August 20, 2026
Mayor Nash and Members of the City Council
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Via email to City Clerk and all five Councilmembers
cc: Nira Doherty, City Attorney, City of Menlo Park (in her capacity as
City Attorney)
Re: Non-publication/non-inclusion of the August 7, 2026 written public
comment submitted by Chris Sullivan on behalf of River Landon LLC — Item C1
(Closed Session), G (Public Comment), and J2 (Fees) — August 11, 2026
agenda; notice of intent to demand cure and correct under Government Code §
54960.1
Dear Mayor Nash and Councilmembers,
I write as an associate of River Landon LLC, following up on the written
public comment my colleague Chris Sullivan submitted to this Council and
the City Clerk on August 7, 2026 — more than 72 hours before the August 11,
2026 meeting. That letter addressed the Citys fee and indemnity practices
in light of the California Attorney Generals July 29, 2026 notice to the
City under Government Code § 65914.2, and requested that it be attached to
the correspondence for Item C1 (Closed Session), G, and J2, and made
available for public inspection under Government Code § 54957.5.
I have confirmed that the letter does not appear to have been published,
posted, or otherwise included in the public record for that meeting. I am
writing to give the City an opportunity to correct that before we proceed
further.
1. The legal basis for inclusion
Government Code § 54957.5 requires that any writing which (a) relates to an
agenda item, (b) is distributed to a majority of the members of a
legislative body, and (c) is a public record, be made available for public
inspection without delay. Because the letter was distributed more than 72
hours before the meeting, none of the exceptions for late-distributed
writings apply — it should have been part of the ordinary public record for
that agenda item from the time it was received.
Where a local agency maintains a website and has staff to post such
materials, § 54957.5 requires the writing be posted there as well. If the
Citys practice is to post supplemental public correspondence for other
letters submitted on the same agenda — and my understanding is that it is —
then omitting this one while including others is not a neutral
administrative gap. Public comment on an agenda item is a forum the City
has opened to the public, and while the City may apply reasonable,
content-neutral rules to that forum, it may not exclude a specific
submission because of its viewpoint or because of the conduct it discusses.
The August 7 letter contains no profanity, no personal attack, and nothing
outside the subject matter of the agenda items it was submitted under. If
it was excluded while comparable correspondence was posted, I ask the City
to identify, in writing, the basis for that distinction.
Separately, under the California Public Records Act, correspondence
submitted to the Council on a matter of public business becomes a public
record on receipt, subject to disclosure and to whatever posting policy the
City applies consistently to correspondence of that kind.
2. What we are asking the Council to do, and by when
We ask that the Council direct the City Clerk, no later than August 25,
2026, to:
1. Publish and post the August 7, 2026 letter and its attachment in the
same location(s) where correspondence for the August 11, 2026 meeting was
made public, retroactively, noting the original submission date;
2. Include the letter in the record for the Councils next regular meeting,
currently scheduled for August 25, 2026 (no agenda has been published for
that meeting as of this writing), at whichever item(s) correspond to Item
C1 (Closed Session), G, or J2 from the August 11 agenda, or their
substantive equivalents;
3. Provide a written explanation of why the letter was not included with
the correspondence for the August 11 meeting; and
4. Confirm in writing that, going forward, timely written public comment on
agenda items will be posted on the same basis as other correspondence the
City makes public, regardless of viewpoint or subject.
3. Notice of intent to demand cure and correct
This letter is intended to give the City an opportunity to resolve this
informally in the first instance. If the City does not take the corrective
action described above, or does not provide a written explanation adequate
to show that no violation occurred, we intend to submit a formal demand to
cure and correct under Government Code § 54960.1. We are raising that now,
rather than after the fact, so the City has a clear opportunity to address
the matter without further escalation.
We would appreciate written confirmation from the City Clerk that this
letter has been received, and a substantive response to items 1–4 above no
later than August 25, 2026.
Respectfully,
Carmen Vila
