Court throws out city's letter to rail authority Other Topics, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:23 pm
In a ruling that Menlo Park Councilman Rich Cline called "kind of a stomach punch," a California Superior Court judge has denied a motion to include a comment letter from the city as part of the administrative record in a lawsuit against the High-Speed Rail Authority.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, April 2, 2009, 5:41 PM
Posted by an observer, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 11:27 pm
In private practice, managers would well be fired on the spot for a screw up like this. There is simply no excuse for not properly certifying mail and getting fax receipts when dealing with legal matters. There are some in the City, who think some staff members are actually out to sabotage the City Council's decision on High Speed Rail. I don't yet hold to that conviction, but this sure is a very very strange event.
Comment letters to the scoping of the Project level EIR are due April 6th. The City had better make sure they have learned how to send out documents, and be able to prove they were sent.
Posted by please certify, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 8:53 am
Both the city management and city attorney should be held responsible for ensuring critical transmittals like the comments are handled appropriately. This is a ridiculous error that could have been avoided with due care.
Unlike some others, I do not think it warrants dropping out of the effort to protect Menlo Park's interests. But please, City, be more careful and certify important correspondence. And, please, Council, do not approve bonuses for those who didn't do their full job.
Posted by An Observer, a resident of another community, on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:43 am
Is menlo park sending out scoping comments this time? I thought that because there were suing, they were opting out of the process? Not that it matters, all the issues will be covered by Palo Alto and every other city.
Posted by Something smells, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:19 pm
A Fax, once sent from an office, has a confirmation stamp with a date, fax number of recipient and number of pages. Is is possible that both the US MAil and the Fax machine failed? In a law firm, such a screw up would be considered a serious error.
Is it time for our City Manager to shake things up? All this bowing to Staff has become silly.
Posted by Wake up, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 4:55 pm
You need to grow up. Disagreeing with you and the stand of a few on the peninsula, does not make them "sock puppets". You need to realize people actally like and voted for the HSR project that are everyday citizens.
Posted by Don, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 6:42 am
Wake up, Perhaps my comment was a little childish (although "woo hoo!!!" beats me by a mile), and maybe Patrick really is a local HSR supporter. If so, I apologize. But if he's a sock puppet, I say, Please, go away, and leave this discussion to those of us concerned with how the details of this project will impact our cities. If you've followed these threads in the past, you'd be tired, too, of the posts by sock puppets from elsewhere whose comments reveal they know nothing of our communities.
That said, whether you think HSR is a good idea or bad one, I think we all agree that this (probably) inevitable project should be done with as little impact as possible to our residential communities and the cohesiveness of our towns. Bureaucracies often ignore those little details, and locals need to participate in the process. Serious discussion is needed, and interference from sock puppets trying to manipulate the discussion is not welcome.
Posted by Menlo Park Neighbor, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 9:10 pm
While the lack of diligence by our city management is certainly disconcerting, the "missing letter" is just the "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to this group's incompetence. Just drive along El Camino and take a look at how our city has been dealing with maintaining the desirability of Menlo Park. It looks like the poster child for urban blight with all the abandoned car dealerships, and of course, there's the boarded up theater (how many years has it been now?). And now there are more vacant store fronts and restaurants along Santa Cruz Avenue. What, exactly are these people doing for Menlo Park any way? Sooner or later residents are going to start questioning why they're paying a minimum of $1 million to buy a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house with a little yard in a place that is becoming run down. Too bad the HSR won't be stopping in Menlo Park. If it was, the city council could get on it and not come back. But wait, they probably wouldn't be able to find their train ticket, though they would claim to have bought it.
Posted by what people?, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Menlo Park Neighbor,
Are you talking about the staff or the Council?
Staff definitely should take some lumps and IMO some punishment.
However, El Camino and downtown started to deteriorate before the current council, including closed car dealerships and defaced theater. Recent economic conditions have made things worse. At least this Council has had the strength to fund a vision and implementation plan that is now underway. Staff recommended starting these in the past, and prior councils (plural) did not support doing so.
Posted by Roxie, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 8:57 am
I think people are being a littel hard on city staff. If the council had approved the letter on Sept 18, 2007 as staff had requested they would have had time to send it properly. Instead, according to the minutes of the 9/18/2007 City Council Meeting, the council (except for Councilman Boyle, who thought the letter was sufficient) insisted on last minute changes and would not approve the letter until the Sept 25th meeting. Since the letter was due by Sept 28, and the Council meetings do not end until after 10pm, the staff was put on a pretty tight deadline. Maybe the Council should have considered this on 9/18.
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Apr 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
A couple of comments/observations. First, since the article quotes Mr. Rojas as saying that exclusion of the letter wasn't expected to negatively affect the City's position in the suit because other similar comments were made by the other parties, including Atherton, that tells us, I think, that Atherton sent a similar letter and did so properly. Kudos to their staff/legal counsel. Second, personally I am concerned that when a judge rules to disqualify evidence in a pending case, it often is an indicator as to where the judges head is at on the merits of the case.
Posted by Morris Brown, a resident of the Menlo Park: Park Forest neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Let me try to shed more light on this issue.
The City claimed that the letter had been faxed and also hard copies had been sent to the Authority. The City was unable to produce paper evidence (such as a FAX receipt, phone record of the fax, certified mail receipt) that the letter had actually been sent.
The City only had the signed statement by a City staff member, who stated she remembered sending the FAX; that ordinarily she would get a FAX receipt and she thought that had been the case. However, the City was unable to produce any receipt. The City last week was searching the phone records, but was as I understand it, unable to find a phone record for the FAX.
The Authority produced signed statements from all of its board members, and its entire Staff, 6 people) all of which stated they had never seen the letter.
It would appear therefore, that most likely the letter never did get sent.
While it is true, that most of the arguments made by Menlo Park were covered in the Atherton letter, which was received and noted, there is quite possibly another issue here.
In a CEQA case, only documents or statements that are made before the cut off date on the EIR are to be considered. Menlo Park now has been ruled by the court to have not made any statements or sent in any documents.
In order to be a plaintiff in a CEQA suit, you must have standing with the court; that is you must have made statements in public comment or sent in comments. Menlo Park, apparently did neither, at least apparently canít prove it did. So there exists the possibility that Menlo Park could be removed from the lawsuit, since it does not have standing with the court.
So the will of the majority of our City Council, that the City join in this lawsuit, could well be denied. In my estimation there should be a full blown investigation of how this happened, and our City Council should take action to get this started at the earliest possible moment.
Posted by In the real majority, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Apr 9, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The "will of the majority of our City Council" in this situation is the will of Council members Fergusson and Cline. Had Council Member Robinson been present, we might assume he also would have voted with Cline and Ferguson. However, it is sad that a decision of this importance can be made by only 2 council members and at the 11th hour.
Yes, the City Manager needs to conduct a thorough investigation as to how this fax and this letter were never sent. 2 separate errors with no explanation equals incompetency.
If the crux of the pending law suit addresses the two routes, it would be interesting to learn what Fergusson and Cline know and think about the differences of these routes. Does anyone think that one route will bypass Menlo Park and Atherton and the other route will not. I understand it's more complicated than that.
Let's not forget that a true majority of MP voters voted for HSR.
Posted by the real shame, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 10, 2009 at 9:00 am
The real shame is that to this day the HSR authority has not provided detailed information about their plans. They cannot possibly conduct a credible (to mere citizens) evaluation of impacts without those details. As residents - yes, voters - learn more about what may happen, it is quite possible that the vote may not have been the same at all. The devil IS in the details.
Posted by Just a number, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Apr 13, 2009 at 3:45 am
Menlo Park has done it again racism and classism in the same breath. Some NIMBY residents have shown their true color for the whole state and the nation to see but, it does not surprise residents in Belle Haven, we have known this forever.
From the CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL BLOG
SUNDAY, APRIL 12, 2009
AN INTERESTING STORY FROM MENLO PARK
For nearly a year now Menlo Park residents have told us that an above-grade structure along the Caltrain ROW is somehow going to destroy their tightly-knit community, unless the CHSRA gives them the tunnel they demand, they'll just have to oppose the whole project in order to ensure their community's very survival.
Those claims have always been overwrought and questionable. And now those claims may be shown to be hypocritical, as a group of Menlo Park residents demand a planned pedestrian bridge be canceled because of concerns it will draw the wrong kind of people - i.e. the poor - to their community:
Why does none of this surprise me? Belle Haven is a part of the city of Menlo Park - but apparently it doesn't quite count as much as the wealthier parts do. In one breath Menlo Park residents say they don't want transportation infrastructure to divide their city. In the next breath they say that's exactly what they want - gotta keep the poor, presumed by some Menlo Park residents to be carriers of crime, out!
I find it difficult to take Menlo Park's concerns about HSR seriously when so many of their residents are actively trying to keep other members of their out of their neighborhoods.
Posted by truth, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Apr 13, 2009 at 9:31 am
I live in Belle Haven buddy. I have been posting here for years. The two items are in no way connected unless you are yet another greedy HSR flack. And you claiming to a rep of my community is laughable.
Council approved the litigation against your precious rail and council has not approved taking down the ped bridge.
You and your buddies at HSR can try to scheme and lie your way through this, as you have above tried to insinuate that Menlo Park is behind this move.
We will deal with our ped bridge. Mind your own business.
Posted by cynic, a resident of the Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks neighborhood, on Apr 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm
CHSRA must have the same mail carrier as Lee Duboc.
I'm not sure what spending $5 million on a bridge has to do with HSR, except that both represent ridiculously large sums of money and make me wonder if our public servants are paying any attention to the value received per dollar spent.