City Council members’ closed-session decision to swap out the development firms set to upgrade a portion of Whittier’s Uptown area has sparked backlash among community members, who’ve claimed a lack of transparency amid enduring worries over the removal of trees in neighboring areas.
City officials maintain they complied with city codes and state rules, but an expert on open-meeting laws said the city may have overstepped in taking the decision behind closed doors.
The action came during a particularly tenuous time for the city, with many in town still fraught over the embattled decision to remove dozens of trees in Uptown, prompted by a development plan aimed at revitalizing the area.
Some raised concern over why the switch needed to be made in the first place, though city officials maintained that one of the developers, Thomas Safran & Associates, asked to be excused because of an ailing key member of its team, not because of its links to a Los Angeles official facing criminal charges.
Safran & Associates and Gentefy were selected in the spring of 2022 to develop 344 new affordable housing units in Uptown North sites, including the 3.4-acre Alpha Beta property at 12813 Bailey Street — a key property in the city’s stated goals for more affordable housing, according to city officials.
On Sept. 10, council members met in a closed session to reassign developmental duties of the sites to new groups, Jamboree Housing Corporation and City Ventures. The new housing development groups specialize in affordable housing in California.
Although Whittier entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Thomas Safran & Associates, in March 2022, the multifamily development firm asked to be taken off the project in May, officials said.
Because of Thomas Safran’s “very severe significant health issues,” they were removed from the project, City Manager Brian Saeki said.
But that removal has prompted questions among local groups and residents, already upset over the City Council’s decision to move forward with an upgrade project on Greenleaf Avenue, which will require the removal of dozens of ficus trees.
There was a public bidding process to decide the initial firm to take on the project, however this time the City Council decided to make their selection of firms in a closed session, then they voted to officially reassign development duties in the open session at the Sept. 10 meeting, a process that Saeki said was legal.
Saeki explained that part of the discussions as city council to replace the firms needed to be done privately in order to not “reveal their hand,” referring to the negotiation process.
Saeki said officials chose Jamboree based on a recommendation from the other firm initially on the project, City Ventures.
“Jamboree is a nonprofit affordable housing developer, and is very familiar with developing affordable housing in California, especially Southern California,” Saeki said.
Jamboree projects in the pipeline include supportive housing in cities such as Long Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Claremont and Santa Ana, among others, according to its website.
“We’re grateful to have been selected as the affordable housing development partners by the City of Whittier,” said Kelsey Brewer, vice president of Business Development at Jamboree Housing Corporation. “Jamboree is committed to being a good community partner and neighbor, as we look forward to engaging with the community about their concerns and ideas as we shape what this future affordable housing community will look like.”
Some are worried about what they said was a lack of transparency over the switch.
“We need to publicly ask why this developer consortium backed out,” said Mary Gorman-Sullens, president of the Whittier Conservancy. “We would like to know how the new developer was chosen.”
She was concerned about the public being left out of decisions that impact local residents.
Conny McCormack, a Whittier resident, found it suspicious that the city selected the developer in closed session, rather than bring the decision to the public.
“The “big picture” becomes clearer every day,” McCormack wrote in a letter to the Whittier City Council, comparing the upcoming Alpha Beta development to that of “The Groves” project, where she said more than 500 mature trees were removed to build 500 new homes, 200 apartments, along with eateries and other storefronts.
“Whittier residents understand what’s going on. We the People are United and will NOT allow OUR trees to be sacrificed!” she concluded in her letter.
McCormack voiced concern that the developers on the Alpha Beta project will impact the upcoming Greenleaf Promenade project, which will remove dozens of trees from Uptown Whittier.
The Greenleaf project spans three blocks of Uptown Whittier, from Hadley Street to Wardman Street. Business owners in the area are generally supportive of the project, which focuses on the upgrades that the plan would bring, including outdoor dining, lighting, security and sidewalk repairs.
But critics have lamented the fact that many ficus trees will be removed because of the project – trees which many say have come to define the area and provide significant shade.
The Whittier City Council decided in August to move forward with plans to remove the trees, despite significant opposition from residents and preservation groups.
It’s headed to its construction phase.
While the Greenleaf project does not have a developer team yet, McCormack worried that developers will inevitably collaborate, which would put more trees at risk, since the construction sites are relatively close to each other. They might favor “clear-cutting,” where a majority of trees are removed from a defined construction area.
“The Greenleaf Promenade and this project are two very different projects,” Saeki said.
The Alpha Beta site is on the west side of Comstock Avenue, and the other sites are not directly on Greenleaf, where many of Whittier’s ficus trees reside.
The former Alpha Beta grocery store’s 3.4 acres was acquired by the city in April 2000. Originally, the city imagined using the property to make a library. However, they were declined funding by the state in 2003. Since then, only the parking lot on the property has been operational.
The property looked like it was moving toward development in 2022 when the city partnered with Thomas Safran & Associates.
Last summer, Thomas Safran & Associates was named in a criminal complaint filed by the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office, as one of three developers that paid L.A. City Councilmember Curren Price in an alleged conflict-of-interest case against Price.
Price, who represents the city of L.A’s 9th District, encompassing neighborhoods of South L.A., has pleaded not guilty to charges of embezzlement, perjury and conflict of interest in connection with the case.
Representatives from Safran’s office did not return calls seeking comment.
Saeki said that the litigation had nothing to do with the firm’s request to be replaced, noting Safran’s health issues.
The City Council was within its legal rights to discuss the project in a closed session, according to Saeki.
The Brown Act, code 54956.8, allows real estate decisions, including negotiations to happen behind closed doors, according to the Whittier City Clerk’s Office.
The provision cited says that a “legislative body of a local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of a real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease.”
But it goes on to say that before a closed session, the legislative body – a city council – “shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiators, the real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate.”
David Synder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the Whittier scenario raises questions.
“It appears that they’re not in compliance with the Brown Act,”he said.
Snyder explained that the council appeared outside of the limited justification they had to hold a closed session, because according to the code the City Clerk cited, the council had the right to discuss negotiations, prices and terms related to real estate deals, not replacing the developer or selecting a new one.
“You can talk about price terms of payment in closed session, but that’s it,” said Snyder.
Although the vote was taken in an open session, the bidding and deliberation around selecting a new developer was done in a closed session. This is out of bounds, according to Snyder.
“The exemption that they’re relying on is very limited,” said Snyder.
The code says that City Council members are permitted to have closed-session meetings with the negotiator, in this case, Jamboree, in regard to negotiating a price as well as terms of payment.
Snyder says this permits the city council members to discuss only price, not selecting the developer without public deliberation.
While the city council members voted in open session to reassign development duties to Jamboree, they initially selected and deliberated the new housing group in a closed session, something not permitted by the specific code the City Clerk cited.
Snyder says that this is a common misunderstanding.
“Unfortunately, I think it’s too often used as a way to bring all discussions about real estate and real estate negotiations behind closed doors,” Snyder said.
The conversations that happened initially happened about changing the developer needed to be brought before the public, Snyder said.
