Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Council Votes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Votes at a glance: council approves subdivision, budget amendments, rate and fee changes

Menlo Park City Council · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Menlo Park City Council unanimously approved a tentative subdivision map for 68 Willow Road and adopted FY 2025–26 budget amendments; the council also approved increases to tree‑assessment fees, solid‑waste rates (one dissent), and municipal water rates (one dissent).

At the June 9 Menlo Park City Council meeting the body took several formal actions across land use, budget and rates.

Key outcomes

- Consent calendar (F1–F5): Approved unanimously. Staff will follow up on clarifications requested for the Willow Road contract and tree‑replacement options.

- G1 — Tentative subdivision map, 68 Willow Road: Council adopted a resolution approving a tentative map to subdivide the property into 50 condominium parcels and an area common; the planning commission and staff recommended approval and the motion carried unanimously.

- G2 — Budget amendments: Council adopted staff-recommended amendments for FY 2025–26 and directed staff to return June 23 with prioritized cost‑saving and revenue options; motion passed unanimously.

- G3 — Landscaping assessment district fees (tree assessment): Council adopted an 8% assessment increase for the tree/landscaping district and confirmed the assessment diagram; vote was unanimous.

- G4 — Solid‑waste rates: Council adopted maximum rate increases for a five‑year schedule beginning July 1, 2026 (average single‑family increase roughly $3–4 per month); the motion passed with one dissent (Councilmember Taylor).

- G5 — Municipal water rates: Council adopted a three‑year water‑rate schedule and related capacity charge adjustments; the motion passed with one dissent (Councilmember Taylor).

Where decisions were unanimous, staff noted no majority written protests were filed by the statutory deadline. For the rate items staff explained that Proposition 218 protest thresholds apply; staff reported no majority protest had been received as of the hearing closure.