*Submitted pursuant to California Government Code §§ 65589.5 (Housing
Accountability Act) and § 65852.21 (SB9 Ministerial Approval Requirement)
for State Review and Enforcement*
------------------------------
*To Whom It May Concern,*
This is a formal complaint regarding the City of Menlo Park’s ongoing
obstruction, mismanagement by Public Works department that are now over 30
days on their 2nd review and that directly affects a valid SB9 two-lot
subdivision located at 12 Maywood Lane, Menlo Park, CA 94025. A waste of
time&money for the applicant and delays on producing much needed housing.
Despite written communications to the City Council, City Manager and
Manager of Public Works have remained silent and failed to take any action
or provide a substantive response. This silence highlights a failure of
management oversight and the City’s inability to address employee-level
incompetence and procedural abuse within its department.
The 12 Maywood Ln Menlo Park SB9 application is currently in its second
review cycle, with the statutory 30-day review period under Gov. Code §
65852.21 (SB9) that expired on *October 22, 2025*. However, the incompetent
Public Works Department now claims it needs until *October 30, 2025 *to
provide “additional comments,” even though no substantive comments remain
from the prior review, which itself took fewer than 30 days. From its 2nd
resubmission the engineering corrections requested by PW took us less than
a day to fix them but will take the city 5 weeks to review them. Just to
put in perspective how messed up this city is. To show how incompetent PW
department staff is they have asked applicants to provide hydrology
calculations on a SB9 lot split on which those calcs will be only required
at the time of deciding what type of house will be placed on each lot. A
waste of time.
This continued delay reflects incompetence and mismanagement within Public
Works Department, including their internal engineering staff and outside
hired city consultants. The City continues to waste valuable time, taxpayer
resources, and applicant expenses on redundant and baseless review
cycles—contrary to the ministerial, by-right process required under SB9.
This pattern of conflicting guidance, arbitrary technical demands, and
management silence constitutes a bad-faith delay and clear violation of:
-
The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), and
-
SB9’s ministerial approval requirement (Gov. Code § 65852.21).
The City’s leadership has been silent—by refusing to intervene or provide
direction—has enabled a culture of delay, inefficiency, and disregard for
State housing mandates, effectively undermining the objectives of SB9 and
the State’s broader housing-accountability framework.
I respectfully request that the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), in coordination with the Attorney General’s
Housing Strike Force and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR), initiate a formal investigation into the City of Menlo Park’s
conduct and require corrective action to ensure compliance with State
housing laws.
Supporting documentation, including emails, submittal receipts, and
correspondence logs, can be provided upon request.
Thank you for your attention and oversight.
Sincerely,
Mircea Voskerician
Applicant / Owner — 12 Maywood LLC
12 Maywood Ln. Menlo Park, CA
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 4:05 PM Mircea
wrote:
> Dear City Council Members and City Manager,
>
> This is a complaint regarding *Edress **Rangeen *a Associate Engineer for
> city of Menlo Park. His (or the City’s 3rd party consultant’s) review
> comments on our *SB9 two-lot subdivision* are *irrelevant*—we were asked
> for hydrology calculations, which are performed during the Building Permit
> phase when a house design is proposed, not at Final Parcel Map.
>
> This is an example of a City of Menlo Park employee *wasting time* on an *SB9
> Final Parcel Map* that is now on *second submittal/review*:
>
> -
>
> *First submittal:* Planning and Transportation had *zero comments*;
> Public Works had only *minor civil engineering adjustments*. That
> review took *no more than 30 days* and had *no major comments*.
> -
>
> *Second submittal:* Filed *9/22/25*. This review cannot exceed 30
> days, yet Edress says he needs more time with excuses when a 2nd review
> takes Less time then 1st submission.
> -
>
> *Project status:* The 12 Maywood Ln structure has been demolished, the
> demo permit is closed, Planning and Transportation are on track to sign off
> tomorrow 10/16/25 (Per Accella) and we are ready to route Mylar for
> signatures and proceed with recording of the Final Parcel Map awaiting PW
> approval.
> -
>
> This "red tape" employee attitude and waste of time needs to stop now.
>
> *Conclusion/Next Steps:* PW must complete their Approval no later then
> 10/22/25, 30 days from submission. No more "new" comments; all 1st
> submission civil engineering comments have been fully addressed.
>
> *Paul*—for your awareness: this reflects how City of Menlo Park
> leadership are allowing this type of employee conduct, which directly
> impedes creation of much needed housing. Please also look at the SB9
> approval track record in Menlo Park.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mircea Voskerician
> Owner/Applicant — 12 Maywood Ln
> Phone: 650-996-1114
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 7:13 PM Mircea wrote:
>
>> Edress,
>>
>> This is incorrect. All of your Public Works comments and the
>> corresponding response letter from the first submission were fully
>> addressed and resubmitted on *September 22, 2025*. That is the package
>> your current comments are based on — no new issues have been raised since
>> then.
>>
>> The *Final Parcel Map consists of two pages*, and it is complete. It
>> does NOT take 30 days on a 2nd review on a simple SB9 parcel map . Some of
>> your comments/questions from last review were irrelevant, especially on
>> hydrology calculations which are unnecessary for a subdivision. This is how
>> you waste our time. We are *not waiting until October 30, 2025* for
>> approval. If that remains your position, we will escalate this matter
>> directly to *City Council, City Manager and City Attorneys office* and *Paul
>> McDougal at HCD* tomorrow for unnecessary and unjustified city delays on
>> much-needed housing delivery.
>>
>> We are *not expecting new comments — only approval. *Your prior review
>> comments were minimal and have been fully addressed by L&B. Just to be
>> absolutely clear, we consider this ready for signature and recording.
>>
>> Please confirm *by tomorrow 11AM* that the approval is proceeding
>> without further delay and complete our approval no later than 10/22/25. No
>> excuses.I do not want to hear about other projects. Hire more people. That
>> is the answer.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mircea
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 5:09 PM Edress Rangeen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mircea,
>>>
>>> The parcel map was submitted to the Planning Division on October 2,
>>> 2025, per the attached email. Please note the City was closed on October 3.
>>> The Engineering Division was updated on October 6, and the map was sent to
>>> our third-party consultant for review. The current estimated completion
>>> date is October 30 for this map, as we and our consultant are managing
>>> several active projects in the queue. You will receive the comments once
>>> the review is complete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your understanding.
>>>
>>> Edress
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Edress Rangeen*
>>> Associate Engineer
>>> City Hall - 1st Floor
>>> 701 Laurel St.
>>> tel 650-330-6712
>>> menlopark.gov
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mircea
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 14, 2025 10:23 AM
>>> *To:* Edress Rangeen
>>> *Cc:* Ebby Sohrabi ; alon danino <
>>> alondn@gmail.com>; Alex Henson ; Jim Toby <
>>> jtoby@leabraze.com>; Anthony Gautille
>>> *Subject:* 12 Maywood Ln -SB9- SUB2025-00001 PW Review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Edress,
>>>
>>> My name is *Mircea Voskerician*, and I am the *property owner and
>>> applicant* for this SB9 subdivision. We are currently in the *second
>>> review cycle*, which was *submitted on September 22, 2025*. I
>>> understand that *Planning and Transportation* are scheduled to complete
>>> their review by *October 16, 2025*.They had zero comments on the 1st
>>> review. However, I noticed that your current Accella target completion date
>>> is listed as *October 30, 2025*, which is totally not acceptable. A
>>> second-round review, especially when all prior comments have been resolved,
>>> should reasonably take *no more than 2–3 weeks*—well within the City’s
>>> typical 30-day review window.
>>>
>>> It’s my understanding that you have been in communication with our civil
>>> engineer from L&B, *Alex Hanson*, regarding the Public Works comments
>>> from the first review and all such comments have now been *fully
>>> addressed* in the current submittal from 9/22/25. We are not dealing
>>> with hydrology calculations because nobody knows where the house will be
>>> located on the lot, those are handled during the BP process. Never heard in
>>> 15 years a demand from a city on hydrology calcs on a subdivision.
>>>
>>> Please confirm *today* what the plan is to complete this review, so
>>> that we can maintain project timelines. If necessary, we will *escalate
>>> the matter* to the *City Manager and City Council* tomorrow to ensure
>>> timely processing of this SB9 application.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your prompt attention.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> *Mircea Voskerician*
>>> Property Owner / Applicant
>>> 📞 650-996-1114
>>>
>>