their required extra l0 hours every 28 days cycle. Sergeant Harrison's team worked the weekday graveyard shift and Ms.

Hendricks' team worked the weekend graveyard shift then both teams worked patrol at night. As a Corporal, Ms. Hendricks often performed three different job roles. She acted as Sergeant, Corporal, and Patrol Officer. She was in her office working doing paperwork when Sergeant Harrison barged in and blocked the doorway. He yelled and cursed at her. Sergeant Harrison accused Ms. Hendricks of hiding in her office and not getting work done. She felt physically threated, uncomfortable, and the incident caused her mental distress. She reported the incident to IA, requesting a formal investigation. Her complaint was handled poorly and informally. A memo was drafted, purportedly referring to the whole matter as a "he said, she said" hearsay situation and no further action would be taken. Ms. Hendricks was refused a copy of the memo.

I15. On September 24,2018, in retaliation for requesting a formal investigation of the previous incident, Lieutenant Donnelly instructed Segreant Colvin to remove two hours flom Ms. Hendricks' timecard, which she had logged for reporting the event on September 18, 2018. Concord PD never paid her for work-related time.

I16. On October 8, 2018, Ms. Hendricks was served with a negative 'Employee Performance Appraisal' by Sergeant Colvin, in further retaliation for reporting the event on September 18,2018. She was marked for "Needs lmprovement." in the area of Communication and the evenl from September 18, 2018 with Sergeant Harrison was documented from his perspective only. This resulted in Lieutenant Donnelly choosing to punish her with a temporary loss of Master Peace Officer "MPO" status and pay.

MPO is an eamed designation after fifteen years of duty plus a minimum of three specialty assignments.

Ms. Hendricks was designated FTO, Detective, Corporal, and Dispatcher which came with a significant pay increase. She filed a grievance with Chief Guy Swanger. Although Chief Swanger ended the pay loss

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
I7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
25 26
27 28
period early, as an act of further retaliation, Ms. Hendricks was never repaid the income she lost. l17. On October 25,2018, Ms. Hendricks tested for Violence Suppression Unit Detective. She was denied a promotion despite historically exceeding expectations in her various roles. Concord PD gave no reason or explanation for denying her promotion. Captain Roche selected four males for the role, all with less experience and less tenure at Concord PD. Ms. Hendricks had been informed the oral board panel ranked her as the number one candidate.

I 18. On November 12, 2018, Ms. Hendricks was held over for report writing. This extra time was approved by her direct supervisor, Sergeant Flechsing. Lieutenant Donnelly went out of his way to question Ms. Hendricks on her extra time worked, in spite ofnot being in her direct chain-of-command.

Lieutenant Donnelly questioned Ms. Hendricks not once but twice, working to discredit and undermine her.
119. On December 2, 2018, Ms. Hendricks leamed of Lieutenant Donnelly's accusation against her. He spread rumors that she was committing timecard fraud. Lieutenant Donnelly made his allegations in a Watch Commander Meeting, sharing with her colleagues and superiors. No formal investigation was conducted but there was also no known action to retract or correct the discrediting of Ms. Hendricks' reputation.
120. On December 7 or 15, 201 8, Ms. Hendricks received another unwanted item in her mailbox, chocolate coins. She reported the continued harassment to Lieutenant Sam Staten on January 25,2019, in person and through a formal memo.
l2l. On December 15, 2018, Ms. Hendricks received another unwanted item in her mailbox, a single tootsie roll. She reported the harassment to Lieutenant Staten on January 25, 2019, in person and tkough a formal memo.
122. On January 4,2019, Ms. Hendricks received another unwanted item in her mailbox, a calendar with "most stolen calendar" imprinted on the front. This was an old calendar from a local tow company. She reported the continued harassment to Lieutenant Staten on January 25,2019, in person and through a formal memo.
123. On January 18, 2019, Ms. Hendricks received another unwanted item in her mailbox, an old training manual for money laundering cases. She reported the continued harassment to Lieutenant Slaten )
AMENDED COMPLAINT tJOR DAMAGES

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 ll
t2
l3
14 15
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 21
,c
on January 25,2019, in person and through a formal memo. 124. On January 25,2019, Mrs. Hendricks made a formal report of her unwanted mailbox items dating back to 2016. Lieutenant Staten brought up her reports in a Watch Commander Meeting. Lieutenant Donnelly was also at the meeting. Ms. Hendricks stopped receiving unwanted items in her mailbox after Lieutenant Staten publicly addressed the harassment in the management meeting. Concord PD did not conduct any form of investigation into the matter and the responsible party were never identified. 125. On May l, 2019, Ms. Hendricks worked an overtime dayshift. She was on a call involving an elderly woman. The elderly woman was yelling and causing a scene at a bank. She was a petite woman, approximately seventy pounds. The woman did not appear fully coherent. Ms. Hendricks was able to engage the woman and resolved the situation. She decided she didn't need any help on the call. This was a decision well within her authority to make. Then around twenty minutes later, the elderly woman retumed to lhe bank and began yelling again.
126. Officer Greg Pardella arrived on the scene to assist with removing the elderly woman from outside the bank. Once outside the bank, Officer Pardella grabbed the woman and she resisted. She kicked Ms. Hendricks in the knee while she resisted Officer Pardella's arrest. The incident was written up.

Lieutenant Donnelly was upset that Ms. Hendricks didn't take coverage with her the first time. Lieutenant Donnelly instructed Corporal Michael Jaime, her peer, to write up Ms. Hendricks for officer safety. Ms.

Hendricks was served with an 'Employee Discussion.' She felt singled out and again targeted by Lieutenant Donnelly.
127. On June 3, 2019, Ms. Hendricks tested for Police Sergeant. She scored an 8l out of 100.

There was no clear breakdown or grading scale. She was not provided with specific feedback on areas where she was deficient. The exam was subjective and graded subjectively. Her testing did not result in promotion. The list was extended in 2020.
128. On December 21,2019, Captain James Nakayama adjusted Ms. Hendricks' role scope.

After Ms. Hendricks had logged nearly 200 hours in the acting Sergeant role with no additional supervision and without incident, Captain Nakayama removed thejob responsibility from her as acting sergeant when her supervisor was off. This was a responsibility and common practice associated with the role ofCorporal.

Captain Nakayama forced Lieutenant Michael Kindorf to "supervise" Ms. Hendricks, against Lieutenant 2 AMEfrDED COMPLAINT FOI{ DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
t5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Kindorfs own endorsement of Ms. Hendricks' capabilities and strong work performance. She had successfully performed until Captain Nakayama chose to micromanage and undermine her, without a valid explanation.
129. On January 5, 2020, Sergeant Flechsing unexpectedly submitted his two weeks'notice for retirement. The department was not prepared forhim to retire. There is usually notice given well in advance and discussions of replacement occurs during promotions. The natural progression placed Ms. Hendricks to become provisional or permanent Sergeant ofthe team she was currently helping to oversee. 130. Unknown to Ms. Hendricks at the time, Captain Nakayama told Lieutenant Mark Robison, Corporal Ross's brother-in-law, to conduct a review of Ms. Hendricks' performance on a 5-month-old call.

Captain Nakayama circumvented the standard investigation policies and procedures by requesting Lieutenant Robison write a memo referring to Ms. Hendricks as "failing to supervise" on a call where an officer used excessive force. Ms. Hendricks was never lbrmally noticed about the investigation, the memo, or the fact the memo was later used against her during a Sergeant promotion process. This violated the Peace Officers Bill of Rights. This information was later relayed to Ms. Hendricks by Lieutenant Kindorf. 13L On January 11,2020, Ms. Hendricks received an Employee Performance Appraisal to sign in which Sergeant Scott Flechsing had rated her at 'Exceeds Standards.' Lieutenant Kindorf later informed Ms. Hendricks that he was ordered by Captain Nakayama to change the evaluation ratings or provide additional supporting evidence. This was done in efforts to sabotage Ms. Hendricks' chances of promotion.

Lieutenant Kindorf did not agree with the retaliation and instead provided additional examples of Ms.

Hendricks' exemplary performance.
132. On January 14,2020, Concord PD moved Sergeant Summer Galer from her current position and schedule to Ms. Hendricks'team, replacing Flechsing. This caused a significant hardship for Sergeant Galer, a mother, and denied Ms. Hendricks the promotional opportunity. Lieutenant Kindorf attempted to advocate for Ms. Hendricks to continue supervising the team on a provisional or permanent basis. Captain Nakayama told Lieutenant Kindorf about the memo that Lieutenant Robison wrote. The memo alleged that Ms. Hendricks "failed to supervise." Lieutenant Kindorf was familiar with the incident detailed in the memo and took no issue regarding Ms. Hendricks' performance and had not received any formal notifi cation of otherwise.
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

133. Lieutenant Kindorf confronted Captain Nakayama. He stated they should allow Ms.

Hendricks to be placed in the role of Sergeant but there was a separate power dynamic happening between Captain Nakayama and Lieutenant Kindorl which ultimately lead to Lieutenant Kindorfelecting to retire.

Ms. Hendricks was unaware of this process while it was happening. Later, Lieutenant Kindorf informed her of his actions. She was never formally investigated for this incident. However, only when the promotional opportunity for Ms. Hendricks arose then Captain Nakayama requested for the memo to be written by Lieutenant Robison. Ms. Hendricks now believes this was a messy attempt to tamish Ms.

Hendricks' stellar work performance in order tojustifo not promoling her. 134. On January 24, 2020, Lieutenant Kindorf provided Ms. Hendricks with the revised employee performance appraisal and a memo detailed the demand by Captain Nakayama to change the document. She was noted as "Exceeds Standard" for her leadership and work habits. 135. On February 8, 2020, Ms. Hendricks tested for Patrol Corporal as her current status was expiring before the new chiefarrival. Lieutenant Kindorftold Ms. Hendricks that past practice was for one year extension requests to be granted in certain cases. Captain Nakayama denied Ms. Hendricks' request for an extension. Ms. Hendricks' salary was impacted by the denial. She had no authority forthe experience she held. She was also not provided with the opportunity to demonstrate her leadership ability to the newly appointed Chief Bustillos.
136. On March 26,2020, Ms. Hendricks handled a critical incident on duty involving an infant death. She performed CPR on the infant who had passed. This incident was particularly impactful on Ms.

Hendricks. This event was one of many significant contributing factors to her PTSD by surmounting the constant discrimination, harassment, and retaliation that she endured throughout her years at Concord PD. ln addition, she was forced to work extended hours, received a high volume ofcalls, and the COVID-19 pandemic was just starting. Ms. Hendricks' Sergeant, Danielle Cruz, complimented her for her tact and leadership on the call.
137. On April l, 2020, Chief Mark Bustillos began following Chief Swanger's retirement. It was a common opinion Chief Bustillos never expected he would be Chief of Police. Chief Bustillos said to Ms.

Hendricks regarding Concord PD, "What he was sold was not what he experienced." She said he was given a false impression of Concord PD. He highlighted the disfunction within the department. 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACI]S

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 138. On June 1,2020, Ms. Hendricks' salary and role decreased due to "timing out" for Patrol Corporal. She retumed back to officer status after completing the Patrol Corporal's three-year term. Some ofher male colleagues previously were able to ask for extended time in the role. She tested for an exlension and without explanation was denied. As continued gender discrimination, Ms. Hendricks was not alforded the same opportunities as her male colleagues.
139. On June 24,2020, Ms. Hendricks tested for a Patrol Corporal position. This did not result in promotion based on Captain Nakayama's gender discrimination and retaliation. Instead, he selected four male candidates. One ofthe candidates included Brian Tanner, a male with less tenure than Ms. Hendricks.

He also previously had Corporal experience like Ms. Hendricks and was afforded the second opportunity while she was not.
140. On July 8, 2020, Ms. Hendricks ranked 'Top 6' on Sergeant's List. She had an interview with Chief Bustillos. He told Ms. Hendricks that he was extending the eligibility list to January 2021.

Doing so allowed her to be eligible for promotions during that time. There was no additional scoring or feedback after the interviews with Chief Bustillos. This process did not result in a promotion despite her being the most qualified and experienced candidate for Patrol Sergeant. l4l. On July 8,2020, ChiefBustillos spoke at POA meeting. He amounced his extension ofthe Sergeant Eligibility List to January 2021. This was the second time Mrs. Hendricks heard Chief Bustillos confirm the list extension date.
142. On July 10, 2020, Chief Bustillos sent out a department email regarding the extension of the Sergeant Eligibility List to January 2021. He informed all that he took the top six candidates and conducted interviews.
143. On July I l, 2020, Ms. Hendricks was informed by Sergeant Millman that Sergeant Harrison was talking in a disparaging manner about Ms. Hendricks to Sergeant Matthew Millman as she walked past them in the backlot ofthe station. Sergeant Millman told Ms. Hendricks, "Cody definitely does not like you." He noted that Sergeant Harrison was staring her down. 144. On July 16, 2020, Chief Bustillos promoted Officer Ramirez, a male officer, to Segreant.

He had a far lower score than Ms. Hendricks. Officer Ramirez was selected over Ms. Hendricks based on his gender and race, sharing the same Hispanic race as the Chief, rather than skills and ability. Chief 24 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
l1
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Bustillos called Ms. Hendricks to state that she had "a very good chance for the next promotion." 145. On August 6,2020, Ms. Hendricks heard a rumor from Detective Chris Blakey that she had been disqualified from Sergeant's Eligibility List. This list documents officers that test for Sergeant and remain eligible for usually a year. Ms. Hendricks made a formal inquiry to assess whether this was true or not. She spoke to Sergeant Millman and Sergeant Cruz about the rumors about her status on the Eligibility List. Ms. Hendricks also contacted IA Sergeant Jason Passama to inquire ifthere was an investigation on her that she was not noticed about. Sergeant Passama referred her to Captain Nakayama. 146. Captain Nakayama ordered Sergeant Cruz, female, and Sergeant Millman, male, to his office. Sergeant Cruz and Sergeant Millman were supportive of Ms. Hendricks. Captain Nakayama ordered Sergeant Cruz and Sergeant Millman to stop talking about the Sergeant List and confirmed Ms. Hendricks was not disqualified from Sergeant List. Captain Nakayama never spoke to Ms. Hendricks directly and she believes Captain Nakayama was trying to prevent any further inquiry because ofhis secret memo produced by Lieutenant Robison.
l4'7. On August 10,2020, Ms. Hendricks broke down with Sergeant Millman in the backlot over the continued discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. He acknowledged the mistreatment and provided Ms. Hendricks with support. She was overwhelmed and near the end ofa shift at the Corporal's office. Ms.

Hendricks had been sent on a domestic call while she was busy writing a report. On her way to the call, she hit the gate and it popped the tire of her police vehicle. Immediately, she reported the accident to Sergeant Millman and their conversation led to the breakdown of emotions by Ms. Hendricks. She was embarrassed, tried to hide her feelings, but did find support with Sergeant Millman even though there was nothing in his power to change the work environment.
148. On August 15,2020, Chief Bustillos announced the promotion of Matt Cain as Sergeant and also expired the Sergeant Eligibility List, in direct conflict of his prior statements. He had extended the list for six months on July 8, 2020. Chief Bustillos promoted the two males around Ms. Hendricks, and then rescinded the promotion list extension.
149. On August 20,2020, Captain James Nakayama, via Lieutenant Robison, announced Officer Michael Jaime to Provisional Sergeant. Ms. Hendricks was overlooked for another opportunity. Officer Jaime was less experienced, less tenured, and not in the recent top six candidate list that had suddenly 25 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l1
12 13
t4
l5
16 17
l8
19 20
2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 expired.
150. On August 25,2020, Ms. Hendricks had a private phone call with Lieutenant Kindorf. This was the first disclosure from Lieutenant Kindorf about the'secret memo' ordered by Captain Nakayama and authored by Lieutenant Robison. It was used to not promote Ms. Hendricks back in January 201 9 upon the retirement of Sergeant Flechsing.
l5l. On August 25,2020, Ms. Hendricks had a private phone call with Officer Kristin Kreiger ("Ms. Krieger"). This was Ms. Krieger's first disclosure of her awareness of conversations regarding intentional efforts to skip Ms. Hendricks for promotional opportunities. Ms. Krieger was promoted very early, allowing her access to Watch Commander Meeting and upper management discussions. She was privy to information that Ms. Hendricks wasn't. Ms. Hendricks and Ms. Krieger agreed that Concord PD was putting women in situations to fail.
152. On August 29,2020, Ms. Hendricks had a backlot conversation with Lieutenant Staten.

This was Lieutenant Staten's first disclosure that Captain Nakayama inquired with him about Ms.

Hendricks' supervision on the August 2019 incident, regarding the "secret memo." One of Ms. Hendricks' subordinates, Officer Max Gibbons, used force during a call in August 2019. Lieutenant Staten told Ms.

Hendricks that Captain Nakayama propositioned him, as a member of the Use of Force Review Board, to make an evaluation of Ms. Hendricks' performance as a supervisor well after the board had conducted its formal review ofthe incident. It was estimated this conversation between Lieutenant Staten and Captain Nakayama had occurred several months after the August 2019 incident, which would fall in line with the January 2020 time period of Flechsing's retirement. Lieutenant Staten declined to participate as the board had made their determination and what Captain Nakayama was asking him to do was outside the scope of their duties.
153. On September 18,2020, Ms. Hendricks handled two significant investigations during a single shift during the weekend. She requested permission to hold reports in order to thoroughly document the investigations. She was also exhausted and need to return home to be ready for work the next day. Her supervisors, Provisional Sergeant Jaime and Corporal Eduardo Montero, gave Ms. Hendricks verbal praise for her work and permission to hold the reports. However, Captain Nakayama intervened in efforts to get Ms. Hendricks in trouble. He accused her of holding the reports without permission. Ms. Hendricks 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT F'OR DAMAGES

I
2 J
4 5
6 '1
8 9
t0
1t
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
18 t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 retumed to work early in order to start working on the reports based on the "Captain is pissed" comments she was told by Detective Sergeant Shawn Phalen, Detective Enrique Espino, and Sergeant Paco Ramirez. 154. On September 19, 2020, Ms. Hendricks learned from Sergeant Phalen that Captain Nakayama, Captain Roche, and Lieutenant Donnelly were all conversating about how Ms. Hendricks failed to complete the reports and it was holding up the investigation. Again, Ms. Hendricks was forced to come to work early to address their concems about her holding the reports for one of the investigations.

I 55. On September 19,2020, Sergeant Ramirez made multiple inquiries about how much longer it would take Ms. Hendricks to complete the report. He harassed her in the Report Writing Room in front ofajunior officer. Sergeant Ramirez treated her as if she were a new officer in need ofconstant oversight while typing a report. His pressure was not helpful but rather it caused her undue panic and stress. 156. On September 19,2020, Ms. Hendricks reported to Provisional Lieutenant Rob Garcia regarding Sergeant Ramirez's actions. Ms. Hendricks broke down in tears as lhe constant and long-standing history of unfair treatment was overwhelming her. Lieutenant Garcia told Ms. Hendricks that Sergeant Ramirez's actions were "not personal." He minimized and dismissed her reports. He added that he needed to defend her to Captain Nakayama due to him being angry about the report not being completed prior to the end ofher last shift.
157 . On September 27, 2020, Sergeant Cain served Ms. Hendricks with Lieutenant Donnelly's write up for report writing issues. Ms. Hendricks received positive feedback and praise for her report writing skills over the course of her entire employment with Concord PD since 2000. However, this was her first time being tied to this kind ofoversight. She wrote a short supplemental report to satisry Lieutenant Donnelly. Ms. Hendricks broke down to Lieutenant Garcia. She mentioned there was long history of reporting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at Concord PD. Ms. Hendricks' reports were not investigated. Lieutenant Garcia once again told Ms. Hendricks the criticism frorn Lieutenant Donnelly was "not personal".
158. On October 9,2020, Ms. Hendricks received positive feedback regarding a call involving a child with autism. Officer Gibbons sent positive feedback to Sergeant Cain, Ms. Hendricks' supervisor.

Officer Gibbons confirmed to Sergeant Cain that she handled the less than routine call very well. He said to Sergeant Cain, "Of all his supervisors, she (Ms. Hendricks) was one ofthe best." Officer Gibbons also 2 1
AMENDED COMPI-AINT I.-OR DAMAGES

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 I
l0
ll
t2
l3
T4
t5
16 t7
t8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 suggested that the BWC footage could be used for training purposes on calls involving persons with autism.

This positive praise was never formally documented or acknowledged by Sergeant Cain or Concord PD.

Officer Gibbons told Ms. Hendricks about it a few days later.

I 59. On October 16, 2020, Ms. Hendricks tested for Community Impact Team Corporal. There were six candidates, including Ms. Hendricks, and one position was to be filled. She was offered a "second spot" that opened suddenly, resulting in a promotion. She was a secondary option to her male colleague.

At this time, it had started to become public knowledge there were a group of female officers pursuing legal action against Concord PD. Ms. Hendricks believed the sudden secondary position was opened up for her specifically due to this newly found public knowledge. 160. On October 25,2020, Ms. Hendricks worked on a domestic violence call. There was zero control or leadership on Sergeant Cain's call. Sergeant Cain made Ms. Hendricks handle the investigation, even though it was not her area of responsibility and at least six other officers had been involved prior to her arrival. He stated that he "knew" she would handle it appropriately, but he provided no leadership.

Upon her arrival, there was no control of the scene. The junior officers had been to the house multiple times. Sergeant Cain stood without leading, directing, or engaging with his team despite their struggles.

Ms. Hendricks was the only officer that spoke Spanish. She demonstrated her skills and ability to ensure officer safety and took control ofthe scene. Sergeant Cain forced her to clean up the mess and failed to use the opportunity to teach newer officers how to handle their call. l6l. On November 8, 2020, Ms. Hendricks handled another critical incident. This call involved an attempted suicide via hanging in a parked vehicle. A young man, her son's age at the time, attempted to commit suicide in is car, parking in an isolated location. Sergeant Cain provided no leadership over this call. Again, Ms. Hendricks led the charge. At this time, officer safety was at an all-time high. She fearlessly pulled the young man out of his car with Officer Gibbons. Sergeant Cain stood there grinning, not leading, and not assisting while Ms. Hendricks tended to the young man who survived. At the conclusion of the call, Sergeant Cain failed to take the opportunity to debrief the incident with the officers. His demeanor was not consistent with the type of call just handled. Ms. Hendricks drove from the scene and had a re- experiencing event ofa previous suicide call involving a near decapitation that was never debriefed. She had a severe panic attack and had to pull over. This had never happened to her previously. Concord PD AMENDED COMPLA]NT FOR DAMACES

later said in her worker's compensation claim case that Ms. Hendricks was only looking for praise from Sergeant Cain at the conclusion of this call, disregarding the trauma of the experience. 162. On November 9, 2020, Sergeant Harrison publicly shamed Ms. Hendricks in his briefing regarding her personal social media post following the previous attempted suicide call. He referred to her as a "sea donkey" a derogatory and offensive term to reference to women. Sergeant Harrison read her social media post out loud during his briefing, mocking and humiliating Ms. Hendricks. The post was raw and vulnerable, and Sergeant Harrison mocked her religious references. 163. On November 10,2020, Ms. Hendricks attended court. Officer Jon Ma disclosed to her that Sergeant Harrison publicly shamed her in front ofher colleagues and superiors. Officer Ma informed Ms.

Hendricks that Sergeant Harrison called her a "sea donkey." and talked about her social media post. Ms.

Hendricks had another panic attack in her car outside the courthouse. It took about twenty minutes on the phone with a friend for Ms. Hendricks to regain her composure enough to leave. 164. On November 10, 2020, Ms. Hendricks reported Sergeant Harrison's behavior to Professional Standards Unit (lA) Sergeant Jason Passama. She recorded her statement with his knowledge.

Sergeant Passama was supportive ofher. Then a month later, it was announced that he was removed from the role and Lieutenant Gartner would be overseeing the investigation, which included the hiring of an outside investigator, Howard Jordan.
165. On November 10,2020, Ms. Hendricks also filed a workers' compensation claim with HR for work-related cumulative stress. The HR representative, Lisa Bartlow, discouraged Ms. Hendricks from filing the claim. She kept questioning, "Are you sure you want to file?" and "This will open up your entire file and medical records."
166. On November 10,2020, Ms. Hendricks' injury and medical leave began. 167. On November 11,2020, Ms. Hendricks had breakfast with Community Service Officer C'CSO) Heather Weston. She disclosed Sergeant Harrison's behavior and efforts to undermine Ms.

Hendricks. Officer Weston informed Ms. Hendricks that Sergeant Harrison told Officer Weston that he didn't call her a sea donkey in the briefing and that it was someone else, a direct and blatant untruth. 168. On November 20, 2020, Ms. Hendricks had breakfast with Officer Kyle Loo. He also confirmed Sergeant Harrison's mistreatment of Ms. Hendricks. Officer Loo worked on Sergeant Harrison's 29 lMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES
I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 I
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2L
22 23
24 25
26 27
28

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
t't
r8
l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 team. He admitted that he heard the term "sea donkey" in refence to her often. 169. On November 20,2020, Ms. Hendricks was interviewed by investigator Steve Steinhauer, assigned by Sedgwick, previously known as York, regarding her workers' compensation claim. She included testimony about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by the department. 1 70. On December 10, 2020, Ms. Hendricks participated in an investigative interview with lnvestigator Jordan regarding her complaints against Sergeant Harrison. Mr. Jordan was hired by Concord PD to conduct the investigative interviews related to the IA complaint about Sergeant Harrison. 171. On December 16,2020, Ms. Hendricks completed an intake psychological assessment with the Trauma and Stress Recovery Center. Her preliminary diagnosis was PTSD, anxiety and depression with panic and insomnia.
172. On December 20,2020, Ms. Hendricks received a letter from Abbie Cohen, a licensed Maniage and Family Therapist, regarding the work-related discrimination, harassment, and retaliation she experienced while under Ms. Cohen's care.
173. On December 28, 2020, Ms. Hendricks received a letter from Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, Jim Wolfe, regarding the work-related discrimination, harassment, and retaliation she experienced while under Mr. Wolfe's care.
174. On January 14,2021, Ms. Hendricks received a letter from Sedgwick to arrange qualified medical exam by Dr. Allen Kipperman. The letter showed Concord PD's defense strategy. Concord PD used Corporal Ross's abuse via disclosing it as an affair between a female employee and a male supervisor to prevent Ms. Hendricks from pursuing her claims following her workers' compensation filing. The department rejected accountability for imposing mental health struggles upon Ms. Hendricks through the various forms of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation experienced throughout her career at Concord PD.
175. On January 20,2021, Ms. Hendricks had her workers' compensation QME Evaluation #l with Dr. Kipperman.
176. On February 23,2021, Ms. Hendricks was involved in an off-duty use of force incident.

She aided in containing a shoplilier and followed proper procedure via notifuing the on-duty supervisor. l'77. On March 16,2021, QME Dr. Kipperman prepared a supplemental report. He reviewed i0
AMENDED COMPLAINT I.'OR DAMAGES

additional medical record history.
178. On July 8,2021, Sergeant Harrison sent an inappropriate meme on an email for shift roster.

He was unprofessional and the department allowed his behaviors despite reporls. Ms. Hendricks retained a copy ofthe email as evidence Sergeant Harrison was not restrained in any way following her complaint. 179. On July 23, 2021 , QME Dr. Kipperman prepared a supplemental report. [t covered a review of Ms. Hendricks' comprehensive psychological evaluation by Doctor Rebecca Thompson fiom February t7 , 2021.
180. On August 4,2021, Concord PD posted on their social media about women in promotional positions within the department. The promotions were overseen by Captain James Nakayama. He attempted to control the narrative and assert the department was "pro-women." I 8 I . On September 9, 2021, Ms. Hendricks discovered her mailbox at the department was removed. At the time, she was still receiving mail as an employee. She was removed without notice despite being still employed with the department.
182. On September 23,2021, Ms. Hendricks participated in her workers' compensation QME Evaluation #2 with Dr. Kipperman.
183. On October 21, 2021, Ms. Hendricks participated in her workers' compensation Independent Medical Examination ("lME") with Doctor Judith Keins as requested by Concord PD. 184. On November 30,2021, Concord PD officers were approved for a COVID-19 bonus from the onset of the pandemic in March 2020. Ms. Hendricks had worked full duty from the onset of the pandemic through November 2020. The bonus was only provided to those working the pay period ending in December 2021 . The bonus was set to be awarded on December 26, 2021 . Concord PD ananged for Ms.

Hendricks' retirement date to occur prior to the bonus award date. They intentionally made her ineligible for $3,400 bonus despite her loyalty and service through the COVID-19 pandemic. 185. On December 2, 2021, Ms. Hendricks was granted Industrial Disability Retirement with two-week notice. Ms. Hendricks was shocked, as she did not apply for retirement. Concord PD took the action when they sent the first letter to Dr. Kipperman implying that she was mentally unstable, and they didn't want her to come back.
186. On December 10,2021, Concord PD informed Ms. Hendricks that she was not allowed to 3l
I
2 J
4 5
6 '7
8 9
10 ll
12 13
t4
l5
t6
t7
t8
l9
20 21
72 23
24 25
26 2'7
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 .,
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
18 l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 retain her duty weapon. Lieutenant Gartner misrepresented the department policy. He implied she retired not in good standing. Concord PD wanted her doctors to answer ifshe was a danger to herselfor to others.

They also wanted the doctors to answer if she should be able to retain her duty weapon. Every medical report that addresses Ms. Hendricks ability to carry a firearm or any danger concems consistently showed there was no evidence to suggest any issues. Ms. Hendricks never harmed herselfor anyone. She owns her own firearms. She was told that CA law does not allow her to retain her conceal and carry ifretired due to mental health. lt was common practice for them to allow male members to retain their duty firearm in situations of medical retirement. Ms. Hendricks was excluded from this standard and tradition practice of gifting the employee their duty weapon due to her gender as a female and in retaliation of her lodged complaints.
187. On December 15,2021, Ms. Hendricks was notified ofher IA complaint from November 10,2020, regarding Sergeant Harrison was closed. It was sustained with no further information provided.

It took thirteen months to notifu Ms. Hendricks ofthe findings from the date she complained. 188. On December 17,2021, Ms. Hendricks was her last day of employment with Concord PD as she was terminated by being forced into early retirement. 189. On May 24,2022, Ms. Hendricks participated in workers' compensation QME Evaluation #3 with Dr. Kipperman.
190. On January 6,2023,Ms. Hendricks filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Department and obtained her Right to Sue regarding discrimination and retaliation. l9l . As of result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff suffered emotionally and psychologically from the discrimination and harassment she experienced by Defendants. As a result of the hostile work environment and discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, humiliation, mental and emotional pain and distress, discomfort, panic attacks, nightmares, significant sleep issues, loss of appetite, hopelessness, and worry about the future. Plaintiffhas distanced herselffiom her husband and children as well as had to seek out her own healthcare in spite of participating in the worker's compensation claim process. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety and depression with panic and insomnia as a result of her experiences and treatment by Defendants. Additionally, Ms. Hendricks relocated her family to avoid constant triggers from remaining in the area where the discrimination and harassment occurred. 32 IMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
z
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
t0
ll
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 B. Plaintiff Beth Long
192. Beth Long ("Long") is a 43-year-old female who began working for Concord PD in September of2002 while actively in the Police Academy and was official sworn in as of Aprit 2003. 193. Throughout her 20 years in service, Ms. Long has always received "meets standards" or "exceeds standards" in ratings regarding her employment. 194. On December 1,2010, Ms. Long was placed onto modified duty due to her pregnancy. She was assigned to Dispatch until July 201 I . At the time, Concord PD had a policy stating that female officers could not work a uniformed assignment after their first trimester. As display by Defendants towards unfair gender treatment, Female officers were assigned to Dispatch for modified duty while male officers on modified duty were not.
195. On March 16,2012, Sergeant Scoft Wagner and Captain David Downing informed Ms.

Long that she would be permanently assigned to Dispatch, essentially demoted in role scope. 196. On March 18.2012, Ms. Long submitted a memo to Captain Downing to express her concems over being assigned to Dispatch. She was not placed in Dispatch after communicating her concerns about being limited to the Dispatch role.
197. On January 12,2015, Ms. Long obtained a Financial Crimes Detective position. She obtained a more advanced role based on her skills and abilities. 198. On August 5, 2015, Ms. Long interviewed for Sergeant. She tested for the role and received a low score of a 62ok from her male superiors. Chief Guy Swanger, Captain Ganett Voerge, Captain William Roche, and Sergeant Daniel Siri were in charge ofthe promotion process, all male superiors. The exam and grading were very subjective. There was no clear grading structure or criteria nor explanation for the low grade.
199. On August 31,2015, Ms. Long interviewed for a Patrol Corporal role. She obtained the position and began on September 28,2015. She received positive feedback in her new role. 200. On January 4, 2016, Ms. Long served in a Provisional Sergeant position for a weekend graveyard shift. The role lasted for eight weeks, all graveyard shifts. She received positive feedback for her performance in the role. Lieutenant Sean Donnelly wrote Ms. Long a letter ofrecognition.

Z0l. On April 3,2016, Ms. Long fractured her arm while offduty. She was placed on modified 33 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 ,
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
z0
2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 l4

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES
duty at the front desk.
202. On May 24,2016, Ms. Long graduated from the Inner Perspective Leadership course. It was customary for a representative from the department to attend the graduation. She was not given the same recognition or support offered to her male colleagues that graduated fiom the course. Ms. Long emailed Lieutenant Daniel Montgomery from the Berkeley Police Department to inquire why no one was present from Concord PD for her graduation. Lieutenant Montgomery informed her that the invitation was mailed to the Concord Police Department.
203. On May 26, 2016, Ms. Long met with Captain Voerge to inquire about her graduation. He informed her that no one was made aware of her graduation. He quickly dismissed her concem of not feeling supported by Concord PD and acted irritated by her inquiry. 204. A couple of years later, Officer Mark Evans told Ms. Long that he overheard the all-male Administration team joking about Ms. Long's concern over lack of support at her graduation during firearms qualification. Concord PD's Administration team consisted of Captain Voerge, Captain Roche, and Chief Swanger.
205. On June 6,2016, Ms. Long's mother, Deborah Long ("Mrs. Long"), attended a Mayor's Conference. ChiefSwanger sat with Mrs. Long. During the conference, he commented to Mrs. Long about the possibility of Ms. Long's arm injury being career ending. Mrs. Long replied to Chief Swanger that Concord PD should be "taking care oftheir employees."
206. A few months later, Captain Dan Siri told Ms. Long that Chief Swanger talked about her mother's comment during a meeting. Chief Swanger was upset over Mrs. Long's comment. He expressed his frustrations by questioning how her mother could make that comment to him after "everything I did for her." He attributed Ms. Long's success at Concord PD to be from his support ofher as if it was a choice rather than an obligation.
207. On June 30, 2016, Captain Voerge met with the Concord Police Officer's Association ("POA") to discuss placing officers in Dispatch. Officer and POA President Ron Bruckert emailed Captain Voerge to inquire how Concord PD decided on which officers were placed in the Dispatch role during staffing shortages. He was concerned of gender bias as female officers were exclusively and repeatedly being placed in the role. Officer Bruckert forwarded the email to Officer Amy Hendricks and Ms. Long as

1 2
.,
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
I2
l3
l4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 they were being assigned to Dispatch.
208. On July 8, 2016, Captain Voerge informed Ms. Long that she would be transferred to Dispatch.
209. On July 13,2016, Ms. Long and Mrs. Hendricks met with the POA to discuss how it was decided who was going to be assigned to Dispatch. They noticed there were other male and female officers who were Dispatch trained. At the time, all of the males who were trained decided to do so as a means to make additional overtime. Ms. Long and Mrs. Hendricks and the POA also discussed working conditions such as concems with time off, seniority, and mandatory overtime. They were advised to email the Dispatch Supervisor, Tamra Roberts.
210. On July 27, 2016, Ms. Long emailed the Dispatch Supervisor, Sergeant Tamra Roberts, about the start date in Dispatch. She was informed that October 11,2016, was the decided date. 2ll. On August 22,2016, Ms. Long sent an email to Dispatch Supervisor, Sergeant Tamra Roberts regarding questions about working conditions and expectations in the Dispatch role. She included Officer Hendricks on the email thread. Ms. Long questioned about how the Dispatch role would limit their training, benefits, and career opportunities at Concord PD. 212. On September 13,2016, Sergeant Roberts responded to Ms. Long's concerns.

Zl3. On September 22, 2016, Ms. Long tested for Sergeant. She tested for the role and received another low score, lower than her first attempt. She received a 610/o from her male superiors: Chief Swanger, Captain Voerge, Captain Roche, and Sergeant Siri. Ms. Long felt her performance was deserving of a higher score.
214. On October I l, 2016, Ms. Long was assigned to Dispatch. 215. On November 9,2016, Ms. Long received an unwanted item in her work mailbox. She received a document that stated, "We are watching." The documents were about Captain Voerge and Captain Roche with article stating they should be "Brady Officers." Ms. Long reported the documents to Internal Affair Sergeant, Ken Carlson. Sergeant Carlson took the originals. He provided Ms. Long with copies ofthe documents. Sergeant Carlson informed Ms. Long that another member ofthe Cify Council was sent the same documents.
216. On January 26,2017, Sergeant Roberts sent an email to the entire Dispatch center. She 35 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 lt
l2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
lo
27 28
addressed the tension and anger from the Communications Center towards the Dispatch employees. She addressed the need for atmospheric change in the role. Ms. Long was subjected to poor working conditions despite not being involved in lhe issues.
217. On January 26, 2017, Ms. Long interviewed for Community Impact Corporal. She was denied a promotional opportunity despite her qualifications. Kenny Trimble was the only other officer interested in the assignment. Officer Trimble had just retumed to work after being placed on administrative leave for six months following an Internal Affairs investigation. He lost his previous assignment in the Motors department as a result of investigation as allegations were sustained. Captain Roche selected Mr.

Trimble for the role despite the fact that Ms. Long was far more qualified. In addition, she had never had any disciplinary issues at Concord PD.
2 I 8. On May 25, 201 7, Ms. Long interviewed for Community Impact Corporal. She was denied a promotion opportunity at her second attempt. There were three individuals that applied for the role.

Officer Brian Tanner was selected for the role. At the time, Tanner was involved in an off duty incident that hindered his career. This was his first-time expressing interest for the assignment. Captain Roche selected Tanner for the role to appease him. Ms. Long was passed up for promotional opportunities based on her gender identity.
219. On December 4, 2017, Ms. Long retumed to Patrol as a Corporal officer. 220. On January 8, 2018, Ms. Long tested for Sergeant. She was denied a promotional opportunity again. ChiefSwanger, Captain Voerge, and Captain Roche were in charge ofthe promotional process, all male superiors. She received a low score of 67o%. She received with no explanation for the low score. She believed her performance deserved a much higher score. Ms. Long was also not provided with any constructive feedback. Instead, the all-male team selected less qualified male officers. 221. On January 30, 2018, Ms. Long met with Lieutenant Mike Kindorf about her extemal interview for Sergeant as he was present. Lieutenant Kindorf said he thought Ms. Long did extremely well.

He confirmed she was very prepared as they were the same questions from the prior year. 222. On November l, 2018, Ms. Long applied for Major Crimes Unit role. Only three officers applied for the promotion, one ofthe other applications being Ms. Hendricks. Captain Roche was in charge of the promotional process. Shortly after expressing interest, she received an email confirming the 36 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAIvIAGES

department would not be testing for the position.
223. Approximately one to two months later, the Major Crimes Unit role was reposted. Several officers submitted applications. After constantly being denied for promotions, Ms. Long felt discouraged so she didn't apply for promotion. It was clear to her the department was not happy with the original three applicants, two of which were women.
224. On November 9, 2018, Ms. Long tested for a Special Victim's Unit role. She was denied the promotional opportunity despite her qualifications and performance. In fact, this was her fourth time aftempting this position. Sergeant Christine Magley, a female Sergeant, participated in the promotional process. Captain Roche selected two colleagues with less tenure, less qualifications, and performance ISSUES.
225. Later, Ms. Long met with Sergeant Magley to ask about her interview. She communicated to Ms. Long that she "couldn't have done better." She also informed Ms. Long that Ms. Long's male manager asked Sergeant Magley, "Are you going to be able to control her?" 226. On June 24, 2019, Ms. Long tested for Sergeant. She was denied a promotional opportunity.

ChiefSwanger, Captain Voerge, and Captain Roche were in charge ofthe promotional process. Again, she scored a 67o/o. Her score continued to not align with her demonstrated skills and overall performance. 227. On July 28, 2019, Ms. Long interviewed for Community Service Desk Corporal. She was denied a promotional opportunity. Sergeant Summer
228. Galer and Lieutenant Donnelly were in charge ofthe promotional process. Five officers applied for the position. Ms. Long was passed up for Officer David Petty, a less tenure and less experienced colleague that she had trained. Ms. Long was also performing duties that fell under that position. Captain Voerge made ultimate selection.
229. On December 28,2019, Ms. Long interviewed for Special Victim's Detective. She was denied a promotional opportunity. It was her fifth time applying for this position. Captain Roche was in charge ofthe promotional process. Ms. Long was the most qualified candidate, yet Captain Roche selected Shasta Vanetti and Nicholas Davison for the role. Ms. Long spoke to Sergeant Shawn Phalen who was on the panel. He said, "You did great and there was nothing you could have done differently." 230. On or around July t, 2020, Ms. Long tested for Sergeant again. ChiefMark Bustillos created 37 AMENDED COMPLAINT T'OR DAMACES
I
2 1
4 5
6 1
8 9
l0
u
t2
l3
14 15
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
22 23
25 26
27 28

I
2 .,'
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t'7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 a list ofpotential candidates and selected Ms. Long as one ofthe candidates. Ms. Long received a call from Chief Bustillos's secretary, Sara Weller, who informed Ms. Long that she had been selected to interview for the Sergeant position. Chief Bustillos was in charge of promoting two Sergeants. Even yet, Ms. Long received another alarmingly low score of 69% with no explanation. Her score did not reflect her demonstrated skills and performance.
231. On July 6,2020, Ms. Long went to the doctor and confirmed her pregnancy. 232. On July 7,2020, Ms. Long met with Chief Bustillos at her request. She informed him that she was pregnant. Chief Bustillos informed Ms. Long that he would still consider her for the Sergeant position.
233. On July 9, 2020, Ms. Long emailed Sergeant Ross to inform him about her pregnancy. She provided him with a doctor's note to request modified duty. 234. On July 9, 2020, Ms. Long interviewed one-on-one with Chief Bustillos for the Sergeant role.
235. During her interview with Chief Bustillos, Ms. Long disclosed that she felt marginalized when she was assigned to Dispatch. She noted that she received "Exceeds Standards" for several categories on her evaluation. Ms. Long performed to the best of her abilities with a good attitude. Chief Bustillos was surprised to learn that she was assigned to Dispatch for so [ong. He asked if she made any complaints with HR or POA. Ms. Long informed Chief Bustillos that she had made inquiries. 236. As a form ofretaliation for her complaints against gender discrimination, Ms. Long was not selected for one of the two Sergeant positions, despite being a qualified candidate based on her demonstrated skills, ability, and overall performance. She was denied a promotional opportunity. 237. On July 15, 2020, Lieutenant Nick Gartner emailed Ms. Long a memo regarding her modified duty. She was scheduled to work from Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. Ms. Long found it odd as officers were not scheduled for five days during the week as Concord PD did not schedule officers for more than four days.
238. Prior to her pregnancy, Ms. Long was scheduled to work three days, Friday to Sunday. She picked that shift for her son who was distance learning and needed her home during the week. At the same time, Concord PD allowed male officers on modified duty to work their normal shift which included t8

AMENDED COMPLN INT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 weekends and different hours.
239. Concord PD's Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") stated officers work either lbur l0-hour shifts or thee 12.5 hours shifts with a ten hour make up day a week. Officers do not work five days a week. Suddenly, a pregnant female officer was being forced to work five days a week. 240. On July 15, 2020, Ms. Long spoke with Sergeant Kevin Halm about working the weekends.

Sergeant Halm informed Ms. Long that Sergeant Gartner would not allow Ms. Long to work weekend shifts. She asked Sergeant Halm if she could work Wednesday to Saturday from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM.

Sergeant Halm confirmed he would do his best to try and work with her. 241. On July 20, 2020, Sergeant Halm called Ms. Long. He asked why she was not at work.

Sergeant Halm informed her that he told Sergeant Gartner that she did not work on Mondays. Then Sergeant Gartner informed Sergeant Halm that Ms. Long was scheduled to work Monday to Friday, with an hour unpaid lunch.
242. On July 20,2020, Ms. Long called the POA President, Joe Higby. She informed Officer Higby about the imposed five days during the week scheduling with an hour unpaid lunch. He worked at Concord PD for over twenty-five years. During his employment, he was never made aware ofany officer working over five days a week or having an unpaid lunch. Ms. Long asked if he would be willing to grieve on her behalf. Officer Higby confirmed he would do so.
243. On July 22,2020, Lieutenant Gartner emailed Ms. Long a memo. The memo confirmed she would be working Monday to Friday on modified duty. Ms. Long brought the memo to Sergeant Halm. He did not agree with Lieutenant Gartner's memo. Sergeant Halm attempted to address the issue with Lieutenant Gartner. As a result, Lieutenant Gartner became upset and stopped speaking with Sergeant Halm for several weeks.
244. On Jdy 22,2020, Lieutenant Sean Donnelly sent an email to "All Police Personnel" regarding Community Service Desk C'CSD) and Ms. Long's five-day work schedule. He mentioned her "modified duty" status and stated her Monday to Friday work schedule. Ms. Long received over ten text messages questioning her five-day-a-week schedule. [t appeared Ms. Long was being punished by Lieutenant Gartner for her pregnancy.
245. On July 22, 2020, Lieutenant Gartner called Ms. Long. He left a voicemail regarding her 39 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

40 IMENDED COMPLAINT fOR DAMAGES
:ll
tl
concems expressed to Sergeant Halm. Ms. Long did not call him back. lnstead, she opted to respond with a written memo.
246. On Juty 23,2020, Ms. Long sent a memo to Lieutenant Gartner questioning her hve-day schedule without a paid lunch break. Officers would get a paid lunch, yet Ms. Long was not a{ter disclosing her pregnancy. ln her memo, she stated that she never heard ofan officer working five days during a week without a paid lunch break. She requested to stay on her Friday to Sunday shift as it was common practice to approve shift requests. Ms. Long also documented how his treatment towards her was negatively impacting her physical and emotional health during a time that she was pregnant. 247. On July 24, 2020, Lieutenant Gartner emailed Ms. Long. He informed her that she had to work five days a week with no telecommute on days she did not have childcare. Lieutenant Gartner had allowed Ms. Long's male colleagues to telecommute and accommodated to their requests. 248. In fact, Lieutenant Gartner was telecommuting as were several admin and non-swom positions.
249. At some point, all Detectives were working a modified telecommute and in person work schedule. Detectives and Officers were in the same classification. 250. On July 29, 2020, Lieutenant Gartner emailed Ms. Long to question if she spoke to HR about her concems. She informed him that the POA would be meeting with Chief Bustillos regarding her schedule.
251. On August 3, 2020, Sergeant Halm called Ms. Long to inform her that Lieutenant Gartner was upset as Ms. Long planned to take her vacation. She was scheduled to leave on August 4, 2020.

Lieutenant Gartner instructed Sergeant Halm to write up Ms. Long. She informed Halm that she had informed him about her vacation, and it was approved prior to her pregnancy. Sergeant Halm confirmed her vacation was approved and added to the department's scheduling system prior to her pregnancy. Ms.

Long sent a follow up email after her call with Sergeant Halm. Ms. Long was not written up. 252. On August 6, 2020, Ms. Long received a memo from Sergeant Halm. The memo approved her four-day work week. The POA, Officer Joe Higby and Office Paul Vandiver, met with the Chief Bustillos to discuss Ms. Long's concerns on her behalL
253. On August 14,2020, Captain Roche approached Ms. Long in her designated workplace. As

he wiped down the door handle, Captain Roche informed Ms. Long that there were five detectives in the same unit who tested positive for COVID-19. The exposed detectives were allowed to telecommute. As a result, all detectives were allowed to work hybrid, both telecommute and in person to lessen the risk of possible exposure.
254. On August 18.2020, Ms. Long emailed Chief Bustillos a memo addressed to Lieutenant Gartner to request telecommute to lessen her exposure to COVID-19 during her high-risk pregnancy. She confirmed other groups were able to telecommute. Concord PD's detectives, administrative staff, Lieutenant Gartner and Captain Voerge were telecommuting. Later, as another form of retaliation, they requested Ms. Long undergo an lnteractive Disability Hearing to see if they could accommodate her request.
255. On August 20,2020, Ms. Long noticed a strong smell ofsmoke in the buitding. She texted Lieutenant Roberts about the smell in her workspace. She approached Ms. Long's workspace. She agreed with smell and pointed out that Ms. Long's eyes were red. Lieutenant Roberts instructed Ms. Long to work the rest ofher shift fiom home. Ms. Long started to cry as she finally felt heard. 256. About twenty minutes after arriving home, Lieutenant Roberts called Ms. Long to inform her that Lieutenant Gartner stated she did not have the authority to send Ms. Long to work from home.

Lieutenant Gartner instructed Lieutenant Roberts to demand Ms. Long return to the office. Ms. Long asked if Lieutenant Gartner was physically at the office and able to realize how bad the smoke was. Lieutenant Roberts confirmed Lieutenant Gartner was not at the office. Ms. Long told Lieutenant Roberts that she would be calling the POA. Lieutenant Roberts encouraged Ms. Long to contact the POA about the matter. 257 . Later, POA President Higby contacted Administration. Officer Higby sent out an email requesting Ms. Long either be allowed to work from home or be paid regardless. He did not allow her to work even though she had the ability to do so. However, the Chiefand Captains agreed that she would be paid for the day since Lieutenant Roberts authorized her to work from home. 258. On August 21,2020, Ms. Long received an email from Lisa Bartlow, HR, regarding an Interactive Disability Memo. HR set an Interactive Disability meeting in response to her memo requesting to telecommute.
259. On August 25,2020, Ms. Long attended her Interactive Disability Hearing. Lieutenant Nick 4t
I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
17 l8
l9
z0
2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 IMENDED COMPLAINT F'OR DAMAGES

Gartner, Lieutenant Tamra Roberts, Concord PD's HR representative Lisa Bartow, third party HR representative Roberta Etcheverry, and POA President Joe Higby attended the meeting. Ms. Long questioned why her request had been tumed into a disability matter. She stated she was not disabled and wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. Officer Higby asked Lieutenant Roberts if there was anything job related that Ms. Long couldn't accomplish at home and she said, "No." Lieutenant Gartner interjected and stated Ms. Long wouldn't be supervised if allowed to work from home. Lieutenant Gartner suggested Ms. Long wear a mask and place signs outside of her workspace for others not to enter. Ms.

Long expressed her discomfort with the proposal.
260. On August 25, 2020, Sergeant Greg Rodriguez placed signs outside of Ms. Long's workspace, informing others not to enter. Lieutenant Gartner instructed Sergeant Rodriguez to post the signs outside of five doors surrounding her office space. This occurred within thirty minutes after the disability hearing. Ms. Long informed Sergeant Rodriguez that she did not want the signs. Sergeant Rodriguez informed her that he wasjust doing what he was told. 261. On August 26,2020, Concord's HR representative, Lisa Bartlow, emailed Ms. Long forms for her doctor to complete regarding her disability. Ms. Long's doctor confirmed that Ms. Long was not disabled, and the form was not applicable.
262. On August 26, 2020, Ms. Long printed an email to the Major Crimes Unit printer by accident. As she went to retrieve the printed email, Detective Chris Blakely questioned Ms. Long about all the signs of her doors.
263. Ms. Long was notified by Detective Blakley that Lieutenant Donnelly sent out an email by to all detectives regarding Ms. Long's workspace protocol. The detectives were instructed to vacate the premises via proper protocol. Detective Blakely informed Ms. Long that the detectives were not allowed in her workspace. Detective Blakley and the other detectives interpreted the protocol as not being able to interact with Ms. Long. Ms. Long started to cry during her conversation with Blakely. She was being isolated from her colleagues.
264. Ms. Long asked Detective Blakely's supervisor, Greg Mahan, if Blakley and her could speak in private so he could provide her with Peer Support. Provisional Segreant Mahan stated that he did not have the authority to authorize the Peer Support. However, Peer Support was not something that ever 42 I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 21
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
z
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 t0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 had to be authorized.
265. Later, Ms. Long was harshly reprimanded for her interaction with Detective Blakely. 266. On August 28,2020, Ms. Long had a conversation with Officer Zerina Redzic during her lunch break. She told her about the signs and the directive to detectives not to interact with her. Officer Redzic and Ms. Long spoke about other issues at Concord PD. 267. On September 1,2020, Ms. Long was reprimanded by Lieutenant Roberts and Sergeant Josh Graham for speaking with her colleagues in person. They entered her workspace to discuss two separate interactions with her coworkers, Detective Blakely and Detective Redzic. Captain James Nakayama directed Lieutenant Roberts to speak with Ms. Long as he had seen her talking to her coworkers.

Ms. Long informed Lieutenant Roberts that she was unaware that she wasn't allowed to have contact with other officers. Ms. Long confirmed that she practiced proper protocol ofwearing a mask, keeping distance and being outside. Ms. Long restated her discomfort with the signs Lieutenant Gartner had Sergeant Rodriguez place outside her workspace. She confirmed expressing this concern during the interactive disability meeting. Ms. Long began to cry during their conversation. 268. On September 2,2020, Lieutenant Roberts emailed Ms. Long about workplace directives after their conversation. The email covered various directives in her modified duty instructions. Ms. Long responded that she was following her directions. She also asked for clarifications regarding "time limit when speaking to others" and "prohibited areas in the police department." Ms. Long also documented that she never asked for the signage outside of her workspace. 269. On September 2,2020, Lieutenant Roberts texted Ms. Long to request a phone call. Ms.

Long informed her that she was off and asked if the call could wait until the next day. She asked if Lieutenant Roberts could provide her with something in writing, so she knew what her expectations were.

Lieutenant Roberts responded, "l can't provide any additional written expectations other than what I sent yesterday."
270. On September 15,2020, Ms. Long emailed HR, Lisa Bartlow, a doctor's note confirming that she was not disabled and experiencing a negative work environment. She stated the negative working conditions and requested the same treatment given to other officers. Ms. Long asked HR for assistance in resolving the issues. Ms. Bartlow stated she would be in touch. 4 AN'TENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES
271. On September 18,2020, Ms. Long received a memo from Lieutenant Gartner regarding modified duty would be accommodated. The memo confirmed the signs were to remain in place and no one would be allowed to enter her "large private workspace." 272. Lieutenant Gartner also stated Ms. Long made an "official request to a supervisor outside ofher chain ofcommand to allow visitation to your private space by other employees." This referred when Officer Blakely provided Ms. Long with "Peer Support" and Ms. Long asked Officer Mahan if Officer Blakely was allowed to enter Ms. Long's work area so they could talk in private. 213. The Peer Support program did not require supervisor approval. lt allowed officers to confide in each other about various work issues relating to gender discrimination and retaliation. The Peer Supports are meant to ensure officer mental health. However, in retaliation, Lieutenant Gartner stated Ms. Long's meeting with Officer Blakely was "not prudent."
274. On October 2, 2020, Lieutenant Sam Staten removed Ms. Long's social media assignment and did not allow her to collect overtime. He sent Ms. Long a text message which stated she could not do social media while offduty. Ms. Long had been on the department's social media team for two years. She was responsible for approximately 7 50 of the content. Out of the blue, Lieutenant Staten texted Ms. Long instructing her to cut back on overtime and time spent on posting content. 275. In December 2020, Ms. Long learned about five male officers worked on a Christmas video which totaled to approximately eighty hours of overtime. The group ofall male officers included Officer Jeff Sherwin, Officer Nick Brys, Officer Bryan Franks, Officer Chris Blakely, and Officer Mark Evans. 276. On November 20,2020, Ms. Long had her last day before taking her matemity leave. She gave birth on November 23,2020.
277. OnMay 7,2021, Ms. Long retumed to Concord PD from matemity leave. Shewas assigned for patrol on Friday to Sunday from 6:30 AM until 7:00 PM. 278. On May 21,2021, Ms. Long applied for Special Victim Unit's ("SVU") Detective (6th) and Community Impact Corporal ("CIU") (3rd).
279. On June 9,2021, Ms. Long interviewed for SVU and Concord's Investigations Unit C'CIU'). Ms. Long was denied for SVU but was selected for CIU Corporal. 280. On July 12,2021, Ms. Long started a CIU Corporal position.

281. On August 23,2021, Ms. Long sustained a knee injury while on duty. She was later diagnosed with a tom anterior cruciate ligament ("ACL"). 282. On October 19,2021, Ms. Long was written off work for an injury sustained at work. She was scheduled for ACL surgery on lantary 7 ,2022.
283. On October 10,2022, Ms. Long returned to work on modified duty. 284. On October 11,2022, Ms. Long filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Department and obtained her Right to Sue regarding continued discrimination and retaliation. 285. On January 9, 2023, Ms. Long retumed to full duty in CIU Corporal. 286. In January or February 2023, Lieutenant Roberts informed Ms. Long that Lieutenant Gartner wanted Lieutenant Roberts to write up Ms. Long for talking to others and being outside of her workspace regarding the incidents that occurred in 2020. Lieutenant Roberts refused to do so since it was known a group of male detectives were riding in a car together without masks. These male detectives contracted COVID-19 and none of them were written up. In fact, these male officers were allowed to work from home when they tested positive.
287. On February 20,2023, Ms. Long began in a provisional CIU Sergeant role, as one of the Sergeants was injured, for the Community Impact Unit. Lieutenant Robison offered the position to her without her asking. Ms. Long was constantly praised for her performance by administration, city council, and community members. In fact, based on information and belief, the general consensus is that when Ms.

Long next applies for the Sergeant position, she would be one ofthe first, ifnot first, promoted. 288. However, on September 26,2023, Ms. Long was notified that she was a subject of an investigation sunounding a complaint with all women officers. Ms. Long has not worked on a squad with any of the listed women nor has she been on any calls for service with them. Based on information and belief, Ms. Long continues to face retaliation for filing with the Civil Rights Department and her pending lawsuit. Having an investigation looming over her, Ms. Long would no longer be considered for the Sergeant position.
289. As ofresult ofDefendants' actions, Plaintiff suffered emotionally and psychologically from the discrimination and harassment she experienced by Defendants. As a result of the hostile work environment and discrimination, Plaintiffhas suffered embarrassment, humiliation, mental and emotional 45 I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 2',7
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
t0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
18 l9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 pain and distress and discomfort. Additionally, Plaintiff experienced and continues to experience sleeplessness, tightening of her chest, stomach pain, anxiety, panic attacks, depression and would fiequently cry. Throughout her pregnancy, Plaintiffwas prescribed blood pressure medication to maintain safe levels of blood pressure due to the poor treatment she was receiving at her workplace. Plaintiffs family live was adversely affected as she became hyper focused on her treatment in the workplace and experienced being short tempered with her family and friends as well as being less attentive and pulling away from those around her.

C. Plaintiff Harley Valadez
290. Harley Valadez ("Valadez") is a 27-year-old female who began working at Concord PD in May 2020 as a Police Officer until her wrongful termination in January of 2022. 291. At the beginning of her employment, on or around May 1,2020, Ms. Valadez was on field training with Corporal Beth Long. During Ms. Valadez's first phase oftraining, Lieutenant Greg Rodriguez told Ms. Long that Ms. Valadez was "not going to go far at Concord." However, Ms. Valadez didn't have any issues leading up to his comment or issues in her Daily Observation Report. Ms. Long ensured Ms.

Valadez that she was doing well in training. Ms. Valadez had only been on field training for less than a month when Defendants began discriminating against her gender. 292. In November 2020, Ms. Valadez got into a physical altercation with a person in Concord Police's jail. On a later date, at a briefing, Sergeant Cody Harrison spoke negatively about the fight involving Ms. Valadez, also making comments about Corporal Amy Hendricks and her mental state. As continued gender discrimination, Defendants' lntemal Affairs ("1A") department began to harass Ms.

Valadez and Ms. Hendricks after Sergeant Harrison's comments. 293. As part of the IA investigation, Sergeant Jason Passama interviewed Ms. Hendricks and other involved officers. During her interview, Ms. Hendricks aftempted to bring up comments made about Ms. Valadez, but Sergeant Passama did not let Ms. Hendricks express her concems. Sergeant Passama asserted that he was only focused on Ms. Hendricks. These comments were recorded during the IA interview. As a form of discrimination, Concord PD excluded Ms. Valadez fiom the investigations despite being mentioned and Ms. Hendricks attempting to make comments to include her. Ms. Valadez was made aware ofthe IA investigations months later.
46 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 294. On February 1,2021, Ms. Valadez contracted COVID-I9 while on duty. She was hospitalized due to COVID-19 related symptoms. Sergeant Chris Souza informed Ms. Valadez that she could use her paid time off("PTO") which she was off work for four weeks due to health complications.

However, Concord PD forced Ms. Valadez to return to work after four weeks. Ms. Valadez aftempted to explain to Sergeant Souza that she had major joint pain which made it difficult for her to stand or walk.

Mrs. Valadez asked Sergeant Souza multiple times what her options were as PTO was no longer available.

As a form of discrimination, she was not given the option to work on modified duty despite her symptoms. 295. On March 1,2021, Detective Chris Blakely informed Ms. Valadez that a few detectives asked to donate their compensation time to Ms. Valadez so she could heal while she was out with COVID-

19. This was a customary practice at Concord PD for employees to donate their time to help fellow coworkers. However, as continued discrimination, Concord PD denied anyone donating time to Ms.

Valadez.
296. On March l, 2021, Ms. Valadez was in significant pain when she returned to work from COVID-I9. Sergeant James Nielson told Ms. Valadez that she should have been placed on modified duty as were other officers that were injured. Ms. Valadez informed Sergeant Nielson that she asked Sergeant Souza about her leave options, and he said she could come to work or stay home unpaid. At the same time, Concord PD allowed male officers to remain on modified duty for extended amounts of time for injuries of varying degrees which included injuries obtained not on duty, show casing Defendants' animus approach toward gender.
297. On March 21,,2021, Sergeant Souza called Ms. Valadez into his office. He informed her that he received multiple complaints from people on the squad about her "attitude." He stated that her male colleagues were complaining about her being "not approachable," "not happy enough," and "mean." She explained she was still in a lot ofphysical pain llom her previous illness. Sergeant Souza told her that pain wasn't relevant, and she needed to be present when she was at work. He instructed Ms. Valadez to be nicer and more approachable. Ms. Valadez believes that a conversation about her attitude would not have taken place if she was a man.
298. In addition, Ms. Valadez was informed she was being "mean" to the new trainee officer, Kyle Korsten. Ms. Valadez asked Mr. Korsten about the allegations- Officer Korsten said he never made 47 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 any complaints and stated she was the only person trying to help him through training. 299. On April 21,2021, Mrs. Valadez and Mitch Bakken did not qualif during their pistol certification training. The requirements for requalifying are 4-8 hours oftraining to retest. Mr. Bakken was given the opportunity to do his training and re-qualifu the next day. He then returned to his normal job duties on patrol. Also, in previous pistol qualifications, Michael Schneider failed his pistol certification training, yet received unlimited chances in the same day to test until he qualified. Mr. Schneider was able to test more than the standard of four attempts. However, Ms. Valadez was placed on modified duty and not able to do any training until three days later. Instead, as a form of further gender discrimination, she was placed on a performance improvement plan ("PIP") and denied the opportunity to qualifo. Ms. Valadez was forced to miss an entire work week and use her PTO. Ms. Valadez was also forced to work a modified duty assignment due to not being allowed to requalifu. This was done in an effort to embarrass Ms. Valadez as other male officers were not forced to wait so long for requalification. 300. On July 1,2021, Ms. Valadez was partners with Bryan Franks. Glenn Provost was the Provisional Sergeant. Sergeant Provost questioned Mr. Franks about Ms. Valadez on multiple occasions.

Mr. Franks felt uncomfortable by Sergeant Provost's repeated questions, so he told Sergeant Provost to speak with Ms. Valadez directly. Sergeant Provost never spoke with Ms. Valadez regarding those intrusive personal questions.
301. On Juty l, 2021, Sergeant Provost made comments about Ms. Valadez to Corporal Long.

He told Ms. Long that Ms. Valadez was "too focused on children that aren't even hers" in referring to her two stepdaughters. He told Ms. Long that Ms. Valadez "wasn't focusing on herself." Her performance wasn't lacking, but he didn't like that she was taking responsibility for her stepchildren as both were listed as her dependents.
302. On July l, 2021, Sergeant Provost wrote evaluations. On Ms. Valadez's evaluation, he wrote that she was not proactive enough while on patrol. Corporal Zerina Redzic argued with Sergeant Provost as he was not supposed to be evaluating her on "proactivity." This was not listed on the evaluation grade scale. Corporal Redzic brought this concern to Sergeant Provost multiple times. At the same time, there were numerous male officers on probation that were not extended on probation or given a bad evaluation due to proactivity.
4 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

303. On July I , 2021, Officer Matt Bowen was given the opportunity to change his schedule with Officer Jesse Savage. Officer Bowen wanted to work graves to eam the 8% shift differential. Admin approved Officer Bowen's request even though he was still on probation. ln contrast, show casing gender discrimination, Concord PD's Admin gave Ms. Y aladez a difficult time switching her schedule to accommodate childcare. Sergeant Josh Gilfu did not allow Ms. Valadez to switch her schedule due to her being on probation. Sergeant Gilfo instructed Ms. Valadez to ask Lieutenant Rodriguez about switching her schedule. Lieutenant Rodriguez also denied her schedule change despite her having a colleague to switch with her. He stated she could not switch her shift because she was on probation. 304. On October I, 2021 , Lieutenant Rodriguez extended Ms. Valadez's probationary period for six months. He did not provide any reasoning for the extension. He only stated she needed to be more "proactive", despite continued reminders ofher long term COVID- I 9 symptoms she was experiencing. He provided no clear sense ofdirection or expectations. Ms. Valadez talked to Corporal Redzic and Ms. Long about her extension. Corporal Redzic and Ms. Long stated the six-month extension was uncommon and excessive.
305. On November 1,2021, Ms. Valadez arrested a Conections Officer for DUI. The Conections Officer had two Hercules Police Department ("Hercules") friends arrive on scene. Ms. Valadez did not include these two officers in her report as they were not part ofthe DUI arrest. During the investigation, Ms. Valadez and the two male officers on scene muted their body cameras when they weren't talking with the arrestee.
306. The Chiefat Hercules called the Chiefat Concord to inquire about the two Hercules officers involved in an intemal investigation. The Chief at Hercules was upset that he wasn't informed of the situation. The news traveled down the chain ofcommand. Lieutenant Rodriguez informed Officer Shasta Vanetti that command staff was upset with the situation. Lieutenant Rodriguez told Vanetti that "heads were going to roll" and "this would be the end of Harley." 307 . As a result, and in retaliation, Ms. Valadez and the two officers were written up for excessively muting their body cameras. At the same time, Officer Brandon Arata, who took the DUI crash report, didn't get written up for failing to write the crash report lor over ten days despite the rule that reports were to be tumed in at the end of the shift.
49 I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2I
22 23
24 25
lt)
27 28

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 308. Lieutenant Rodriguez asked Mrs. Valadez if she talked to her stepfather, a Sergeant at another agency, about advice and being a cop. He told her that she shouldn't talk to her stepfather about an)'thing at Concord PD. He stated only Concord PD officers should help her. Lieutenant Rodriguez asked Ms. Valadez whom she talks to about her problems. He told her that she shouldn't talk to her husband too much as it could end her marriage.
309. On November l, 2021, Sergeant Danielle Cruz told Mrs. Valadez that Captain Nakayama wanted to give her another write up for not initially including the two Hercules officers. Sergeant Cruz told Captain Nakayama that Ms. Valadez was already written up for the body camera incident and it wouldn't be fair to write her up again.
310. On January 1,2022, Sergeant Danielle Cruz told Ms. Valadez that there were people at Concord PD that did not want her to succeed. She confirmed to her that Captain James Nakayama and Lieutenant Rodriguez were out to get her.
3 I l. On January 20, 2022, Sergeant Passama called Ms. Valadez and Officer Erica Reed into his offrce. He began to talk about how thisjob is a calling, notjust ajob. He said it is important to have hobbies outside of work to de-stress. He asked Ms. Valadez what her hobbies were. She explained that her kids take up most ofher time. He replied that was not acceptable, as he has 3 kids and still has his own hobbies.

Sergeant Passama continued to harass Ms. Valadez by questioning what her hobbies were. She felt very uncomfortable. Ms. Valadez stated she did have hobbies outside her kids. He continued to question what her hobbies were. Officer Reed didn't contribute much to the conversation that eventually ended. 312. On January 24,2022, Sergeant Cruz gave Ms. Valadez her evaluation. Ms. Valadez met standards on all parts. She noted that Ms. Valadez was on track to complete probation. Ms. Valadez signed her evaluation and sent it to Captain Nakayama's desk. Captain Nakayama did not sign the evaluation, nor did he place the evaluation in her file. Instead, Ms. Valadez was terminated about a week later. 3 13. On January 31 , 2022, Lieutenant Tamra Roberts and Sergeant Passama met with Ms.

Valadez to issue her a notice of termination. Lieutenant Roberts did not provide a reason for termination.

She only stated that Ms. Valadez wouldn't have to disclose any reason to a future employer. 314. Unlike her male colleagues, Ms. Valadez was not given the opportunity to resign instead of being terminated. She was not provided with any recommendations to other police offices as her male 5 AMI.:NDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
IO
1t
12 13
14 15
16 t7
18 l9
z0
2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 officers had been extended. In addition, she was not provided with her final paycheck. Ms. Valadez was told she would receive her final paycheck during the normal pay period. 3 I 5. On January 3 l, 2022, Ms. Valadez asked Lieutenant Roberts why she was terminated while she was gathering her belongings. Lieutenant Roberts said they weren't telling her why they terminated her so Ms. Valadez would not have to disclose why she was terminated to a future employer. Lieutenant Roberts stated the decision was based on her previous evaluations. Ms. Valadez asked if her most recent evaluation from Sergeant Cruz was considered, as it had been positive. Lieutenant Roberts said it was not as Captain Nakayama would not sign it. Ms. Valadez was never provided with a copy of her final evaluation.
3 16. On April 3, 2023, Ms. Valadez filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Department and obtained her Right to Sue regarding discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. 317. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff suffered emotionally and psychologically from the discrimination and harassment she experienced by Defendants. As a result of the hostile work environment and discrimination, Plaintiffhas suffered mental and emotional pain and distress, discomfort, extreme stress, and anxiety. Plaintiff Valadez experiences extreme embarrassment and humiliation having to list termination on her record and continue as a probationary employee with her new agency due to Concord PD giving her an excessive extension then termination.

D. Plaintiff Kristen Kreiger
3 18. Kristen Krieger ("Krieger") is a 40-year-old female who began working at Concord PD on March [,2008, until her retirement on July 1,2020.
319. On February l, 2017, Ms. Krieger was promoted to Sergeant. 320. On July I , 201 8, Ms. Krieger was promoted to Lieutenant. 321. On August 1,2018, Lieutenant Gartner denied Ms. Krieger's female subordinate officer's training. When Ms. Krieger was a newly promoted Lieutenant, she leamed that Lieutenant Gartner denied one ofher female subordinate Sergeant's training requests to attend the Women's Leadership Conference.

Ms. Krieger asked Lieutenant Gartner about the denial. He stated that Sergeant Cruz had attended the Women's Leadership Conference the previous year and the department was not allowing officers to attend the same training two years in a row. Ms. Krieger reminded Lieutenant Gartner that his own SWAT team 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 '7
8 9
10 lt
t2
t3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 members attended the same Narcotics Conference every year, amongst other conferences many officers attended yearly. Ms. Krieger stated Lieutenant Gartner's decision seemed to be bias toward female officers.

Ms. Krieger also reminded Lieutenant Gartner that the training request should have been routed to her. Ms.

Krieger was Sergeant Cruz's supervisor and Lieutenant Gartner should not have made a decision for one of Ms. Krieger's subordinates. Lieutenant Gartner acted outside of the standard protocol. Lieutenant Gartner was visibly uncomfortable with their conversation. Ms. Krieger stated she would be overturning his decision and sending Sergeant Cruz to the Women's Conference. Lieutenant Gartner aggressively grabbed his drink offlMs. Krieger's desk and stated in a firm tone, "l'll support whatever you decide" and walked out of her office.
322. On February 1,2019, Ms. Krieger suffered a knee injury while on duty. She was placed off work completely by her doctor.
323. On April 19,2019, Ms. Krieger was told by a fellow officer that her office was given away to another officer. She contacted Captain Nunes via email to see ifthis information was true. Captain Nunes confirmed that he had given her office to Sergeant Tamra Roberts. Ms. Krieger asked Captain Nunes for time to gather her personal belongings. Instead, Captain Nunes ignored Ms. Krieger's request. When Ms.

Krieger went to the office to gather her belongings, she found her items thrown into drawers and her personal pictures taken offthe walls. Ms. Krieger realized her male colleague, also a Lieutenant, was out on leave due to an injury. However, her male colleague's office was not reassigned to another officer.

Defendants knowingly treated those that were male differently than they were treating those that were female.
324. On May 1, 2019, Ms. Krieger received a letter to retum to work. 325. On May 13,2019, Captain Ganett Voerge asked what time Ms. Krieger wanted to start work. Ms. Krieger asked to start at 6:00 AM. ln retum, Captain Voerge confirmed Ms. Krieger's schedule starting at 6:00 AM, typical for a Lieutenant.
326. On May 14,2019, Ms. Krieger retumed to work on light duty. Upon Ms. Krieger's return to work, her male colleague's office remained untouched while he was off work for an injury. As continued discrimination toward her gender, Captain Voerge and Chief Guy Swanger assigned Ms. Krieger to civilian duties. Concord PD did not assign any other Lieutenant on light duty to civilian duties. 52 IMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

5 I
2 -)
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT F'OR DAMAGES
327. Upon her return, Ms. Kreiger was assigned to a civilian role in the Record's Unit. All other male Lieutenants have retained their current, managerial assignment. However, Ms. Kreiger was not given that same opportunity. Ms. Kreiger mentioned this issue to her Captain and was informed, "all officers were being assigned to Records." Concord PD allowed gender discrimination in the workplace and spoke untruths about who was being assigned to Records when it was known that a male motorcycle officer was injured and allowed to work modified duty in the motor unit instead ofbeing assigned to Records. 328. OnMay 25,2019, Ms. Krieger's office was given to her male colleague, Lieutenant Michael Kindorf, without any notification from Captain Nunes. Ms. Krieger learned through Sergeant Roberts that Captain Nunes gave Ms. Krieger's office to Lieutenant Kindorf as she was leaving for vacation. Again, Ms. Krieger was not given time to remove her personal effects while her male colleague's office remained untouched, though he was still not at work due to an injury. 329. On May 28,2019, Ms. Krieger reported gender discrimination to Captain Voerge. Ms.

Kreiger confirmed that she felt that she was being discriminated against on the basis ofgender. She noted having her office taken away and being assigned to a civilian position when all other male Lieutenants were able to retain their positions while on light duty. 330. The following acts ofretaliation by Defendants ensued following Ms. Kreiger's complaints of gender discrimination.
331. On June 6,2019, Concord PD made a change in Records operations after receiving reports of discrimination. Sergeant Passama emailed all officers working light duty. He informed the officers that he was implementing a new check-in system for injured officers. Sergeant Passama required the officers to check in and out on a white board. He also required officers working light duty to provide him with a "two-week work schedule." One ofthe injured officers, Zerina Redzic, mentioned to Ms. Krieger that she noticed "things were changing" around records after Ms. Krieger's complaint. Ms. Redzic explained that what used to be a flexible work environment was becoming scrutinized. Ms. Redzic believed the changes in Records had to do with Ms. Krieger's presence in the unit. Sergeant Passama stated the rule was being implemented due to the increase in officers in Records, however Ms. Krieger was the only one added to the Records unit at that time.
332. On June 12,2019, Ms. Krieger attended an Agreed Medical Examination ("AME") for

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Carpal Tunnel. She was diagnosed with moderate-severe carpal tunnel in her right hand. Dr. Lin told Ms.

Krieger that she should not be using her hand in a repetitive fashion. Ms. Krieger informed Captain Voerge about the issue. She told him that removing staples from papers to scan documents as Dr. Lin said Ms.

Krieger should "absolutely" not small, repetitive movements. Ms. Krieger was scanning hundreds of documents each day and removing staples from the documents to prepare them for scanning. 333. During an interactive disabitity meeting in August 2019, Lieutenant Gartner mentioned in front of Ms. Loi in a demeaning, sarcastic tone, "It's not like we're having you remove staples from pieces ofpaper or anything." They were sitting at a table facing Ms. Loi and when Lieutenant Gartner made the comment. He tumed his chair toward Ms. Krieger. Lieutenant Gartner slouched in his chair, smirked, and opened his legs in an unprofessional manner when he made the comment. Lieutenant Gartner's comment caused Ms. Krieger to lose control of her emotions and cry, something she never does in public or a work setting. Ms. Krieger's medical information was only shared with Captain Voerge and Jason Passama yet Lieutenant Gartner made the comment to her.
334. On June 7, 2019, Concord PD retaliated against Ms. Krieger by accusing her of timecard fraud. She received an email from Captain Voerge. He told her she had inaccuracies on her timecard.

Captain Voerge instructed her to use sick leave rather than straight pay for her work-related doctor appointments. At the same time, none of Ms. Krieger's colleagues, male or female, were instructed to use sick leave for work-related appointments.
335. On June 12, 2019, Concord PD retaliated against Ms. Krieger by assigning her to a supervisor below her rank. Captain Voerge had told Ms. Krieger upon her retum to work in May 2019 that she would be reporting directly to him. After reporting discrimination, Captain Voerge re-assigned Ms.

Krieger to report to Sergeant Jason Passama, who was below her rank. 336. On June 21, 2019, Concord PD continued to retaliate against Ms. Krieger. After complaining about discrimination, Captain Voerge emailed and notified Ms. Krieger that her work schedule had suddenly changed to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. This created a known hardship for childcare reasons and the scheduling was out ofthe ordinary for Lieutenants. 337 . On August l, 2019, Ms. Krieger was unable to appear for an Admin Per Se hearing due to a medical appointment for her son. She called the court as the subpoena instructed. Ms. Krieger informed 54 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 I
l0
il
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 21
28 the court that she could "call in" for the hearing but she was unable to appear in person. The court stated they would reschedule the hearing. Lieutenant Gartner involved himself in this issue, which did not need his involvement. Lieutenant Gartner informed Ms. Krieger that he required proof that she was taking her son to a medical procedure during the time ofthe scheduled hearing. This was out ofthe ordinary for any officer to provide such proof of unavailability, especially when Ms. Krieger followed the instructions on the court subpoena. However, she was required to provide Lieutenant Gartner with a doctor's note from her child's doctor. Ms. Krieger was unsure what Lieutenant Gartner did with the note, but it appeared to be out of pure retaliation and spite. Concord PD did not require other officers to provide written documentation of attending a medical appointment.
338. On August 28,2019, Ms. Krieger was invited to classroom style training by Captain Bill Roche. Ms. Krieger notified Sergeant Passama ofthe training and her desire to attend the training. Sergeant Passama told Ms. Krieger she could not attend the training due to her injured status. Ms. Krieger was aware Sergeant Passama attended an off-site training with two injured male officers about two weeks prior to her request, thus further retaliating against her and establishing discrimination against the female gender. 339. On September 1,2019, an injured male Lieutenant was able to retain his office. He was not assigned to work inside of Records as Ms. Krieger had been instructed. The male Lieutenant was able to take police reports and work from his personal office while he recovered from his injury. 340. On September 3, 2019, Ms. Krieger was denied payment for her knee surgery on the day before her scheduled surgery. Concord PD informed her that they were partially denying payment for the costs ofher surgery claiming that it was "too expensive" despite approving her surgery. At the same time, Concord PD covered higher costs for the same surgery for her male colleagues. 341 . On September 4, 20 19, Ms. Krieger underwent surgery on her knee. 342. On September 21, 2019, Ms. Krieger restarted her probationary period outside of the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") rules as per Lieutenant Nicholas Gartner, Captain Voerge, and Captain Swanger. She lost 5% ofher pay due to this decision. 343. On December 29,2019, Concord PD denied Ms. Krieger's long{erm disability ("LTD') benefits as per Lisa Bartlow in Human Resources. Ms. Krieger asked to use LTD benefits combined with her sick leave. Ms. Bartlow only applied Ms. Krieger's sick leave, denying her benefits. 55 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
t3
t4
t5
l6
17 l8
t9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 344. On February 20,2020, Ms. Krieger was moved to field operations when her assignment was Detective Lieutenant. After her surgery, Ms. Krieger tried her hardest to retum to full duty work. When Ms. Krieger was released by her doctor to full duty, she was eager to try to retum to her role. Ms. Krieger knew that her assignment as the Detective Lieutenant didn't require her to wear a duty belt so she could hopefully continue her recovery while working at a desk. Ms. Krieger expected to retum to her Detective Lieutenant assignment when she notified Concord PD that she was able to return to work. Ms. Krieger was the only Lieutenant without a specialized assignment at the time. She knew it was her tum to receive a special assignmenl upon her retum to full duty. Ms. Krieger was blindsided when Concord PD informed her that they were moving her position to Patrol Lieutenant. The Patrol Lieutenant assignment required the weight or a full uniform and duty belt. She tried to retum to work in the Patrol Lieutenant assignment. She successfully worked for a few weeks until her injury worsened. Ms. Krieger was placed back on light duty in Records.
345. On March 4, 2020, Ms. Krieger filed a grievance with HR regarding her LTD benefits and probationary status. HR representative Jasmin Loi told Ms. Krieger that she agreed that her probation should not start over. However, Ms. Bartlow, Ms. Loi, and City Manager Valerie Barone denied her grievance.
346. From March 2020 to April 2020, Ms. Krieger retumed to work on light duty. 347 . On April l, 2020, Ms. Krieger was placed on administrative leave due to COVID- I 9.

However, she was denied 4850 pay. At the same time, all other male employees were granted 4850 pay.

Ms. Krieger was forced to use her sick leave. Concord PD later reversed the 4850 pay decision after Ms.

Krieger complained of harassment and relation.
348. On July l, 2020, Ms. Krieger retired due to medical. 349. On July l, 2020, Ms. Krieger's Lieutenant picture was stolen. This was a personal photograph, removed from the wall and went missing, never returned. It was customary for retiree to keep their picture as a keepsake.
350. On October 18,2022, Ms. Kreiger filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Department and obtained her Right to Sue regarding discrimination and retaliation. 351. As ofresult ofDefendants' actions, Plaintiff suffered emotionally and psychologically from 56 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
l1
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20 2l
22 t3
24 25
26 27
28 the discrimination and harassment she experienced by Defendants. As a result of the hostile work environment and discrimination, Plaintiffhas suffered embarrassment, humiliation, mental and emotional pain and distress, discomfort, anxiety, loss of sleep, loss of concentration, stress, sick to her stomach and loss of friendships.

E. CONCLUSION
352. On information and belief, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs because oftheir gender.
353. On information and belief, Defendants discriminated against PlaintiffLong and Plaintiff Hendricks because of their pregnancy status.
354. On information and belief, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs after Plaintiffs complained about their discriminatory treatment.
355. On information and beliel Defendants disregarded Plaintilfs' concems regarding the discrimination and harassment they were experiencing.
356. On information and belief, when Plaintiff Hendricks reported Sergeant Williams for repeatedly being unsafe on various incidents, she was dismissed and ignored and therefore harassed and discriminated against for her knowledge and reporting said incidents. 357. Plaintiffs' managers and superiors alike made their workplace a hostile work environment by failing to address their concems about discrimination and harassment. 358. Defendants failed to prevent the foregoing discrimination and retaliation. As a result of such conduct, Defendants have caused Plaintiffs intentional infliction of emotional distress, stress, anxiety.
359. Plaintiffs made formal complaints regarding the disparate and discriminatory treatment they suffered by Defendants. Defendants took no action to address the concems raised by Plaintiffs. 360. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered emotionally and psychologically from the discrimination and harassment they have experienced by Defendants. As a result ofthe hostile work environment and discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, mental and emotional pain and distress and discomfort. 51 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 ll
12 l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
l8
19 20
21 22
23 25
26 27
28 361. Defendants have discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiffs based on their gender in violation ofCal. Gov. Code $ 12940. Defendants failed to investigate and prevent the foregoing discrimination and retaliation, despite Plaintiffs complaints, in violation of Cal. Gov. Code $ 12940.

Defendants are also liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 362. Defendants have discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff Hendricks based on reporting of Sergeant Williams unsafe practices in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, Gov. Code $ 8547.1 which allows employees to report violations oflaw and are to be free from retaliation for doing so.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation
Cal. Gov't Code $ 12940(h)
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
363. Plaintiffs re-plead, re-allege, and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.
364. At all relevant times, the Califomia Fair Employment & Housing Act, sections 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect, and binding on Defendants. 365. FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has opposed a forbidden practice or filed a complaint against an employer or supervisor. cGC $12e40(h).
366. Govemment Code section 12940(h) provides in relevant part:

It is an unlaufirl employment practice . . . (h) For any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or toherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part. 367.
368.

Defendants were Plaintifls' employer, and Plaintiffs were Defendants' employee.

Plaintilfs made multiple complaints to Defendants about descriminatory harassment they 58 A!',IENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGF]S

I
2 J
4 5
6 '7
8 9
t0
il
t2
t3
t4
t5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 received from colleagues and supervisors alike.
369. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Hendricks by denying her several promotions despite being a qualified candidate based on her demonstrated skills, ability, and overall performances, however she was continually denied a promotional opportunity. Plaintiff Hendricks was denied promotions directly folowing her complaints during an IA on Sergeant Johnson and following her involvement in Ms.

Capocci's complaint. Plaintiff Hendricks was issued an informal one year Employee Discussion after being accused ofa raciall biased accusation which was later dropped. Alier issuing complaint regarding Sergeant William's unsafe behaviors, Defendants retaliated by issuing Plaintiff Hendricks with an Employee Discussion and negative remarks on her record for submittng a late report. As continued retaliation, Def'endants placed Plaintiff Hendricks to Dispatch full{ime, essentially demotions. Plaintiff Hendricks received harassing retaliation in the form of unwanted items in her department mailbox including: men's pants, band aid after a biking accident, box of tissue, Kenny Loggins CD, chocolate coins, tootsie rolls, calendar, training manual. After multiple complaints and years of this harassment Defendants never conducted any form of investigation into the matter and the responsible party was never identified. After taking on all responsibilities ofthe Sergeant roll without the pay and title, Plaintiff Hendricks was issued a Employee Discussion after she spoke about gender bias and replaced her with a less tenured and less qualified male, essentially demoting and humiliating her. Defendants removed two hours of Plaintiff Henricks' time off her timecard and served her with a negative Employee Performance Appraisal in retaliation for complaining of her Sergeants aggressive and harassing behavior, which also resulted in temporary loss of Master Peace Officer status and pay. After filing for worker's compensation and reporting discrimination, harassment and retaliation by Defendants, Concord PD utilized Corporal Ross' abuse bia disclosing it as an affair between a f'emale employees and a male supervisor to prevent Plaintiff Hendricks from pursuing her claims. Defendants finally removed Plaintiff Hendricks department mailbox while she was still an employee sending a clear message ofretaliation. 370. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Long by denying her several promotions despite being a qualified candidate based on her demonstrated skills, ability, and overall performances, however she was continually denied a promotional opportunity. PlaintiffLong was denied the ability to telecommute and work from home during her high-risk pregnancy while other groups were allowed. As a form of 59 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACT-]S

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
l1
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
18 l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 retaliation, Plaintiff Long was required to undergo an Interactive Disability Hearing to find if Defendants would accommodate her request. Additionally, Plaintiff Long has become the subject ofan investigation surrounding a group of women officers, in which has had no contact with, in retalation for her pending lawsuit and to remove any consideration for an upcoming Sergeant promotion. 371. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Valadez by terminating Plaintiffs employment.

Plaintiff was retaliated against by being being terminated despite being on track for completeing her probation. After signing her evaluation showcasing this positive track toward completing her probation, Plaintiffs superior chose to retaliate by failing to sign the evaluation, nor did he place the evaluation in her file.
372. Defendants retaliated against PlaintiffKrieger by accusing her oftimecard fraud, instructing her to use sick leave rather than straight pay for her work related doctor appointments, assigning her to a supervisor below her rank, changing her preapproved work schedule, denying her attempt to attend training due to her injured status while two other injured male officers attended two weeks prior to her request, denying payment for her knee surgery, denying long term disability benefits, and denying 4850 pay while male employees were granted 4850 pay during COVID-19.
313. Plaintiffs were harmed.
374. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm. 375. The conduct of Defendants and each ofthem as described above was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights.

Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct ofeach other. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against each of said Defendants.

SECOND CAASE OF ACTION
Hos i t l e W o r k Env ironment Harassment
Cal. Gov. Code $ 12910o
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
376. Plaintiff re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 371. Defendants, and each ofthem, either individually and/or through their agents, engaged in the foregoing conduct, which constitutes a pattern and practice ofhostile work environment harassment in violation ofGovernment Code sections 129400), which provides that harassment olemployees is an unlawfu I employment practice.
378. Plaintiffs endured harassing conduct by Defendants and/or Defendants' managers or supervisors alike, that took place in Plaintiffs' immediate work environment. 379. Plaintiffs considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive towards people that are female, pregnant, and anyone who complained about discrimination or illegal practices with the company.
380. Plaintiffs' supervisor engaged in the conduct.
381. Defendants knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take any corrective action whatsoever, let alone immediate appropriate corrective action. 382. The above-described acts and conduct by Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs damages and injury in an amount to be proven at trial.
383. The conduct ofDefendants and each ofthem as described above was malicious, fiaudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against each of said Defendants.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Discrimindtion and Harassment
Cal. Lab. Code $ 12940
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
384. Plaintiff re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.
385. Govemment Code section lZ9a0@)(Z) provides in relevant part:

It is an unlawful employment practice . . . (k) For an employer. . . to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
6l

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES

386. Defendants wrongfully failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment and discrimination ofPlaintiffs based on their gender and pregnancy status. 387. Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer harm as a result of Plaintiffs' discharge, early retirement, or continued employment by Defendants.
388. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs'harm. 389. Under Govemment Code section 12940, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover Plaintiffs' economic and noneconomic damages caused by Defendants' unlawful practices. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attomey's fees and costs pursuant to Govemment Code section 12965. 390. The conduct ofDefendants and each ofthem as described above was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against each of said Defendants.
391. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants' unlawful acts alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered injury, including emotional injury, entitling them to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Gender Discrimination
Cal. Gov. Code $ 12940
(All Plaintffi Against All Defendants)
392. Plaintiffs re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.
393. Govemment Code section 12940(a) provides in relevant part:
lt is an unlawful employment practice . . . (a) lflor an employer, because of the . . . sex, gender. . . of any person . . . to discharge the person from employment or to discrimination against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privilegeds of employment. 394. Plaintiff Hendricks, Long, Yaladez, and Krieger are female 6 I
2 J
4 5
6 .7
8 9
t0
1l
t2
13 t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 A N,IEN DED COMPIAlNT I.OR I)AMA(;ES

1 2
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
l3
14 l5
16 t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 395. Plaintiffs were subjected to unwelcome gender discrimination. 396. Defendants were Plaintiffs' employer, and Plaintiffs were Defendants' employee. 397. Plaintiffs were constantly harassed by male employees, managers and supervisors alike and descriminated against based on their gender status. 398. For Plaintiff Hendricks this harassment and descrimination included being denied several promotions that were instead given to males who were less tenured, experienced, and qualified. Plaintiff Hendricks was promoted at a significantly slower pace than her male counterparts. Plaintiff Hendricks was ridiculed as rumors circulated about her husband and personal life in which Plaintiff Hendricks believes had she have been a male, her personal life would not have been the subject ofworkplace gossip. Plaintiff Hendricks was eventually promoted for Special Victims Unit Detective, which was given to her by a female Sergeant, after being denied all previous promotions by male Sergeants. After which, Plaintiff Hendricks was promoted to Community Service Desk Corporal by a male Captain, as her one and only time she was ever promoted by a male in her work history. Plaintiff Hendricks was minimized and described as "overreacting" when she experienced a safety concem, additionally no safety measures were provided to her or family. Plaintiff Hendricks found herselfmore closely monitored and criticized, resulting in a negative Employee Discussion, compared to her male counterparts when she was given reports that were time consuming and emotionally draining. After having declined an offer to move to a Dispatch role, Defendants reassigned Plaintiff Hendricks to fulltime Dispatch, while male counterparts were not being reassigned to Dispatch. Male colleagues were able to test for extension without explanation to extend their time as Patrol Corporate while Plaintiff Hendricks was "timed out".

Plaintiff Hendricks was not afforded the same opportunities as her male colleagues. Plaintiff Hendricks was referred to a "sea donkey" a derogatory and offensive term to reference women. In addition, Defendents did not allow Plaintiff Hendricks to retain her duty weapon upon being forced to retire due to mental health, when it was common practice for male members to retain their duty firearm in situations of medical retirement.
399. For Plaintiff Long this harassment and descrimination included receiving less recognition and support than her male colleagues after her graduation, assigning her to demoted dispatch duty while males who were on modified duty were not, being denied several promotions that were instead given to 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
1l
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2t
22 l-,
25 26
27 28
males who were less tenured, experienced, qualified, and had disciplinary and performance issues.

Plaintiff Long was denied the ability to work from home during her high-risk pregnancy and disciplined for talking to others outside ofher workspace while a group of male detectives rode in a car together without masks and contracted COVID-19 without being written up and disciplined. These males detectives were then allowed to work from home when they tested postive, showcasing clear gender discrimination.
400. For Plaintiff Valadez this harassment and descrimination included Defendants not giving her an option to work on modified duty despite having symptoms due to COVID-I9 related healh complications, additionally Defendants denied anyone attempting to donate time to Plaintiff Valadez, which was customary practice. At the same time, Defendants allowed male officers to remain on modified duty for extended amounts of time for injuries of varying degrees. Defendants allowed complaints against PlaintiffValadez regarding her "aftitude", being "not approachable", "not happy enough", and "mean", all of which occurred during a time Plaintiff Valadez was suffering from her COVID-19 related complications. If Plaintiff Valadez was a male, she believes she would have never had a conversation regarding her aftitude and the need for her to be "nicer". In fact, when Plaintiff Valadez and Mr. Bakken did not qualifu during their pistol certification training, Plaintiff Valadez was placed on modified duty and denied training until three days later, while Mr. Bakken was allowed to train and requalifr the next day. Additionally, Plaintiff Valadez, was placed on a performance improvement plan and denied the opportunity to qualifu. In attempting to switch her schedule to accommodate childcare, Defendants denied Plaintiff Valadez, while allowing Mr. Bowen the opportunity to change his schedule even though he was on probation. Unlike her male colleagues, Plaintiff Valadez was not given the opportunity to resign instead of being terminated.
401 . For Plaintiff Krieger this harassment and descrimination included having her office given away twice to another officer despite male officers maintaining their office while out on leave, assigning her to civilian duties and Records while not assigning other Lieutantants to civilian duties nor Records while they were on light duty, covering higher costs for work related surgeries and denying Plaintiffs surgery, and denying 4850 pay while male employees were granted 4850 pay during COVID-19.

Defendants required Plaintiff Krieger to provide a doctor's note for her son's doctor appointment when 64 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
t2
t3
t4
15 t6
t7
18 l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 such proofwas not being required ofher male counterparts. 402. Throughout Plaintiffs' employment, Plaintiffs made multiple complaints to Defendants about the harassment and discrimination they received from male employees, managers and supervisors alike. Despite Plaintiffs' complaints ofthe harassment, Defendants did not remedy the situation. 403. Plaintiffs suffered harm when they was discriminated against by Defendants. 404. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm. 405. Under Government Code section 12940, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover economic and noneconomic damages caused by Defendants' discriminatory practices based on Plaintiffs' gender and violation ofthe Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965. 406. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory treatement Plaintiffs suffer emotional distress and feel humilated, embarrassed, anxious, and depressed. 407. The conduct ofDefendants and each ofthem as described above was malicious, fiaudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authrozied, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against each of said Defendants.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Pregnancy Discrim inal i on
CaL Gov. Code $ 12940(a)
(Plaintiff Hendricks and Plaintiff Long Againsr All Defendants) 408. Plaintiffs re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.
409. Govemment Code section 12940(a) provides that it is unlawful "[flor an employer, because of. . . sex, . . . to discriminate against [any] person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment."
410. Defendants were an employer subject to the Califomia Fair Employment and Housing Act 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAI\4A.CES

I
z
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 l0
l1
12 l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ('FEHA'). Pregnancy discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination under the FEHA. 4ll. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Hendricks and Plaintiff Long were members of a protected class within the meaning ofFEHA because they were pregnant and or/had a condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.
412. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Hendricks to adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, informing Ms. Hendricks not to worry about childcare and allowing Plaintiff Hendricks to bring her firstborn into the office once the child was born for breastfeeding purposes, only to rescind the inquisition by instructing Plaintiff Hendricks she was no longer able to bring the child into the office. Based on her pregnancy, Plaintiff Hendricks was assigned to a Dispatch role and performed temporary modified work. Defendants treated Plaintiff Hendricks that the pregnancies were an inconvenience to the department. In fact, each of Plaintiff Hendricks' pregnancies resulted in her being reassigned to a Dispatch role when males who were injured or on modified duty were not assigned to a Dispatch role. 413. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Long to adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, assigning Plaintiff Long to Dispatch for modified duty and a modified work schedule different from normal modified schedules forcing Plaintiff Long to work five days a week. Denying Plaintiff Long a paid lunch, and subjecting Plaintiff Long to an Interactive Disability Hearing, calling her pregnancy a "disability" when her doctor was not classifying her pregnancy as a disability. Defendants also denied Plaintiff Long the ability to work from home during her high-risk pregnancy to lessen her exposure to COVID-19, while other groups were able to telecommute.
414. Such actions were in direct violation of Government Code Section 12940 and were done with the intend of depriving Plaintiff Hendricks promotion and maintaining her current role within the Concord Police Department. In addition, Defendants made it impossible for Plaintiff Hendricks to bring her firstbom child to the office for the purpose ofbreastfeeding after previously been granted the option to do so. Plaintiff Hendricks relied on the agreement Defendants had made her and without such agreement Plaintiff Hendricks was without childcare and support.
415. Such actions were in direct violation of Government Code Section 12940 and were done with the intent of depriving Plaintiff Long of either four I 0-hour shifts or three 12.5-hours shifts with a ten hour make up day a week as per Concord PD's Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, Defendants /lMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES
66

made it impossible for Plaintiff Long to work Friday to Sunday, a shift she had been working prior to pregnancy, as her son had been in distance learning and needed her home during the week. 416. Plaintiffs believes and alleges that PlaintiffHendricks' and PlaintiffLong's pregnancy were a substantial and determining factor in Defendants' decision to deny Plaintiff Hendricks and PlaintiffLong promotions and their preferred working roles and schedule, which is in violation of FEHA's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Had Plaintiff Hendricks and Plaintiff Long not been pregnant, they would have retained their positions, without demotion to Dispatch, as well as PlaintiffLong would have maintained her working schedule of Friday to Sunday to provide for her son during distance learning, which other employees who were not pregnant did, in fact, receive. 417. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants' discriminatory acts, Plaintiff Hendricks and Plaintiff Long have suffered and continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and job benefits, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all to PlaintiffLong's damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation
Labor Code $l102.5
(All Plaintilfs Against All Defendants)
418. Plaintiff re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.
419. At all relevant times, Califomia Labor Code was in full force and effect, and binding on Defendants.
420. Labor Code $ I 102.5 makes it an unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has for disclosing information the employee reasonable believes discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation ofor noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. 421 . Plaintiff made multiple complaints to Defendants about Sergeant Williams being repeatedly unsafe on various incidents-
422. Plaintiff made multiple complaints to Defendants regarding discrimination, hostile work 6 7

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

environment, and intimidation she was experiencing from other employees. 423. Including but not limited to Sergeant Williams not properly assisting Ms. Hendricks during an arrest where the suspect was resisting, which violated a basic requirement ofpolicing. 424. Including but not limited to Sergeant Williams driving past an in-progress crime where teammates had individuals at gunpoint. This violated another basic requirement of policing in which Sergeant Williams must stop to assist during the in-progress crime, but failed to do so and went on to be with the offcer interviewing the victim.
425. Including but not limited to Sergeant Williams attempting to take blood from Ms. Hendricks for a minor traffic incident, which proved both illegal and inappropriate. 426. Sergeant Willaims and Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by serving her with an Employee Discussion where Plaintiff received negative remarks on her record for submitting reports late and an effort by Sergeant Williams to assert her authority as the new superior over Ms. Hendricks. 427 . Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating Plaintiff s employment. 428. Plaintiff was harmed.
429. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 430. As a direct and proximate result ofthe above violations, Plaintiffhas suffered damages in the form ofpast and future wage losses, lost benefits, other pecuniary losses, and emotional distress in an amount to be proven at trial.
431. The conduct ofDefendants and each ofthem as described above was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights.

Defendants and each of them, and their agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of each other. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each o f said Defendants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
l. Compensatory damages including emotional distress damages and lost wages, benefits 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Page 69 of 80
I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 I
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 2
3 4
5 and interest in a sum according to proof;
Interest onjudgment, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; Punitive damages in a sum according to proof;
Attorney's fees and costs; and
For any further legal and equitable relief, the Court deems proper.

Dated: December 4.2023 RATNER MOLINEAUX, LLP
\_+4(o---.<-
David S. Ratner
Shelley A. Molineaux
Attorneys for Plainrffi AMY HENDRICKS; BETH LONC;
HARLEY YALADEZ: JEFF KRIEGER; KRISTEN

KRIEGER
6 AIIIENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

EXHIBIT A

ils;ii]",
4:fir;$"'
STATE OF CALTaORNIA I Susiness, Consumer Se(i.es and fousing Ageicy GAV N NEWSOM GOVERNOR KEV]N ( SN DIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen D ve,Sule100lElkGrove CA195758
800-884-168{ (voice) 800-700-2320 (ITY)lca ilornia s Relay Service at 711 calciviirighrs ca.govl [email protected]
January 6, 2023
Via Email:

Amy Hendricks
Coeur d Alene, lD 838'15
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
Case Number: 2021 07 -1 41 60513
Case Name: Hendricks / Concord Police Department
The Civil Rights Department (CRD) has closed your case for lhe following reason: Elected court action.

This is your Right to Sue Notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above- referenced complaint. This is also applicable to CRD complaints that are filed under, and allege a violation of, Government Code section '12948, which incorporates Civil Code sections 51,

51.7, and 54. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter.

However, if your civil complaint alleges a violation of Civil Code section 51 , 51 .7 , or 54, you should consult an attorney about the applicable statutes of limitation.

Please note that if a settlement agreement has been signed resolving the complaint, you may have waived the right to file a private lawsuit. Should you decide to bring a civil action on your own behalf in court in the State of California under the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in your complaint, below are resources for this.

Findinq an Attornev
To proceed in Superior Court, you should contact an attorney. lf you do not already have an attorney, the organizations listed below may be able to assist you:

The State Bar of California has a Lawyer Referral Services Program which can be ac- cessed through its Web site at www.calbar.ca.oov or by calling (866) 442-2529 (within California) or (415) 538-2250 (outside California).

Your county may have a lawyer referral service. Check the Yellow Pages of your tele- phone book under "Attorneys."
CRD-ENF 1 TENCCSW (Revised 09/2022)
Dear Amy Hendricks:

Notice of Case Closure Settled or Withdrawn - Employment January 6, 2023
?age 2 of 2
You may also order a free copv of "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online, by calling the DCA Publication Hotline at (866) 320-8652, or by writing to them at: DCA, Office of Publications, Design and Editing; 1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N-112; Sacramento; CA; 95834.

The State Bar of California has information on "Using the Small Claims Court" under the "Public Services" section of its Web site located at www.calbar.ca.qov Sincerely,
frrye 7l*,al
Jazelle Neal
Cc:

Concord Police Department
1350 Galindo Street
Concord, CA 94520
ram Analyst
CRD-ENF 1 TENCCSW (Revised 09/2022)
Filinq in Small Claims Court
. The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has a publication titled "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online at of "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online at http://www.dca.ca.qov/publications/small claims/.

"fg^Y:
"4^"o.ff

GAVJII NEWSOM GOVERNOR
XEVIN (iSH, OIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Dr ve, Suite 100 I E k Grove ICA 195758
800-884.1684 lvoice) 800-700-2320 (llY) | cal lornia s Relay Service al 711 wvw.df eh.ca !ov I [email protected]
Oclobet 11 , 2022
Via First Class Mail
Beth Lo
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
Case Number: 2021 06-14040830
Case Name: Long / Concord Police Department
Dear Beth Long
This is your Right to Sue Notice. According to Government Code section 1 2965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above- referenced complaint. This is also applicable to CRD complaints that are filed under, and allege a violation of, Government Code section 12948, which incorporates Civil Code sections 51, 51 .7, and 54. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter.

However, if your civil complaint alleges a violation of Civil Code section 51, 51.7 , or 54, you should consult an attorney about the applicable statutes of limitation.

Please note that if a settlement agreemenl has been signed resolving the complaint, you may have waived the right to file a private lawsuit. Should you decide to bring a civil action on your own behalf in court in the State of California under the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in your complaint, below are resources for this.

The State Bar of California has a Lawyer Referral Services Program which can be ac- cessed through its Web site at www.calbar.ca.oov or by calling (866) 442-2529 (within California) or (415) 538-2250 (outside California).

Your county may have a lawyer referral service. Check the Yellow Pages of your tele- phone book under "Attorneys."
CRD-ENF 1 TENCCSW (Revised 09/2022)
STATEOFCAIFORNA lBusno$ CoNumor Soruaes aid Houslng Aqency The Civil Rights Department (CRD) has closed your case for the following reason: elected court action.

Findino an Attornev
To proceed in Superior Court, you should contact an attorney. lf you do not already have an attorney, the organizations listed below may be able to assist you:

Notice of Case Closure Settled or Withdrawn - Employment October 11, 2022

You may also order a free copv of "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online, by calling the DCA Publication Hotline at (866) 320-8652, or by writing to them at: DCA, Office of Publications, Design and Editing; 1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N-1 12; Sacramento: CA: 95834.

The State Bar of California has information on "Using the Small Claims Court" under the "Public Services" section of its Web site located at www.calbar.ca.oov Sincerely,
Rosaline Madrigal
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Cc
Concord Police Department
1350 Galindo Street
Concord, CA 94520
CRD-ENF 1 TENCCSW (Revrsed 09/2022)
Filino in Small Claims Court
. The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has a publication titled "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online at of "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online at http://www.dca.ca.qov/publications/small claims/. &u/;,""" V4^lr,r?^/

Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suile 100 | E k Grove ICA | 95758
800-884.1684 (vorce) 1800-700-2320 {TlY) Calirornias Relay Seruice at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov [email protected]
GAVIN NEWSOM,6OVERNOR

XEVIN XISH DIRECIOR
Via Email
Harley Valadez
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
Case Number: 202203-1 636821 O
Case Name: Valadez / City of Concord Police Department
EEOC Number: 37 A-2022-01512
County of Violation: Contra Costa
Dear Harley Valadez
The Civil Rights Department (CRD) has closed your case for the following reason: lnsufficient Evidence. The CRD makes no determination about whether further investigatron would establish violatrons of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or other laws. This decision does not mean the alleged claims have no merit or that the respondent is in compliance with the law. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this complaint.

This is your Right to Sue notice. As specified in Government Code section '12965, subdivi- sion (b), you may file your own civil action asserting employment claims under the FEHA within one year of the date of this letter. lf you want to file a civil action that includes other claims, you should consult an attorney about the applicable statutes of limitation.

Your complaint is dual filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You have a right to request EEOC to perform a substantial weight review of our findings. This request must be made within fifteen (1 5) days of your receipt of this notice.

Pursuant to Government code section 12965, subdivision (d) (1), your right to sue may be tolled during the pendency of EEOC's review of your complaint. To secure this review, you must request it in writing to the State and Local Coordinator:

EEOC Southern California
Roybal Federal Building
255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012
Karrie.Maeda@eeoc,gov
You have the right to appeal the decision to close your case. This request must be made within ten (10) days of receiving this letter. Your appeal must include: 1) a summary as to why you dis- agree with the case closure; and/or 2) any new detailed information (e.9., documents, records, witness information) that supports your claim. lf you appeal, the information you provide will be carefully considered. You may appeal this decision by:

CRD-ENF 17ENCC (Revrsed 09/22)
STATE OF CALIF0RNIA | 8us n€$. Con3umer Sarurc* aid Hous'ng rgoncy .'frgTa-ft
?h,--^',1i6"
April 3, 2023

Notice of case Closure and Right to Sue
April 3, 2023

Email. Send your request to [email protected] and make reference to the case # 202203-16368210.

Mail. Send your request to: CRD, Appeals Unit, 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100, Elk Grove, CA 95758, lnclude a copy of this letter and make reference to the case #:
202203-16368210.
. Phone. Call us at 800-884-1684 (voice), 800-700-2320 (TTY), or by using California's Relay Service at 71 1.

Although the CRD has closed this case, the allegations and conduct at issue may be in violation ofthe law. You should consult an attorney as soon as possible regarding any other options and/or recourse you may have regarding the underlying acts or conduct.

Below are some resources to assist you in deciding whether to bring a civil aclion on your own behalf in court in the State of California under the provisions of the FEHA against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in your complaint. To proceed in Superior Court, you should contact an attorney.

The State Bar of California has a Lawyer Referral Services Program which can be accessed through its website at www.calbar.ca.qov under the "Public" link, or by call- ing 866-442-2529 (within California) or 415-538-2250 (outside California).

Your local crty or county may also have a lawyer referral or legal aid service.

The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has a publication titled "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online at www.dca.ca oov/oublica- tions/small claims. You may also order a free copy by calling the DCA Publication Hotline at 866-320-8652, or by writing to them at: DCA, Office of Publications, De- sign and Editing, 1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N-112, Sacramento, CA 95834.

Sincerely,
Ad"b e"n
Adele Cox
Associate Governmental P ram Analyst
Cc: via email only: [email protected]
Joshua Clendenin
1950 Parkside Drive
MS/08
Concord, CA 94519
CRD-ENF l7ENCC (Revised 09/22)
City of Concord Police Department
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

ifi;lir--
?i1^s"^.;1"1s
SIAIE 0F CALIFOFNIA lBusie$ ConsumerSedt.s and Houslng Aqency GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR

KEVIN KIIN OIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive Suite 100 Elk Grove CA 95758
S00-8841684 (volce) 800-700-2320 (TTY)|calfornia s Relay Servlce ai 711 w{'w.dleh ca gov lcontact cenler@dIeh cagov
October 18,2022
Via Email
Kristen
Lafayette, CA 94549
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
Case Num ber: 2021 07 -1 407 0202
Case Name: Krieger / Concord Police Department
Dear Kristen Krieger:

The Civil Rights Department (CRD) has closed your case for the following reason: Complainant Elected Court Action.

This is your Right to Sue Notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above- referenced complaint. This is also applicable to CRD complaints that are filed under, and allege a violation of, Government Code section '12948, which incorporates Civil Code sections 51, 51 .7, and 54. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter.

However, if your civil complaint alleges a violation of Civil Code section 51 , 51.7 , or 54, you should consult an attorney about the applicable statutes of limitation.

Please note that if a settlement agreement has been signed resolving the complaint, you may have waived the right to file a private lawsuit. Should you decide to bring a civil action on your own behalf in court in the State of California under the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in your complaint, below are resources for this.

Findinq an Attorney
To proceed in Superior Court, you should contact an attorney. lf you do not already have an attorney, the organizations listed below may be able to assist you:

The State Bar of California has a Lawyer Referral Services Program which can be ac- cessed through its Web site at www.calbar.ca.oov or by calling (866) 442-2529 (within California) or (415) 538-2250 (outside California).

Your county may have a lawyer referral service. Check the Yellow Pages of your tele- phone book under "Attorneys."
CRD-ENF lTENCCSW (Revised 09/2022)

Notice of Case Closure Settled or Withdrawn - Employment October 18, 2022

Filinq in Small Claims Court
The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has a publication titled "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online at of "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online at http://www.dca.ca.qov/publications/small claims/.

You may also order a free coov of "The Small Claims Court: A Guide to lts Practical Use" online, by calling the DCA Publication Hotline at (866) 320-8652, or by writing to them at: DCA, Office of Publications, Design and Editing; 1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N-112; Sacramento; CA; 95834.

Sincerely,
N'u,oAz, Hend*rtot.

Nicole Henderson
nt lnvesti ative Anal
Cc:

Concord Police D rtment
c/o Derek Haynes
CRD-ENF 1 TENCCSW (Revised 09/2022)
The State Bar of California has information on "Using the Small Claims Court" under the "Public Services" section of its Web site located at www.calbar.ca.qov

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
12 l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Halsey Volker, declare:

At the time of service, I was over I 8 years of age, and not a party to this action. My business mailing address is alnut Creek, CA 94596
PLAINTIFF AMY HENDRICKS, ET AL. AMENDED COMPLAINT
Stacey Sheston
Patricia Alshabazz
Cecilia Martin
Joshua Clendenin

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Attomeys for Defendant
City ofConcord and Concord Police
Department
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of Caliiomia the foregoing is a true and correct statement, and this certificate was executed on December 4, 2023. r{ahg-/,4A-
H"l't vdkt
x
BY E-MAIL: Based on the parties' agreement to accept service by e-mail, the court's order and/or Local Rules ordering mandatory e-filing of all documents for this type of case, Civil Procedure Code section 1010.6, and Califomia Rules of Court, Rule

2.251(c)(3), I attached the document(s) to an e-mail message, and invoked the send command to transmit the e-mail message to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed below. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful Case No. ***
On December 4, 2023, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action:

I
PROOI'. OF SERVICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL

CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE, WING A

CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2023
The Concord City Council met in a special meeting in the City Council Conference Room, located at 1950 Parkside Drive, Wing A, Concord, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, with Mayor Hoffmeister presiding, Vice Mayor Birsan and Councilmembers Aliano and Nakamura present.

Councilmember Obringer arrived at 6:06 p.m. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

The meeting was recessed and immediately reconvened in a closed session on CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Town Center II, an approximately 3.10 acre, former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) property at 1765 Galindo Street (APN 126-143-012)
Agency negotiators: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Guy Bjerke, Director Community Reuse Project; Tom Capriola, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Marie Suvansin, Economic Development Manager
Negotiating parties: EAH Community Housing Inc.; Eden Housing Inc. and Laing Companies LLC; Impact Residential Investments, LLC and Spanish Speaking Unity Council of Alameda County, Inc.; Novin Development Corp. and Christian Church Homes; USA Properties Fund, Inc Under negotiation: Price, Terms of Payment

ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned on December 5, 2023, at 6:44 p.m.

LAURA M. HOFFMEISTER
MAYOR

JOELLE FOCKLER, MMC

CITY CLERK

4.a4.a4.a

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL/CITY COUNCIL

SITTING AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE

CONCORD, CALIFORNIA AND VARIOUS

TELEPHONIC/ELECTRONIC LOCATIONS
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2023
The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting in the Council Chamber, located at 1950 Parkside Drive and via various telephonic/electronic locations at 6:51 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, with Mayor Hoffmeister presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by St. Bonaventure Catholic Church’s Cub Scout Pack 444. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Dominic Aliano, Edi Birsan, Laura Nakamura, Carlyn Obringer, Laura Hoffmeister
STAFF PRESENT: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager; Patti Barsotti, City Treasurer; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Stefanie Ananthan, Deputy City Clerk; Monique Robinson, Administrative Secretary; Greg Taylor, Director of Information Technology; Mark Bustillos, Chief of Police; James Nakayama, Police Captain; Guy Bjerke,
Director of Economic Development and Base Reuse; Kevin
Marstall, Director of Community Development; Karan Reid, Director of Finance; Will Tarbox, Director of Public Works; Steve Voorhies, Director of Recreation Services; Jennifer Ortega, Community Relations Manager; Himmat Baines, Senior Financial Analyst

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: Colleen Awad, Supervisor Carlson’s Office; Kevin Cabral, President/CEO for the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION – Contra Costa Blue Star Moms, California Chapter 20 Mayor Hoffmeister presented Loretta Masnada, Contra Costa Blue Star Moms, California Chapter 20, a proclamation honoring and appreciating their noble work and commending the organization for its many contributions to supporting our Troops, Veterans, fallen Heroes, and their families.

Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

City Council Minutes December 5, 2023
2 MAYOR’S COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD – “Smitty” S.M. Ardrey Mayor Hoffmeister introduced “Smitty” S.M. Ardrey, community bicycle advocate, and presented him with the Mayor’s Community Service Award for his support and contributions to the bicycle community over the past year.

Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

CITY COUNCIL/LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY (LRA) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 7 and 28, 2023
A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Obringer to approve the minutes from the November 7 and 28, 2023, regular meetings. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

TREASURER’S REPORT – July 1 – September 30, 2023
A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Obringer to receive the Treasurer’s Report for the period July 1 – September 30, 2023. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPOINTMENT OF CONCORD’S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY – CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Jency James
A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Obringer to appoint Jency James as Concord’s Representative to serve on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority – Citizens Advisory Committee for a four-year term ending in 2025, as recommended by Mayor Hoffmeister. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CITY COUNCIL/LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY (LRA) CONSENT CALENDAR AMENDMENT OF FIVE (5) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS (PSAs) – Concord Naval Weapons Station
A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Obringer to approve the amendment of five (5) Professional Services Agreements (PSAs) for various consultant services in the combined amount of $130,000 for work related to the review and consideration of a Term Sheet and work related to the redevelopment of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) establishing a new combined not- to-exceed amount for those PSAs of $288,000 through January 31, 2024; and authorize the Executive Director of the LRA to execute the amendments in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
COMMENTS ON HER YEAR AS MAYOR – Mayor Laura Hoffmeister Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period.

The following people thanked Mayor Hoffmeister for her year of service:

Colleen Awad, Supervisor Carlson’s Office

City Council Minutes December 5, 2023
3 Kevin Cabral, President/CEO for the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce Mayor Hoffmeister closed the public comment period.

Following comments by the Council, Mayor Hoffmeister made comments regarding her year as Mayor, thanked her colleagues and family, and shared her accomplishments over the past year.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 23-67 – Confirming and Designating the Mayor A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Obringer to nominate Vice Mayor Edi Birsan as Mayor of the City of Concord and adopt Resolution No. 23-67 entitled, “A Resolution Designating Edi E.

Birsan as Mayor of the City of Concord.”
Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

Mayor Hoffmeister turned the meeting over to the newly appointed Mayor Birsan.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 23-68 – Confirming and Designating the Vice Mayor A motion was made by Birsan and seconded by Aliano to nominate Councilmember Carlyn Obringer as Vice Mayor of the City of Concord and adopt Resolution No. 23-68 entitled, “A Resolution Designating Carlyn S. Obringer as Vice Mayor of the City of Concord.” Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY REORGANIZATION CONFIRMATION
A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Nakamura confirming the designation of Mayor Birsan and Vice Mayor Obringer to serve as the Chair and Vice Chair of the Local Reuse Authority for the Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Plan respectively, as authorized by Resolution No. 06-01, adopted January 10, 2006.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CORRESPONDENCE
a. Agenda Item No. 3.a – Blue Star Moms Proclamation – Benched Correspondence b. Agenda Item No. 5.b – Nomination and Designation of Mayor – Benched Correspondence c. Agenda Item No. 6.a – Designation of Chair and Vice Chair of the Local Reuse Authority – Benched Correspondence

City Council Minutes December 5, 2023
4 ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned on December 5, 2023, at 7:39 p.m. in memory of Stanley Gaunt.

EDI E. BIRSAN
MAYOR

JOELLE FOCKLER, MMC

CITY CLERK

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE

CONCORD, CALIFORNIA AND VARIOUS

TELEPHONIC/ELECTRONIC LOCATIONS
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2023
The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting in the Council Chamber, located at 1950 Parkside Drive and via various telephonic/electronic locations at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, with Mayor Birsan presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilmember Aliano. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Dominic Aliano, Laura Nakamura, Carlyn Obringer, Edi Birsan
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Hoffmeister
STAFF PRESENT: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Stefanie Ananthan, Deputy City Clerk; Greg Taylor, Director of Information Technology; Mark Bustillos, Chief of Police; James Nakayama, Police Captain; Garrett Voerge, Police Captain; Nicholas Gartner, Police Lieutenant; Kevin Marstall, Director of Community Development; Will Tarbox, Director of Public Works; Craig Blythe, Administrative Services Manager; Sophia
Huckabay, Housing Manager; Kelly Rush, Housing Program
Analyst

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: Ady Olvera, Concord; Jo Carlson, Walnut Creek; Jeff Weil, Alamo; Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing; Jessica Acosta,
Concord; Duran Naicker; Victoria Snyder, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services; Vanessa Chena, Monument Impact; Jennifer Morales, Monument Impact; Julia Quintero, Monument Impact; Latrel Powell, Public Advocates; Dorena Coon, Concord; Ali Uscilka, Healthy and Active Before Five; Wallace Freddie, Concord; Joe Raphel, Braddock and Logan; Reed Robertson, Concord; Chuck Boughan, Vasona Management; Nick Mosteiro, California Hilltop Apartments; Marissa Jimenez, Bay Area Legal Aid; Mihaela Gough, Centro Legal de la Raza; Betty Gabaldon, Todos Santos Tenants Union; Guadalupe Tolento, Todos Santos Tenants Union; Anne Kendall, Concord; Ethan Silverstein, California Center for Movement Legal Services; Tyler Charron, R&Z Group – Compass; Holly Chen, Concord; Jima Monson,
Rising Juntos; Maria Dolores Ramos, Rising Juntos; Maria Elena Ceja, Rising Juntos; Gabi Rivas, Rising Juntos; Cecilia Perez Mejia, Rising Juntos; Ady Olvera, Concord Communities
Alliance; David Schubb, Contra Costa Association of Realtors; Judi Herman, Concord Communities Alliance; Ed Kellar,
Concord; Rich Lewis, Orinda; Joe Summers, Contra Costa Labor Council; Kent Green, Concord; Chris Schildt, Urban Habitat; Deena Levine-Lipsett, JFCS East Bay; Rhovy Lyn Antonio, California Apartment Association; Eduardo Torres, Tenants

City Council Minutes December 12, 2023
2 Together; Maria D. Dominguez, Rising Juntos; Angie Chaupe, Monument Impact; Rev. Steve Hong; Anousheh Massoumi,
Danville; Zhinus Aflatooni, Concord; Rhea Elina Laughlin, Rising Juntos; Kelly Zhao, EBASE

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Ady Olvera, Concord, spoke in support of Zoom public comment during City Council meetings.

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – Jordan Consulting & Investigations (JCI)
A motion was made by Obringer and seconded by Nakamura to approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Jordan Consulting & Investigations (JCI) in the amount of $50,000 for a total not-to-exceed agreement amount of $134,500 for investigative services, and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Aliano, Nakamura, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister APPROVAL OF THE 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR
This item was removed from consideration on the Consent Calendar by Mayor Birsan who expressed interest in changing the start time of City Council meetings from 6:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

A motion was made by Obringer and seconded by Aliano to approve the 2024 City Council Meeting Calendar, in addition to directing staff to bring back a Resolution at a future meeting to change the start time of City Council meetings from 6:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Aliano, Nakamura, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT – Stommel Inc., DBA Lehr
A motion was made by Obringer and seconded by Nakamura to approve a one (1) year and six (6) month agreement for police vehicle up-fitting services (installation of specialized equipment and accessories within a vehicle) with Stommel Inc. DBA Lehr in the not-to-exceed amount of $350,000 per fiscal year with the option to extend for two (2) additional one (1) year periods, authorizing staff to increase the annual amount no more than 3% in each option year ($1,346,815 total ); and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Aliano, Nakamura, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister Mayor Birsan took the next item out of agenda order.

City Council Minutes December 12, 2023
3 COUNCIL REPORTS
2024 COUNCILMEMBER APPOINTMENTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES AND REGIONAL BODIES

AND BOARDS OF VARIOUS EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mayor Birsan proposed appointments to the Council committees and regional bodies and boards of external organizations for 2024 as follows:

APPOINTEES

CHAIR MEMBER
Standing Committees
Policy Development and Internal Operations Birsan Obringer Housing and Economic Development Obringer Nakamura
Infrastructure and Franchise Hoffmeister Aliano
Recreation, Cultural Affairs & Community Services Nakamura Birsan Youth and Education Aliano Hoffmeister

ORGANIZATION MEETING SCHEDULE MEMBER
SECOND

MEMBER OR

ALTERNATE
Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) General Assembly
The General Assembly must be held by
April 1 of each year, the Spring Meeting
is usually held in March, and the Fall
General Assembly is held in October or
November.

Birsan Nakamura
Central Contra Costa Transit
Authority (The County Connection)
3rd Thursday of each month, 9 a.m. Hoffmeister Nakamura East Bay Division of League of CA
Cities
3rd Thursday of each month, 6 p.m. Aliano Birsan
Transportation Partnership and
Cooperation Regional Committee
(TRANSPAC)
2nd Thursday of each month, 9 a.m.

Obringer Nakamura
Marin Clean Energy Board 3rd Thursday of the month, 7 p.m. quarterly or as needed Nakamura Birsan
Contra Costa Mayors Conference 1st Thursday of the month, 6:30 p.m. Birsan Obringer Green Empowerment Zone TBD Obringer Birsan
Innovate 680 PAC Obringer Hoffmeister
Mayor Birsan announced the existing appointments made by the Mayors Conference to serve on regional bodies as follows:

City Council Minutes December 12, 2023
4 Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

A motion was made by Nakamura and seconded by Aliano to confirm the 2024 appointments to the City Council on Council committees and regional bodies and boards of various external organizations of which the City is a member as recommended by Mayor Birsan. The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Aliano, Nakamura, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 23-10 – Residential Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction
Housing Manager Sophia Huckabay presented the staff report, provided background information, explained the need for a housing policy in Concord, referenced other jurisdictions with rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies, and discussed State laws that provide certain protections and limits related to rent stabilization and just cause for eviction, explaining State law limits City options related to just cause for eviction. Housing Manager Huckabay then discussed the additional protections granted to Concord residents under the City’s current law and explained the components of the proposed draft policy for both rent stabilization and just cause for eviction, respectively, as well as those components that apply to both policies. Ms. Huckabay explained that Council was being requested to (1) provide direction on Permanent Relocation Assistance policy options identified in the draft Residential Tenant Protection Program Ordinance, and (2) introduce an Ordinance amending the Concord Municipal Code by amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 “Residential Tenant Protection Program” to increase “just cause” eviction protections, expand the City’s rent registry, and establish a rent stabilization program, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading.

Following questions from the City Council, Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period.

The following people spoke in support of an Ordinance related to residential rent stabilization and just cause for eviction but in opposition to the Ordinance as presented:

Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing
Mayors Conference Appointments Appointee Term Expires
Local Agency Formation
Commission Mayors Conference Birsan
(Alternate) 5/4/27
Airport Land Use Commission Mayors Conference Birsan 5/4/24 Airport Land Use Commission Mayors Conference Obringer 5/4/26 Hazardous Materials
Commission Mayors Conference Birsan
(Alternate) 12/31/23
East Bay Regional Parks
District Advisory Commission Mayors Conference Obringer 12/31/24 East Bay Economic
Development Alliance
Executive Committee
Mayors Conference Obringer 6/30/25

City Council Minutes December 12, 2023
5 Jessica Acosta, Concord
Duran Naicker
Vanessa Chena, Monument Impact
Jennifer Morales, Monument Impact
Julia Quintero, Monument Impact
Latrel Powell, Public Advocates
Ali Uscilka, Healthy and Active Before Five
Joe Raphel, Braddock and Logan
Marissa Jimenez, Bay Area Legal Aid
Mihaela Gough, Centro Legal de la Raza
Betty Gabaldon, Todos Santos Tenants Union
Guadalupe Tolento, Todos Santos Tenants Union
Ethan Silverstein, California Center for Movement Legal Services Jima Monson, Rising Juntos
Maria Dolores Ramos, Rising Juntos
Maria Elena Ceja, Rising Juntos
Gabi Rivas, Rising Juntos
Cecilia Perez Mejia, Rising Juntos
Ady Olvera, Concord Communities Alliance
Judi Herman, Concord Communities Alliance
Joe Summers, Contra Costa Labor Council
Chris Schildt, Urban Habitat
Deena Levine-Lipsett, JFCS East Bay
Rhovy Lyn Antonio, California Apartment Association
Eduardo Torres, Tenants Together
Maria D. Dominguez, Rising Juntos
Angie Chaupe, Monument Impact
Rhea Elina Laughlin, Rising Juntos
Kelly Zhao, EBASE
The following people spoke in opposition of the proposed draft Ordinance related to residential rent stabilization and just cause for eviction:

Jo Carlson, Walnut Creek
Jeff Weil, Alamo
Wallace Freddie, Concord
Reed Robertson, Concord
Chuck Boughan, Vasona Management
Nick Mosteiro, California Hilltop Apartments

City Council Minutes December 12, 2023
6 Anne Kendall, Concord
Tyler Charron, R&Z Group – Compass
Holly Chen, Concord
David Schubb, Contra Costa Association of Realtors
Ed Kellar, Concord
Rich Lewis, Orinda
Anousheh Massoumi, Danville
Zhinus Aflatooni, Concord
Victoria Snyder, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, encouraged Council to consider the associated costs and impact to seniors and other vulnerable populations when determining the relocation payment related to the rent stabilization and just cause for eviction Ordinance.

Dorena Coon, Concord, spoke about the affordable cost of rent in the past, continued increases in rental costs in the recent years, lack of increases to her income, and her need to continue to work to afford current rental prices.

Kent Green, Concord, spoke in support of the proposed draft Ordinance related to residential rent stabilization and just cause for eviction.

Rev. Steve Hong spoke about landlords’ selfishness and their claim that they won’t be able to provide continuous housing in Concord, and his belief that those in attendance have shown courage and willingness to help each other when it comes to housing needs.

Mayor Birsan recessed the meeting at 8:56 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:10 p.m.

Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

Following discussion by the Council, a motion was made by Birsan and seconded by Obringer to continue Agenda Item No. 4.a to Tuesday, January 9, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Aliano, Nakamura, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister

CORRESPONDENCE
a. Agenda Item No. 2.a – Written Public Comment
b. Agenda Item No. 3.a – Agreement with JCI – Benched Correspondence c. Agenda Item No. 3.b – 2024 City Council Meeting Schedule – Benched Correspondence d. Agenda Item No. 3.c – Agreement with Stemmel – Benched Correspondence e. Agenda Item No. 4.a – Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction – Benched Correspondence received from 12:00 p.m. on 12/7/23 until 4:00 p.m. on 12/11/23 f. Agenda Item No. 4.a – Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction – Benched Correspondence received from 4:00 p.m. on 12/11/23 until 3:00 p.m. on 12/12/23 g. Agenda Item No. 4.a – Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction – PowerPoint Presentation

City Council Minutes December 12, 2023
7 ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned on December 12, 2023, at 9:56 p.m.

EDI E. BIRSAN
MAYOR

JOELLE FOCKLER, MMC

CITY CLERK

Staff Report
Date: January 9, 2024
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: William Tarbox, Director of Public Works
Prepared by: Craig Blythe, Administrative Services Manager [email protected]
(925) 671-3141
Subject: Considering amending the City’s existing Professional Services Agreement with California Wood Recycling, Inc., DBA Agromin by extending the term to December 31, 2025, and increasing the payment thereunder by $227,634 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $269,022 in order to procure
composting services in compliance with SB 1383, and allow for a contingency of $30,978 that allows staff to procure compost for unidentified City projects; and authorizing the City Manager to execute such an amendment in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney. (Project 2667)
CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
The City Council is requested to approve a piggyback agreement with California Wood Recycling, Inc., DBA Agromin to procure organics material (Attachment 1). The purpose of this service agreement award is to assist the City in meeting the state mandated procurement target of organics material required by Senate Bill (SB) 1383.

Recommended Action
Amend the City’s existing Professional Services Agreement with California Wood Recycling, Inc., DBA Agromin by extending the term to December 31, 2025 and increasing the payment thereunder by $227,634 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $269,022 in order to procure composting services in compliance with SB 1383, and

4.b4.b4.b4.b

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
January 9, 2024
allow for a contingency of $30,978 that allows staff to procure compost for unidentified City projects; and authorize the City Manager to execute a such amendment in a form acceptable to the City Attorney (Attachment 1).

Background
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 1383, also known as California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act. The goals of SB 1383 organics diversion are to reduce the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) and to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

Landfilling organic waste leads to anaerobic breakdown of that material, which creates SLCPs such as methane. Reducing methane and other similar short-lived climate emissions is part of the State’s approach to addressing impacts of climate change and air pollution.

CalRecycle oversees a variety of programs and policy initiatives to reduce the amount of solid waste sent to landfills and to promote recycling within the State, including organic waste recycling under SB 1383 requirements. Local jurisdictions must comply with the regulations beginning January 1, 2022, with enforcement beginning January 1, 2024. The Statewide target is to reduce the disposal of organic waste in landfills by 75% by 2025; and rescue for people to eat at least 20% of currently disposed surplus food by 2025.

SB 1383 includes procurement requirements that mandate local governments, including the City of Concord, to procure recovered organic waste products. The aim is to support the market for recycled materials, reduce waste, and promote sustainable practices.

A subsequent bill, AB 1985 added a two-year phase in period to meet procurement goals.

The City has a current contract for composting procurement services with Agromin for CY 2023. Council approval is needed to extend this contract into CY2024 and CY2025.

For the City of Concord, the procurement requirements under SB 1383, as amended by AB 1985, are as follows:
 Calendar Year 2023: 3,102.6 tons
 Calendar Year 2024: 6,722.3 tons
 Calendar Year 2025 and beyond: 10,342 tons annually
Recovered organic waste products include:
 Compost
 Mulch

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
January 9, 2024
 Renewable energy (transportation fuel, electricity, and gas for heating) from anaerobic digestion
 Electricity from biomass conversion
Each jurisdiction’s procurement target is calculated by multiplying its population, as reported by the California Department of Finance, by the per capita procurement target (0.08 tons of organic waste per California resident per year). The resulting procurement target can then be multiplied by product conversion factors (as established by the regulations) to determine the annual procurement requirements for recovered organic waste products. The conversion factor for compost, which is the material the City intends to procure to meet its targets, is 0.58 tons of compost per ton of recovered organic waste product.

Analysis
Each jurisdiction has the flexibility to choose what mix of recovered organic waste products it wants to procure, and may choose to either use or donate these products to meet its procurement target, depending on its local needs. There are no requirements that a jurisdiction’s procurement must be of products produced within that jurisdiction or use a particular jurisdiction’s organic materials—in large part because the industry is nascent, and the opportunities may not exist.

Jurisdictions may meet their procurement requirement by contracting with a service provider that uses recovered organic waste products like compost on behalf of the jurisdiction. These direct service providers could include waste haulers, landscape services, or transportation services. Staff recommends contracting with Agromin, an industry leader, to provide this service in CY 2024 and CY 2025. Agromin is currently under contract with the cities of San Ramon, Pleasanton, and countless other cities throughout the State.

The contract with Agromin best positions the City to meet the procurement target moving forward. Costs per year are provided below. Tonnage reflected is for compost after applying the conversion factor.
 CY 2023 1,799 tons $41,388
 CY 2024 3,898 tons $89,674
 CY 2025 5,998 tons $137,960
Concord will also make compost available free to residents via a pick-up program, planned for calendar year 2024, in partnership with its waste hauler, Mount Diablo Resource Recovery.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
January 9, 2024
There is no guarantee there is enough material in the State available to meet procurement targets, so the State may lower targets. Staff will continue to monitor the recycled organics market and assess next steps.

Procurement Process
Concord Municipal Code Section 3.10.080 defines the process for waiving bidding regulations. Under this section, the City’s Purchasing Officer (or designee) may join with other public jurisdictions in cooperative purchasing plans. The Purchasing Officer or designee may also buy directly from a vendor at a price established by a competitive bid by another public jurisdiction, even if the City had not joined with that public agency in a cooperative purchase.

The pricing per ton of compost for this agreement was obtained from a competitively bid solicitation from City of San Ramon (Attachment 2).

Financial Impact
Funding for CY 2023 and CY 2024 is covered by the 2021-22 SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant (project 2667). Staff anticipates funding for CY 2025 through the 2022-23 SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant. Grant award notification is tentatively planned for March 2024. If awarded, staff will return to Council for acceptance of funds in the Spring of 2024.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378, City Council action on this item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. Individual projects will undergo CEQA analysis as necessary.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with California Wood Recycling, Inc., DBA Agromin, with Exhibit A – SB 1383 Procurement Scope of Services Agreement

2. San Ramon Solicitation

Amendment #1 AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Attachment 1
This First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement (“Amendment #1”) is entered into on this January 9, 2024, and amends the Professional Services Agreement, Agreement No. 3385, between the City of Concord (“CITY”) and California Wood Recycling, Inc. DBA Agromin (“CONSULTANT”).

WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional Services Agreement, Agreement No. 3385, dated October 20, 2023 (the “Agreement”), wherein CONSULTANT agreed to provide services in Exhibit A-1.

WHEREAS, under Section 1 “TERM” the Agreement provides that the Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2023, with the option to extent for two additional one year periods.

WHEREAS, under Section 5 “AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT” the Agreement provides that Agreement may be amended by the parties subject to consent and in accordance with the CITY’S Municipal Code.

WHEREAS, the parties mutually agree to exercise the option to amend the Agreement and increase payment and to extend the term.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and conditions set forth in the Agreement, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 1 “TERM” is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall commence on October 20, 2023 and expire on December 31, 2025.

2. Section 3 “PAYMENT” is herby amended to read as follows: The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT including payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules in detail in Exhibit A. However, shall in no event shall the amount CITY pays CONSULTANT exceed three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for the term of this Agreement. Any Amendment to this Agreement that includes an increase to this compensation amount shall be made in accordance with Section 5 below

3. Exhibit A is herby amended to Exhibit A-1

4. Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the date indicated above.

Signatures on the following page.

3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Dated: ______________ California Wood Recycling, Inc. DBA Agromin BY: ________________________
Kimberly Cook, Central /NorCal Business
Manager
Dated: ________________ CITY OF CONCORD
By:______________________________
Valerie J. Barone
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________________ Susanne Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:

Concord, California
Date: ________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $131,062. Account Code 4029500C99963800 402266711163800.

Finance Director's Signature

1 SB 1383 Procurement Scope of Services Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on _____________________, by and between the City of Concord, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and California Wood Recycling, Inc. DBA Agromin, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor."

1. Purpose of Agreement. Contractor shall provide City with the recycled organic waste products (hereinafter referred to as “Products”) procurement services described in Attachment 1 – Services (hereafter referred to as “Services”), for the purpose of facilitating City ’s compliance with Senate Bill 1383 regulations’ recovered organic waste product procurement requirements, as described in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 12 – Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products (14 CCR 18993.1 et seq.).

Contractor shall perform these Services on City ’s behalf.

2. Services to Be Provided Exclusively to City. Contractor shall ensure and maintain records sufficient to demonstrate that any Product it procures on City ’s behalf under this Agreement is not applied towards the SB 1383 recovered organic waste product procurement target of any other City.

3. Requirements for Products. To ensure that Products procured under this Agreement meet the requirements specified in 14 CCR 18993.1, Products shall meet the criteria in in Attachment 2 – Requirements for Products.

4. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Contractor shall maintain and submit records and supporting documents describing the Services as specified in Attachment 3 – Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. At the time Contractor submits those records to City, the records shall be accompanied by a certification attesting to the records’ accuracy. Contractor may use the declaration form in Attachment 4 – Certification of Records.

5. Time of Performance and Termination.

The services of Contractor are to commence upon execution of this Contract by City.

Agreement shall terminate no later than December 31, 2025, and will automatically renew up to three additional one-year extensions, unless written notification is provided ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the current calendar year by either party requesting to terminate or update the agreement. This agreement can be extended for additional years by the mutual agreement of both parties. Either party may terminate or request to amend the agreement upon the expiration of any calendar year, for services related to the following calendar year, by providing notice to the other party in writing at least ninety (90) days in advance of such calendar year expiration.

Exhibit A to Attachment 1

2 Attachments
Attachment 1 – Services
Attachment 2 – Compost Requirements and Definitions
Attachment 3 – Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Attachment 4 – Certification of Records

3 Attachment 1 – Services
1) Contractor will procure the following Products on behalf of the City:
a) Compost or composted mulch:
i) 3,899 tons during calendar year 2024.
ii) 5,998 tons during calendar year 2025.
2) Contractor will provide the Products to various farms, ranches, or similar (hereinafter “Direct Service Provider”), for purposes of agricultural use, soil conditioning, and carbon sequestration at the farms, ranches, or similar.
3) Contractor will procure the products from CalRecycle-approved composting facilities.

Contractor shall provide to City record-keeping and reporting services as described in Attachment 3 – Record-keeping and Reporting Requirements.

Product Cost.
1) Compost or composted mulch - $15.00 per ton
2) Freight/handling cost for Option B below: $8/ton
Procurement Option A
Contractor makes arrangements with a Direct Service Provider (DSP) who would like to use compost and/or composted mulch. The DSP uses the subsidized compost on behalf of the City and pays for the freight cost. City only pays for the compost and/or composted mulch per above price.

Procurement Option B
Contractor makes arrangements with a DSP that is willing to receive compost or composted mulch, and is located in the immediate proximity to Contractor’s composting facility. City pays for the compost and/or composted mulch per above prices (plus applicable sales tax), and pays for the minimal cost to transport/handle the compost/composted mulch to the DSP site.

Procurement will be satisfied by Option A or Option B, and usually a combination of both.

Payment.

Payment for this agreement is not to exceed the following amounts unless agreed upon by the City:
i) $89,674 during calendar year 2024
ii) $137,960 during calendar year 2025
Payment will be due and payable by City, net 30 days, when the following conditions have been met:
1) Agreement is fully executed.

4 2) Contractor has provided services per this agreement moving compost and/or composted mulch meeting SB 1383 procurement requirements to Direct Service Providers (DSP).
3) All required procurement documents have been submitted and accepted. 4) Invoice for payment has been submitted and accepted by City.

5 Attachment 2 - Compost Requirements and Definitions
As required in 14 CCR 18993.1(f)(1), compost procured to perform the Services shall meet the following criteria:
1) Materials:
a) Acceptable materials are:
i) Compost, including fine, medium, and coarse compost. ii) The portion of topsoil, biotreatment soil mix, or other blend that is compost. iii) See attached specification for additional requirements. iv) Mulch
b) Unacceptable materials include:
i) Compost that exceeds state maximum limitations for pathogens, metals, and physical contaminants in 14 CCR § 17868.2 – 17868.3.1.
ii) Digestate
iii) Biosolids/sewage sludge
iv) Manure
v) Biochar
vi) Uncomposted compostable materials
vii) Synthetic fertilizer, nitrolized sawdust, gypsum, urea viii)Topsoil, fill (except as described in (1)(a)(ii))
2) Sources:
a) Acceptable sources of compost are (per 14 CCR 18993.1(f)(1)):
i) A compostable materials handling facility with a Full Solid Waste Facility Permit or Registration Permit, or is authorized under the Enforcement Agency Notification Tier under 14 CCR § 17854.1
ii) A large-volume in-vessel digestion facility that composts on-site.

6 Definitions:
“Biochar” means the charcoal product of biomass conversion through pyrolosis (along with ash and syngas).
“Biosolids” means solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Biosolids includes, but is not limited to, treated domestic septage and scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment processes. Biosolids includes the residue solids resulting from the co-digestion of anaerobically digestible material with sewage sludge. Biosolids does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during the preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 14 CCR 17852(a)(9)
“Compost” means the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic solid wastes that are source separated from the municipal solid waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility. 14 CCR 17896.2(a)(4) “Compostable material” means any organic material that when accumulated will become active compost. 14 CCR 17852(a)(11)
“Compostable Material Handling Facility permitted or authorized by 14 CCR § 17854.1” means a facility described by the tiered regulatory system adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board in 1994.
“Digestate” means the solid and/or liquid residual material remaining after organic material has been processed in an in-vessel digester. 14 CCR 17896.2(a)(6) “Large Volume In-vessel Digestion Facility” means a facility that receives an average greater than 100 tons of solid waste per operating day or greater than 700 tons (2,800 cubic yards) per week of solid waste for digestion in an in-vessel digester. 14 CCR 17896.2(a)(15) “Manure” is an agricultural material and means accumulated herbivore or avian excrement.

This definition shall include feces and urine, and any bedding material, spilled feed, or soil that is mixed with feces or urine. 14 CCR 17896.2(a)(18)

7 Attachment 3 – Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Contractor shall keep and maintain a complete copy of all records regarding its provision of Services to City. Records shall be maintained on a calendar year basis, i.e. for each calendar year in which Contractor procures compost for City under this Agreement. 1) Reporting:
a) Contractor shall submit quarterly reports by the following dates, provided services were rendered during the preceding quarter:
i) April 31 st
ii) July 31 st
iii) October 31 st
iv) January 31 st
2) The following information shall be included on each quarterly report:
a) The total compost provided to Direct Service Providers during the reporting period and to date.
b) The following information on the compost provided to each Direct Service Provider:
i) Quantity of compost
ii) Compost producer information:
(1) Name of facility
(2) Physical location (address)
(3) Contact information
iii) Direct Service Provider information:
(1) Name of Direct Service Provider
(2) Description of where compost was used
(3) A general description of how the compost was used. 3) The following submittals shall be included with each report:
a) All invoices or similar evidencing Direct Service Provider’s receipt of compost on City ’s behalf.
b) Test data sheets showing that each compost supplied to Direct Service Providers complies with the City specifications, including requirements described in Attachment 2 of this Agreement.
4) Contractor shall report above information on the CaliforniaCompost.net website jurisdiction portal.

8 Attachment 4 – Certification of Records
Certification of Records with Respect to:

Contractor Agreement between Agromin and City of Concord Effective: [Date]
State of California
County of Ventura
City of Oxnard
I, the undersigned, do certify as follows:

I am an authorized representative of the Contractor named above. I am familiar with the Services that Contractor has provided to the City named above under the Contractor agreement referenced above and as described in the SB 1383 Contractor Procurement Scope of Services.

I hereby certify that all records and information that Contractor is submitting to City regarding Contractor’s provision of Services in [insert applicable calendar year] pursuant to the above- referenced agreement are true, accurate, and complete.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Agromin
___________________________________
By: Kimberly M. Cook
Title: Central/NorCal Business Dev. Mgr. and SB1383 Procurement Lead Date: ____________________

Attachment 2

Staff Report
Date: January 9, 2024
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3155
Subject: Considering the adoption of a Resolution amending Policy & Procedure No. 2, City Council Meeting Procedures, to update the City Council meeting start time to around 6:00 p.m., clarify the process to pull items off the consent calendar, authorizing the Mayor to determine City Council dais seating
arrangements, and to make other non-substantive changes to reflect current practice and procedure.

Report in Brief
During its session on December 12, 2023, the City Council directed staff (motion proposed by Obringer, seconded by Aliano) to present a Resolution for consideration, proposing a modification of Council meeting start times from 6:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Staff updated Policy & Procedure No. 2 to reflect this change and made other changes that reflect current practice and procedure (Exhibit A to Attachment 1).

Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) amending Policy & Procedure No. 2 (City Council Meeting Procedures) to update the City Council meeting start time to around 6:00 p.m., clarify the process to pull items off the consent calendar, authorize the Mayor to determine City Council dais seating arrangements, and to make other non-substantive changes to reflect current practice and procedure.

Background
City of Concord Policy & Procedure No. 2, governing City Council Meetings, outlines various aspects such as meeting types, conduct, decorum, Mayoral responsibilities, meeting procedures, agenda and minute preparation, and other relevant procedures.

4.c4.c4.c

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.c
January 9, 2024
Policy & Procedure No. 2 also specifies the designated day of the week, the frequency per month, and the scheduled commencement time of Council meetings. Any alterations to these aspects require the adoption of a Resolution in compliance with Government Code Section 54954 and Chapter 2.05 of the Concord Municipal Code.

Upon receiving instruction from the City Council on December 12, 2023, staff drafted a Resolution and a redlined edition of Policy & Procedure No. 2. These documents propose adjustments, including shifting the Council meeting commencement to 6:00 p.m., as outlined in the details below.

Analysis
The subsequent modifications are incorporated into the redlined edition of Policy & Procedure No. 2 (provided as Exhibit A in the Resolution):

Section 3.1 (Regular Meetings)
Specifies that standard meetings will be noted on the Council-approved meeting calendar and allows for meetings to commence around 6:00 p.m. The former aligns with best practices, while the latter was a directive from the City Council on December 12, 2023.

Section 4.8 (Adoption of Consent Calendar)
Specifies that attendance is a prerequisite for Councilmembers, individuals, and organizations to request the removal of items from the Consent Calendar, aligning with the current practice.

Section 6.5 (under Agenda Distribution)
Removes the content pertaining to the provision of annotated agendas, as this practice was discontinued in 2016 when the City transitioned to electronic agenda management.

Section 8 (Seating)
Alters the existing practice of predetermined seating at the dais by granting the Mayor the discretion to determine the seating arrangement.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Resolution amending Policy & Procedure No. 2
Exhibit A – Redline of Policy and Procedure No. 2

Res. No. 24-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution amending Policy & Procedure No. 2
(City Council Meeting Procedures) to update the
City Council meeting start time to around 6:00
p.m., clarify the process to pull items off the consent calendar, authorize the Mayor to determine City
Council dais seating arrangements, and to make
other non-substantive changes to reflect current
practice and procedure.

Resolution No. 24-XX
/
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54954 requires the City Council to set forth the time for holding regular meetings and Chapter 2.05 of the Concord Municipal Code requires, by resolution, to establish the day of the week, the number of meetings per month, and the time the meetings will convene; and
WHEREAS, Policy and Procedure No. 2 (City Council Meeting Procedures) at Section 3.1 currently provides that City Council meetings convene at or around 5:00 p.m., with around 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. reserved for non-hearing items, including closed sessions and study sessions, and further provides that public hearing shall commence before 6:30 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to provide for meetings to begin around 6:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further wishes to clarify the process for pulling items off the consent calendar; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further wishes to invest the Mayor with authority to determine City Council dais seating arrangements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further wishes to make other non-substantive changes to reflect current practice and procedure.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Attachment 1

Res. No. 24-XX 2
Section 1. Policy and Procedure No. 2 (City Council Meeting Procedures) is hereby amended as shown in the redline attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on January 9, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on January 9, 2024.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A – Redline of Policy and Procedure No. 2

CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES

1. PURPOSE
To provide a procedural guide for the conduct of City Council meetings, including the preparation of agendas and minutes.

2. BACKGROUND
The City Council convenes regular and special meetings to conduct its business in accordance with California's open meeting law (the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). A range of business matters come regularly before the City Council, including items requiring public discussion or a public hearing, routine items requiring formal action, and information items. To further the public interest, the City Council determines that it must focus its time and attention on the consideration of policy items, delegating to City staff those matters of an administrative nature. The City Council therefore sets forth herein a methodology for the expeditious and proper handling of City Council meetings, and for preparation of agendas and minutes. In the event of any conflict between these local procedures and State law, the provisions of State law shall govern. Except when prohibited by law or by a specific provision of this policy requiring a supermajority vote, the City Council by majority vote may waive or modify any of the procedural rules contained herein.

3. CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
All meetings of the City Council shall be open to the public, except as provided by law.

3.1 Regular Meetings. Pursuant to Concord Municipal Code Section 2.05.010, regular meetings of the City Council shall be held in the Farrel A. Stewart Civic Center, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, California unless the meeting agenda identifies another location. Regular meetings shall be held on the first, second and fourth Tuesday of each month, or as otherwise reflected on a City Council-approved meeting calendar and shall convene at or around 5:00 p.m. The Council agenda shall may reserve around 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 00 p.m. for non-hearing items, including closed sessions and study sessions. No public hearing shall commence before 6:30 00 p.m. No public hearing shall commence after 10:00 p.m. without a majority vote of the City Council. No new items may be heard after 11:00 p.m. without a majority vote of the City Council. The City Clerk shall post an agenda, as required by Government Code Section 54954.2, specifying the time and the location of the meeting.

3.2 Special Meetings. The presiding officer or a majority of the City Council may call a special meeting at any time in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.

3.3 Study Sessions. Study sessions may be conducted as part of a regular or special meeting. Study sessions may be scheduled as deemed necessary or desirable for exchanging information and providing direction to City staff prior to final action by the City Council.

3.4 Closed Sessions. The City Council may, from time to time, meet in closed session, not open to the public or the news media, to discuss litigation, real estate negotiations, personnel matters, labor relations, and other matters authorized by the Brown Act. The City Attorney shall prepare the agenda description for each closed session item.

3.5 Emergency Meetings. Emergency meetings may be called without complying with the 24-hour notice

CITY OF CONCORD
Number:

Authority:

Effective:

Revised:

Reviewed:

Initiating Dept.:
2 Council Motion
12-07-70
9-5-17
CM

POLICY & PROCEDURE
Exhibit A to Attachment 1

POLICY & PROCEDURE NO. 2
requirement in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.5.

4. MEETING CONDUCT
At the time scheduled for each regular or special meeting, the members of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, and such Department Heads or others as have been requested to be present, shall meet in the Council Chamber or other meeting location as designated in the posted agenda. The business of the City Council shall be conducted in substantially the manner herein provided. In situations not expressly governed either by State law or these procedural rules, the City Council may proceed in accordance with the parliamentary rules set forth in the revised version of Rosenberg’s Rules attached hereto. Failure to follow these procedural rules or the revised version of Rosenberg’s Rules shall not invalidate a City Council action.

4.1 Quorum and Voting. Three members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. When there is no quorum, the Mayor shall adjourn the meeting, or if no member of the City Council is or will be present, the City Clerk shall adjourn the meeting. Notice of adjournment shall be posted as required by Government Code Section 54955. For the purpose of considering any item subject to vote of the City Council, when any member of the City Council is disqualified due to a conflict of interest, his/her presence shall not be considered in determining the existence of a quorum. Consideration of such items shall be deferred until a quorum of disinterested Councilmembers is present to discuss and vote on the items unless otherwise authorized by the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 87100 et seq.) and the Fair Political Practices Commission Regulations. Except as otherwise provided by law, a majority of the Councilmembers present and voting shall be sufficient to approve an action, provided, however, that at least three votes are required for the passage of any ordinance, resolution, or orders for the payment of money pursuant to Government Code Section 36936.

4.2 Rules of Debate. A motion must be seconded before it can be discussed. A second merely implies that the seconder agrees that the motion should come before the City Council and not that the seconder is in favor of the motion. A second may be withdrawn for any reason before the motion is voted on.

4.21 Recognition. Every member of the City Council desiring to speak shall address the Mayor and, upon recognition by the Mayor, shall confine him/herself to the question under debate.

4.22 Rights of Mayor. The Mayor may move, second, and debate any item before the City Council subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed by these rules on all members of the City Council and shall not be deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a member of the City Council, including the right to vote on all motions and other actions of the City Council.

4.23 Interruptions. No member of the City Council, once recognized, shall be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call him/her to order or as otherwise provided herein. If a member of the City Council is called to order while speaking, s/he shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined and, if in order, shall be permitted to proceed.

4.24 Motion to Reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the City Council may be made only by a member of the Council who was on the prevailing side of the vote, but may be seconded by any member of the City Council and requires a majority vote of the City Council for approval.

No matter shall be reconsidered more than once. Any action of the Council which cannot be reversed cannot be reconsidered.

4.241 Timing of Motion. A motion to reconsider may be made at any time during the meeting at which the action was taken, but not at any adjournment or continuance of that meeting.

4.242 Effect of Approval. Upon approval of a motion to reconsider, the prior action shall be set aside in its entirety; and the underlying matter shall be scheduled for consideration at the earliest feasible City Council meeting and shall be re-noticed pursuant to Concord Municipal Code Sections 2.05.050 or 2.05.050 or other applicable laws.

POLICY & PROCEDURE NO. 2

4.243 Rescission, Repeal or Amendment. The reconsideration rules contained in this Policy & Procedure shall not limit the City Council's inherent authority to rescind, repeal, or amend its prior actions in situations where it is not precluded from doing so under applicable laws.

4.3 Addressing the Council. Each person wishing to address the City Council is requested to fill out and return to the City Clerk a speaker card containing the speaker’s name, address and item on which he/she is interested in addressing the Council, and the speaker’s position on the item to be addressed. All information on the speaker card is a public record and may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The Mayor shall use the speaker's card to determine whether a time limit is necessary for the item to be discussed, to arrange the order of presentation of testimony before the City Council and to recognize speakers. The Mayor shall recognize anyone desiring to address the City Council even if a speaker card has not been filled out. After having received permission from the Mayor to address the City Council, each person shall come to the microphone and may give his/her name for the record before speaking. The Mayor will also endeavor to call for additional speakers before closing comment on an item. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a body. No person other than a member of the City Council and the person having the floor shall enter into any discussion without permission of the Mayor. Any person following this procedure shall have the right to be heard during the public comment period or at the time the City Council considers any items of business listed on the agenda.

4.31 Spokesperson for a Group of Persons. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the City Council on the same subject matter, it shall be appropriate for the Mayor to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council, to specify a time limit, and in case additional matters are to be presented at that time by any other member of the group, to limit the number of speakers to avoid repetition.

4.4 Decorum

4.41 Council. Members of the City Council must preserve order and decorum and shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or peace of the City Council in any way, or disturb any other member of the City Council while speaking, or refuse to obey the orders of the City Council or the Mayor, except as otherwise herein provided.

4.42 All Persons. No person speaking may make any unduly repetitive, irrelevant, personal, impertinent, slanderous, profane, loud, threatening, or abusive remark to any member of the City Council, City staff, or the general public, which actually disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. No person may bring into the Council Chamber any device, sign or object that may cause disruption of the meeting, or obstruct others attending the meeting from participating in, hearing, or seeing the meeting proceedings. Any person who makes such remarks, or who engages in any other disorderly conduct which actually disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any City Council meeting may, at the discretion of the Mayor or the City Council majority, be barred from further comments during that meeting, or subjected to enforcement actions pursuant to Section 4.43.

4.43 Enforcement. The Chief of Police, or his/her authorized representative, shall be the ex-officio Sergeant-at-Arms of the Council. S/he shall carry out all orders and instructions of the Mayor for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum in the City Council meeting room. Upon instructions of the Mayor, it shall be the duty of any police officer present to remove from the City Council meeting room any person in the audience who engages in conduct prohibited pursuant to Section

4.42 at a City Council meeting, and to place under arrest any person who is violating the law.

4.5 Duties of Mayor. The Mayor shall assume his/her place and duties immediately following his/her election by the City Council.

POLICY & PROCEDURE NO. 2

4.51 Call to Order. At the hour appointed for the meeting, the Mayor shall call the City Council to order. The Mayor shall serve as the presiding officer for all City Council meetings. In the Mayor’s absence, the Vice Mayor shall serve as the presiding officer. In the absence of both the Mayor and Vice Mayor, the most senior Councilmember (in consecutive years served on the City Council) shall serve as the presiding officer; if there is a seniority tie, the Councilmember who received more votes during their latest elections shall serve as the presiding officer. Upon the arrival of the Mayor, the Vice Mayor shall relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the business item then before the City Council; upon the arrival of the Mayor or the Vice Mayor, the presiding officer shall relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the business item then before the City Council.

4.52 Changes to the Order of Business. The Mayor may change the order of business as shown on the meeting agenda at any time during the meeting as deemed necessary or convenient.

4.53 Additional Duties.
a. The Mayor shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings, have the power to limit the time of any speaker from the floor, state questions coming before the City Council, and announce the City Council's decision on all subjects.
b. The Mayor shall have the authority to rule on procedural matters relating to the conduct of City Council meetings. Any procedural rulings or other actions of the Mayor may be overruled by a majority vote of the City Council.
c. The Mayor shall sign all ordinances, contracts and other documents approved by the City Council, except if a conflict of interest exists or authority to execute documents has been delegated to the City Manager or another representative of the City. d. The Mayor may, from time to time, announce appointments to ad hoc advisory committees composed solely of less than a majority of the members of the City Council; the announcement of such appointments shall appear on the posted agenda, but shall not require City Council approval. The Mayor may also propose appointments to standing committees and regional bodies, subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council. e. The Mayor may make declarations of special dates and recognition awards on behalf of the City, such declarations to be detailed in the subsequent correspondence and reports to Council.
f. The Mayor may declare a meeting adjourned if the end of the agenda has been reached or there is no further business.

4.6 Roll Call. Before proceeding with the business of the City Council, the City Clerk shall call the roll of the members of the City Council, and the names of those present shall be entered in the minutes.

4.7 Public Comment Period.

4.71 Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items. The agenda for every regular City Council meeting shall include a public comment period. Members of the public may address the City Council during this period on any subject that is within the jurisdiction of the City Council and not listed on the agenda.

Individual public comments shall be limited to three minutes, and the total duration of the public comment period shall not exceed fifteen minutes, before items scheduled on the agenda are considered, unless an increase or decrease of time is ordered by the Mayor. If public comment of longer than fifteen minutes is to be conducted, it will be taken following conclusion of the consideration of scheduled items.

4.72 Public Comment on Agenda Items. The agenda for every regular or special City Council meeting shall include the opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council before or during

POLICY & PROCEDURE NO. 2
the Council’s consideration of any item on the agenda, including items on the Consent Calendar.

Persons addressing the Council shall be limited to three minutes, unless an increase or decrease of time is ordered by the Mayor. The Mayor may allow extra time for the applicant, appellant, or other person or entity directly involved in the decision.

4.8 Adoption of Consent Calendar. Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council, provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization in attendance may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been timely received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate.

4.9 Voting.

4.91 Roll Call Vote. Any Councilmember may request a roll call vote to be taken and recorded on any motion. Whenever a roll call vote of the City Council is in order, the City Clerk shall call the roll as follows:

4.911 Maker of the motion.

4.912 Seconder of the motion.

4.913 The balance of the City Council in alphabetical order except that the Mayor is called last, unless the Mayor is the maker or seconder of the motion.

4.92 Silence Constitutes Affirmative Vote. In all voting, unless a member of the City Council states s/he is not voting, his/her silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote.

4.93 Ex Parte Communications. Whenever the City Council is sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity to weigh facts and evidence on a permit application, appeal, or other quasi-judicial matter, each Councilmember shall, once the agenda item is called, disclose for the record any ex parte communications or site visits and information received outside of the meeting, so that all Councilmembers, parties and opponents have the same information received by the Councilmember, and an opportunity to consider and/or respond to such information.

5. AGENDA

5.1 Preparation. The City Manager shall prepare an agenda for each City Council meeting, except for Closed Session per Section 3.4, and shall submit the draft agenda to the City Attorney for legal review. If after the regular agenda is prepared the City Manager determines that additional items should be placed thereon, a supplemental or revised agenda shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 54954.2 or 54956 as appropriate. The agenda shall contain a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. While not required by law, in the interest of transparency, City staff shall endeavor to include the monetary amount and source of funds of consultant, construction, employee, and similar contracts in applicable agenda descriptions; however failure to do so shall not invalidate or affect the adequacy of the agenda description or notice to the public.

5.11 Notice/Posting. At least seventy-two (72) hours before a regular meeting of the City Council an agenda shall be posted and mailed as required by law. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public, including on the City website, pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2.

5.12 Non-Agenda Items. No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except as expressly permitted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2.

Councilmembers or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons speaking during the public comment period. In addition, on his/her own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a Councilmember or staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her activities. Furthermore, the City Council

POLICY & PROCEDURE NO. 2
or an individual Councilmember with the concurrence of the Council majority may provide a reference to staff or to other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the City Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Finally, the City Council may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the following conditions:

5.121 Upon a determination by a majority vote of the City Council that an emergency situation exists as defined in Government Code Section 54956.5.

5.122 Upon a determination by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Councilmembers present at the meeting, or if less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need to take action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being posted. For a five person City Council, the 2/3 requirement means four of five, or three of four, Councilmembers.

5.123 The item was posted in accordance with this Policy & Procedure for a prior meeting of the City Council occurring not more than five (5) calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken.

5.13 Special Meetings. As required by Government Code Section 54956, a written notice of each special meeting shall be delivered to each member of the City Council, and to each local newspaper, radio, or television station that has a written request for notice on file with the City. The notice shall be delivered and posted in a location freely accessible to the public at least 24 hours before the time of the special meeting, and shall state the time and place of the special meeting and all items of business to be transacted or discussed. Only matters described in the agenda may be considered at the meeting.

5.2 Consent Calendar. Items which are not expected to require public discussion may be grouped together and listed under the Consent Calendar. Typically, these will consist of routine and non-controversial items.

5.3 Ordinances. Upon the item being called, the City Clerk or City Attorney shall read the title of the ordinance in full. Thereafter, any member of the City Council may move to waive further reading of the ordinance and either introduce or adopt the ordinance pursuant to State law.

5.4 Public Hearings and Consideration Items. Legal publication, posting, and mailing will be carried out pursuant to law.

5.5 Continuances.

5.51 The City Council may, in its discretion, continue any item of business to a subsequent meeting.

5.52 Items that are not continued to a date certain or are continued for further hearing or action for a period longer than thirty (30) days from the City Council meeting shall be renoticed at the applicant/appellant's expense.

5.6 Urgency Ordinances. The City Council may adopt an urgency ordinance as provided by State law. Non- planning urgencies are governed by Government Code Section 36937(b). Planning urgencies are governed by Government Code Section 65858. Urgency ordinances not requiring a public hearing may be placed on an agenda for City Council action in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 54954.2.

5.7 Written Staff Reports. Staff reports and/or resolutions shall be prepared if directed by the City Manager or otherwise required by law. In advance of the meeting, copies of the final versions of any such staff report or resolution shall be made available to the City Council, the news media, and persons who have requested