2.35PM Friday August 7th 2026 - more than 72 hours before City Council
meeting
Dear Mayor Nash and Councilmembers,
I respectfully submit this written comment in connection with Items
-Closed Session,
-G Public Comment and
-J2 - fees
on the August 11th 2026 agenda, and request that it be included with the
correspondence for that item and made available for public inspection
pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5. This letter is being transmitted
simultaneously to all five members of the City Council and copied to the
City Clerk.
I am describe a housing applicant in another California jurisdiction and I
am a member of the public who has reviewed the Attorney Generals July 29,
2026 notice to the City. I am not asking the Council to take up my own
project or any matter outside its jurisdiction. I am raising a question
about Menlo Parks own practices, arising from a document the Attorney
General addressed to the City Attorney of Menlo Park - said Nira Doherty.
1. The anchor fact
On July 29, 2026, the California Attorney General issued a notice to the
City regarding 80 Willow Road under Government Code § 65914.2. As I read
that notice, the Attorney General made findings that go beyond the merits
of one application and reach the Citys *processing practices*, including:
- that the City required the applicant to pay City attorney fees during
project review, before any litigation was filed;
- that the Citys master fee schedule did not disclose hourly
project-counsel fees;
- that those fees appeared to support successive determinations resting
on strained interpretations of state law rather than neutral compliance
review;
- that the Citys fee-shifting and indemnity practice implicated §
65914.2, which prohibits requiring an applicant to indemnify, defend, or
hold harmless the agency against claims that the agency violated
housing-reform law; and
- that the City was directed to cease requiring such payment.
Those are the Attorney Generals conclusions, not mine. They are directed
at Menlo Park, and they concern practices the Council and its City
Attorney specifically— not staff, and not outside counsel — sets policy for.
2. Why I am raising it here
I have reviewed the same practices as they appear in a second California
jurisdiction that has been advised by the same outside municipal-housing
counsel. The comparison is attached. I want to be precise about what it
does and does not establish:
- It is a *comparative analysis*, not an accusation of wrongdoing by any
individual, and it labels each entry as direct evidence,
applicant-reported, or inference.
- The items relevant to this Council are the ones grounded in the
Attorney Generals own findings about Menlo Park.
- I make no request that this Council evaluate another citys conduct,
and nothing here asks the Council to reach any conclusion about any
individual attorney.
The reason the comparison matters to Menlo Park is narrow and practical: if
a fee-and-indemnity practice the Attorney General has directed this City to
stop is a *template* rather than a one-off response to one project, then
correcting it requires a policy change, not just a change in one file.
3. Requested Council action
I ask that the Council consider directing the City Manager to return with:
1. *A public compliance report* confirming what steps the City has taken
in response to the Attorney Generals July 29, 2026 notice, and
specifically whether the City has ceased requiring housing applicants to
pay project-counsel fees during application review.
2. *A written policy* stating that the City will not require, request,
or condition the processing or acceptance of a housing application on an
applicants execution of any indemnity, defense, or hold-harmless provision
covering claims that the City violated housing-reform law, consistent with
§ 65914.2.
3. *Fee-schedule disclosure.* An amendment to the master fee schedule to
disclose hourly project-counsel rates and the circumstances under which
such charges may be assessed to an applicant, so that applicants can see
the cost before it is incurred.
4. *An accounting.* A report of outside legal and consultant costs
charged or proposed to be charged to housing applicants during application
review for the past three fiscal years, presented at a regular meeting.
These are policy questions squarely within the Councils authority. None
requires the Council to take a position on any pending or threatened
litigation.
4. Procedural requests
- Please include this letter, and the attachment, with the
correspondence for
-Items-Closed Session,
-G Public Comment and
-J2 - fees
- If the City takes the position that this letter is not properly
attached to that item, I ask that it nonetheless be retained as a writing
distributed to a majority of the legislative body in connection with a
matter subject to consideration at an open meeting, and made available for
public inspection under § 54957.5.
- I would appreciate written confirmation from the City Clerk that the
letter has been received and included.
- I would welcome any Councilmember filing a City Councilmember Agenda
Item Request Form so the Council can discuss items 1–4 above under "City
Council Initiated Items."
Of course, it can be readily recognized that these acts are unlawful, as
per the Attorney Generals analysis.
Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to comment.
Respectfully,
Chris Sullivan for River Landon LLC
*Attachment:* Comparative analysis of municipal housing-application
processing practices (Menlo Park and one other California jurisdiction),
