|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Menlo Park Planning Commission meeting on April 13 opened with an unusual scene: Chair Ross Silverstein walked down from the dais to deliver a public comment at his own meeting.
“Two weeks ago, in a Planning Commission meeting, I attempted to ask city staff to add an item of interest to the agenda and was told that I could not do so unless it specifically came from a public comment as a member of the public,” Silverstein told the body he typically leads.
He asked whether the city had ever considered allowing the commission to initiate its own agenda items. Then, returning to his seat as chair, Silverstein requested that the commission add a discussion about its ability to initiate agenda items, citing the public comment they had just heard.
It was an attempt to start a conversation that has been brewing in city hall for some time: what is the planning commission’s role and should it be expanded?
The city’s Planning Commission is one of the few — if not the only — Menlo Park commissions that cannot request future agenda items and does not maintain a work plan. Instead, the commission must wait for items to be brought forward by city staff, permit applications or direction from the City Council.
The commission is composed of seven residents appointed by the City Council to serve 4-year terms. It is the only city commission that receives a stipend: $200 a month. Its official duties are to review developments for compliance with city plans and ordinances, decide on some permits and make recommendations to the city council about zoning amendments.
“Historically, the Planning Commission has not had a work plan because it is seen as a body that responds to specific agenda items by ordinance and by law,” said Councilmember Drew Combs, who previously served on the commission.
Silverstein’s April effort was unsuccessful. City staff told him that the commission could not consider his request — whether to have a future meeting about letting the commission initiate agenda items — without direction from the City Council. Silverstein declined to comment for this article.
“I’ve known that there were clearly some planning commissioners, maybe even a majority, who were looking to expand the scope beyond responding to use permits and development-related agenda items,” Combs said.
Combs said he is open to reviewing the commission’s purview but believes the body should formally bring its concerns to the City Council, rather than raising them through public comment or staff requests.
But in the wake of a two-year-long, applicant-funded effort to reduce vacancies in downtown Menlo Park by allowing more types of business in the city’s commercial core, some Planning Commission members want the council to allow it to be proactive.
After a year of outreach, Windy Hill Property Ventures submitted an application in early 2025 to allow new banks, aesthetic spas and fitness studios in downtown storefronts that are currently restricted to bars, restaurants, general retail and cultural institutions. On May 18, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the plan, with the exception of banks and several minor changes.
“I’m inclined to support this proposal because it fundamentally modernizes what is clearly an out-of-date zoning code with language from the ’60s or earlier,” Commissioner Andrew Ehrich said at the May 18 meeting.
Because commissioners cannot initiate discussions, several said they felt constrained in their ability to review other potential uses or propose broader changes. Some wanted Windy Hill’s proposal to go further or to hold a study session examining additional uses but commissioners did not want to delay a plan that had been in development for two years.
Commission members also said they had not been involved in earlier discussions leading up to the proposal, making it difficult to offer meaningful input at a late stage. As a result, some are now calling for changes to the city’s process.
“I want to do a little bit of ‘managing up’ to our bosses: The City Council should strongly consider directing the Planning Commission and staff to have a Planning Commission that is more proactive,” Ehrich said.
Under the city’s rules, Windy Hill was required to fund the full cost of its application, including staff time and administrative fees.
“If we didn’t have an applicant willing to go through the aforementioned fees and process to propose this, it is very unlikely that it would have happened,” Silverstein said at the meeting.
City staff spent more than a year working on the proposal. Under state law, the city conducted outreach to local Native American tribes and an environmental review, which found minimal impacts. Staff also collected and analyzed nearly 100 written and verbal public comments — all on Windy Hill’s dime.
City spokesperson Kendra Calvert said Windy Hill was required to submit an $8,000 deposit before work began, but would not provide information on the total cost. The Almanac has made a Public Records Act request seeking that information.
“I’m really happy that we’re having this conversation, and I’m worried that we’re only having this conversation because of specific actions taken by specific individuals, which are costly,” Silverstein said.
Support for revisiting downtown uses has existed for some time. Then-Vice Mayor Betsy Nash raised the idea in March 2025, when the City Council identified downtown vibrancy as a priority for the 2025–26 budget. Still, city staff said they would not pursue changes without explicit council direction.
“Like the other commissioners, I’m very surprised and disappointed that the city has not taken a more proactive look at this,” said Planning Commissioner Misha Silin.
City Council candidate Laura Melahn told the commission that, when she and others proposed expanding allowed uses, they were told to wait until the Planning Commission reviewed Windy Hill’s application.
Silin described the process as “shameful.”
“As a city, we should be taking the reins on not just this proposal but improving downtown,” he said.
“That’s a fair perspective, and this is all part of the push and pull between having these issues and a strong Planning Commission that has great perspective,” said Councilmember Jeff Schmidt, who is the liaison between the City Council and the Planning Commission.
“While in an ideal world we should not have to rely on one person to pull this forward, if the outcome is that we have more uses and vibrancy downtown, that’s a good outcome,” Schmidt said. He said he is very supportive of expanding allowed uses downtown.
In its recommendation, the Planning Commission not only endorsed most of the proposed zoning changes but also asked the City Council to grant it authority to hold study sessions on broader downtown improvements.
“I think we have the strongest Planning Commission that I’ve seen in a long time. I would stack them up against any other city’s commission and staff team,” Schmidt said. “I’m inclined to utilize their talent as much as we can. That has to be a decision of the council majority, but I’d be very open to that conversation.”
The City Council is scheduled to consider the Planning Commission’s downtown use recommendations at its June 23 meeting.
