1 * Time is approximate. Closed Session shall begin upon conclusion of the Study Session.
B0785-0001\3069478v1.doc
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
City Hall
City Council Chamber and Room 280B
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Public Comment Participation:
In-person in City Council Chamber
or by calling (310) 288-2288
or by email at [email protected]
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
February 5, 2025
3:30 p.m.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
1. Property: Wilshire Boulevard from forty (40) east of the intersection with South El Camino Drive to the
western border of Wilshire/Crescent intersection
City Negotiator: Nancy Hunt-Coffey, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (“Metro”)
Under negotiation:
Price
Terms of Payment
x Both
The City is negotiating a license agreement for Metro to occupy and close Wilshire Boulevard from forty (40) east of the intersection with South El Camino Drive to the western border of Wilshire/Crescent intersection for three (3) consecutive weeks. Metro currently has a contractual right to occupy the same area and close Wilshire Boulevard for eighteen (18) consecutive weekends.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation. 2 B0785-0001\3069478v1.doc
Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case:
1. Jasmine Williams, et al. v. City of Beverly Hills, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV31949
This litigation concerns an allegation of racial profiling by the Beverly Hills Police Department.
2. Ian Greene, et al. v. City of Beverly Hills, et al., United States District Court Case No. 24-cv-05916-MRA-AS
This litigation concerns an allegation of racial profiling by the Beverly Hills Police Department.
3. DuPont Clinic, PC, et al. v. City of Beverly Hills, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV24271
This litigation concerns allegations related to an alleged interference with the lease.
4. Californians For Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24STCP02082
This litigation concerns a challenge to the City’s determination that the application for 125-129 S. Linden drive was incomplete.
5. 9300 Wilshire, LLC v. City of Beverly Hills, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24STCP02964
This litigation concerns a challenge to the City’s determination that the application for 125-129 S. Linden drive was incomplete.