Michele Zack, who contributed the notes about last month's meeting of the West Altadena Project Area Committee which is supervising the development of Lincoln Crossing, shares with us her public comments at last night's meeting. The WAPAC board told the staff to send a letter to the county containing their actual motion this time, rather than something the staff made up. Zack's comments are after the jump.
WAPAC public comment from Michele Zack at August 24, 2009 WAPAC meeting.
I am very disturbed that the wording of the motion passed by WAPAC at its June meeting was changed — so that it had the opposite meaning to what was intended.Our motion was to support WAD-C’s separation from Dorn Platz so that it could seek a solvent developer to move forward with on Phase Two.
The meeting report summary documents that this was the wording of our motion.The WAPAC letter sent to the CDC does not reflect this meaning. It was highly improper for the secretary, perhaps under the chair’s direction, to change the language so that it looked like the PAC’s motion supported WAD-C’s desire to withdraw from Lincoln Crossing. We didn’t say that and we didn’t mean that.
If WAD-C withdrew from ALC, that would leave Dorn Platz as ALC. Our intention was, after years of mismanagement and hearing the CDC’s own laundry list of Dorn-Platz’s many defaults and improprieties, to try to unburden our community of this particular developer so that WAD-C could find a new and solvent partner.
I was surprised last month (at WAPAC’s July meeting) when this letter was read, and its meaning took a while to sink in — although I and others pointed out the change of language and meaning was improper. The chair’s comment that our motion “was impossible” and Matt Abney’s contention that “He knew what we meant to say” have had the effect of further confusing people, and further undermining public trust in this development and the public officials responsible. It is a good thing the whole meeting was captured on video tape, because, frankly, it is hard to believe that it happened.
Upon looking through the DDA, Section G, bottom of page 7, it seems clear that our motion made perfect sense, and in fact there was provision made for just such an action if a developer proved financially or otherwise unable to continue.“...if Developer does not elect to proceed with each Phase of the Project with certain time periods, [Dorn Platz has exhausted all time extensions] WADC has the option to require that Developer convey to WADC all of its remaining rights under this agreement to develop the then undeveloped Phases of the Project. If WADC exercises its option to acquire such development rights, the Commission hereby agrees to such assignment of rights…”
This action is what the WAPAC was asking the CDC to support. To construe our motion to have any other meaning, and in fact to twist our words so that they appear to have the opposite meaning to what we intended is at the very least disingenuous; it raises serious questions about the motivations of the WAPAC officers who drafted the letter.I would therefore ask the WAPAC to send in a letter to the CDC that reflects the intent of our motion passed at the June meeting, and to retract the letter that distorts it.
