Greenfield council orders joint study session on contested 4th Street mixed‑use project after safety, zoning concerns

Greenfield — After an extended hearing and public comment, the City Council on March 26 directed staff to hold a joint study session with the planning commission to further analyze a controversial 4th Street mixed‑use project rather than approve or deny the latest revised proposal.

The project applicant and architect David Elliott presented a third iteration of a project for a long, narrow 4th Street parcel that would build roughly 34,300 square feet comprised of about 12,000 square feet of speculative commercial space and 20 residential units above or behind the retail area. Consulting planner Brent Slama told council the property’s Highway Commercial zoning limits residential density to "1 unit per floor per 3,000 square feet of commercial" under current code — which would yield about eight units — and that prior versions of the project had been denied by the planning commission and the council because of zoning and neighborhood concerns.

Residents and council members emphasized safety at the Oak/4th Street interchange and the difficulty of access from the nearby freeway: "That place is already so dangerous," said public speaker Jessica Bautista, citing frequent agricultural truck traffic and near collisions. Staff warned that traffic improvements will be complicated because of Caltrans jurisdiction and noted the developer would pay impact fees to fund any larger intersection fixes.

Applicant responses and proposed mitigations included a reduction in units (from 32 to 20), added in‑unit laundry and bathroom improvements, and a proposal to reserve four units at reduced rents for Monterey County teachers. Legal counsel Christine Kemp argued the project can seek increased density via a development agreement under the city’s mixed‑use overlay and that underlying HC zoning would remain unchanged.

Why the council paused: Council members voiced competing priorities — concern for pedestrian and traffic safety and neighborhood scale versus the economic and tax benefits of activating an eyesore parcel. Rather than deny the application outright, councillors voted to schedule a study session so staff, planning commissioners, council and the applicant can examine traffic options (including one‑way reconfigurations), parking management and design tradeoffs.

What’s next: Staff will schedule a Brown Act‑compliant joint study session with the planning commission and return recommendations to the council. No final decision was made at this meeting.