Glendora council votes to join Supreme Court amicus brief and approves $15,000 retention bonus

Glendora City Council · November 17, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

In closed session the Glendora City Council approved joining an amicus curiae brief in Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach and authorized a $15,000 retention bonus for the city manager; both actions were reported out and approved unanimously.

The Glendora City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 12 to join as amicus curiae in a petition for review to the California Supreme Court in Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (case No. B336042) and authorized a one‑time $15,000 retention bonus for the city manager.

City Attorney Jamie reported out after the closed session that the council had reviewed three items: a public‑employee performance evaluation, labor negotiations related to the city manager, and the newly added urgency item concerning whether the city should join the friend‑of‑the‑court brief. "The city council approved a 5‑0 vote to join that friend of the brief action," Jamie said during the report out. The attorney also said a future contract amendment related to the city manager would be brought to a regular agenda and that the bonus had been approved.

The closed session had been added at the start of the meeting as an urgency item; Mayor David Friedendahl asked for the addition and the motion to include it was made and seconded during the opening business. Councilmembers did not debate the reportable outcomes at length during the public meeting. The council also reported there was no reportable action on the city manager’s evaluation beyond the personnel steps described.

The amicus decision and the personnel direction were taken under the authority cited during the closed session notice (government code sections referenced in the meeting for closed‑session authority). The council did not provide additional written analysis in the public meeting about the legal reasoning for joining the amicus brief; the transcript records only the council’s vote and the case name.