Justin and Nira-
This correspondence serves as formal notice of the City of Menlo Park’s
failure to comply with its statutory and procedural obligations, including
but not limited to:
(1) failure to respond to a pending fee protest and request for legal
justification within the required timeframe;
(2) failure to respond to a duly submitted California Public Records Act
(“CPRA”) request; and
(3) continued obstruction of recordation of a Final Parcel Map without
lawful basis.
1. Failure to Respond to Fee Protest and Request for Legal Basis
More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since we formally requested a
written explanation and legal justification for the City’s demand for
$127,400 in Recreation In-Lieu (Quimby) Fees, as well as the so-called
“Queen Bee” fees, in connection with an SB9 subdivision which applicant
Protests.
To date, no written response has been provided.
As you are aware, Government Code §§ 66001 and 66006 require that local
agencies timely justify development impact fees with specific findings and
legal authority. The City’s continued silence constitutes a failure to
discharge its statutory duty and is not cured by delay.
Further, the City’s fee position appears to be directly inconsistent with
HCD’s written guidance and conclusions regarding SB9, which the City has
neither rebutted nor addressed in writing. If the City contends that it may
lawfully impose these fees notwithstanding SB9 and HCD’s interpretation, it
is obligated to state that position clearly, cite the specific legal
authority relied upon, and explain its reasoning.
Absent such written justification, the City’s continued insistence on these
fees is arbitrary, unsupported, and unlawful.
2. California Public Records Act – Failure to Respond
The City is also in *clear violation of the California Public Records Act
(Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.)*.
We submitted a CPRA request seeking all SB9 applications and related fee
information submitted since January 1, 2022, the effective date of SB9. The
statutory deadline for determination and production expired yesterday. No
records, no written determination, and no lawful extension notice have been
provided.
This failure constitutes a violation of the CPRA, exposing the City to
mandatory attorney’s fees and costs under Government Code § 6259 should
court intervention be required.
3. Improper Delay of Final Parcel Map Recordation
The *Final Parcel Map signed by the city surveyor was delivered to the city
of Mnlo Park on January 13, 2026*, and remains unrecorded solely due to the
City’s refusal to complete final Public Works execution, notwithstanding
the absence of any lawful condition precedent.
The City may not condition recordation on payment of disputed, unlawful, or
unsubstantiated fees, nor may it use administrative delay as leverage to
compel payment. Such conduct constitutes improper coercion and abuse of
discretion.
Demand
Accordingly, we hereby demand the following immediately and without further
delay:
1.
*Written legal justification*, including specific statutory authority
and findings, supporting the imposition of the Quimby fees on this SB9
subdivision;
2.
*Immediate compliance with the CPRA request*, or a legally sufficient
written response stating the precise basis for any claimed exemption;
3.
*Confirmation of the status and timing* for final execution by Guan
Huan Fu (Public Works) of the Final Parcel Map.
If the City fails to respond promptly and substantively to this notice, we
will proceed to seek judicial relief without further notice, including but
not limited to writ relief, declaratory relief, CPRA enforcement, and
recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.
This letter is sent without waiver of any rights, remedies, or claims, all
of which are expressly reserved.
Regards,
*Mircea Voskerician*
12 Maywood LLC
Partner / Owner
On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 7:54 PM Mircea
wrote:
> Justin and City Council Members,
>
> I am Mircea Voskerician, the property owner and applicant for 12 Maywood
> Lane, Menlo Park, California, which has been approved as a two-lot urban
> lot split pursuant to Government Code § 66411.7 (SB 9) and is now ready for *Final
> Parcel Map recordation*.
>
> The City of Menlo Park is currently conditioning recordation of the Final
> Map on payment of a *$127,400 Recreation In-Lieu (Quimby) Fee*. This
> condition is *unlawful and preempted by state law*.
>
> As confirmed by the *California Department of Housing and Community
> Development (HCD)* in its *July 11, 2024 Letter of Technical Assistance
> to the City of Menlo Park (Attached)*, the City *may not impose Quimby or
> recreation in-lieu fees as a condition of approval for an SB 9 urban lot
> split.* HCD expressly determined that such fees constitute a *requirement
> for off-site improvements*, which are *prohibited under SB 9*.
>
> HCD’s conclusion is unequivocal: because Quimby fees are authorized solely
> for the purpose of funding off-site park and recreational improvements,
> their imposition *directly violates Government Code § 66411.7(b)(3)*,
> which bars local agencies from requiring dedications, exactions, or
> off-site improvements as a condition of approving or recording an SB 9
> parcel map.
>
> HCD further advised the City that it possesses *enforcement authority
> over SB 9 and other state housing laws*, including the authority to
> review local actions and inactions for compliance and to *refer
> violations to the California Office of the Attorney General* if a city
> continues to act inconsistently with state law.
>
> Notwithstanding this clear state guidance, the City continues to demand
> payment of the Recreation In-Lieu Fee as a prerequisite to Final Map
> recordation for my SB 9 project. This demand exceeds the City’s authority,
> unlawfully obstructs ministerial approval, and places the City in *continuing
> noncompliance with SB 9*.
>
> Accordingly, this letter serves as *formal notice* that the Recreation
> In-Lieu Fee is *invalid and unenforceable as applied to this SB 9 urban
> lot split*, and I respectfully demand *written confirmation that the fee
> will be withdrawn immediately* so that the Final Parcel Map may proceed
> to recordation without unlawful conditions.
>
> If the City believes it has any legal basis to continue imposing this fee
> despite HCD’s conclusions, please provide that legal basis in writing so
> the matter will be addressed by the court without further delay.
>
>
> *Mircea Voskerician*
> Managing Member, *12 Maywood LLC*
> 12 Maywood Lane
> Menlo Park, CA
> 650-996-1114
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Ebby Sohrabi
> Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 2:11 PM
> Subject: RE: 12 Maywood Ln Parcel Map
> To: Mircea
> Cc: Azalea A. Mitch , Doherty, Nira F <
> NDoherty@bwslaw.com>, alon danino
>
>
> Good afternoon Mircea,
>
> Thank you for providing the amended LLC Operating Agreement. Please note
> that the signature block on the Parcel Map will also need to be updated to
> reflect the new authorized signatory. Please upload all revised documents
> via Accela.
>
> Regarding your request for a detailed explanation of the fees, please
> refer to the City’s Master Fee Schedule ( Master Fee Schedule
>
> ).
>
> Ebby
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * Ebby Sohrabi, P.E.*
> Senior Civil Engineer
> City Hall - 1st Floor
> 701 Laurel St.
> tel 650-330-6743
> menlopark.gov
>
>
>