1 * Time is approximate. Closed Session shall begin upon conclusion of the Study Session.
B0785-0001\3288459v1.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
September 1, 2026
2:30 p.m.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
1. Property: 348 North Foothill Road
City Negotiator: Ryan Gohlich, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Miller-DM, Inc.
Jones BH M Acquisition, LLC
Under negotiation:
Price
Terms of Payment
x Both
The City, as licensor, is considering the terms of a proposed license agreement amendment for assignment of 348 North Foothill Road.
2. Property: 327-335 South Robertson Boulevard
City Negotiator: Ryan Gohlich, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Robertson Sunflower LLC
Under negotiation:
Price
Terms of Payment
x Both
The City, as owner of 327-335 South Robertson Boulevard, is considering the terms of an Option to Ground Lease agreement.
2 B0785-0001\3288459v1.doc
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.
Anticipation of Litigation
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (d)(3):
Number of Cases: 2
1. The City has received correspondence threatening litigation regarding its short-term rental ordinance. A copy of the correspondence is available in the City Clerk’s office.
2. The City has received correspondence threatening litigation regarding its SB79 Alternative Plan. A copy of the correspondence is available in the City Clerk’s office.
Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case:
1. Guiragos Gagossian v. City of Beverly Hills, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV33732
This litigation concerns a trip and fall accident involving a tree well on a City sidewalk.
2. Gayle Liner v. City of Beverly Hills, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25SMCV04693
This litigation concerns a trip and fall accident on a City sidewalk.
3. Hassan Hashemi v. City of Beverly Hills; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25SMCV02476
This litigation concerns a cyclist accident involving a pothole on a City street.
4. Bahareh Saedi v. City of Beverly Hills, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26SMCV03751
This litigation concerns a motor vehicle collision involving a city-owned vehicle.
5. City of Whittier, et al. v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP03579 3 B0785-0001\3288459v1.doc
This litigation concerns a challenge to the zero bail schedule for the County of Los Angeles.
6. Terence May v. Leslie Medina; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26STRO01439 This litigation concerns alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
7. 8800 Wilshire Associates, LP v. City of Beverly Hills, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25 STCP01129
This litigation concerns a challenge to the City’s determination that the Builder’s Remedy development application for this property was lost due to a change to the square footage.
8. 8820 Wilshire Associates, LP v. City of Beverly Hills, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. STCP01131
This litigation concerns a challenge to the City’s determination that the Builder’s Remedy development application for this property was lost due to a change to the square footage.
9. California Housing Defense Fund, et al., v. City of Beverly Hills; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25STCP01665
This litigation concerns a challenge to the City’s determination that the Builder’s Remedy development application for the property at 8800 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills was lost due to a change to the square footage.
10. California Housing Defense Fund, et al., v. City of Beverly Hills; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25STCP00260
This litigation concerns a challenge to the City’s determination that the Builder’s Remedy development application for the property at 8820 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills was lost due to a change to the square footage.