Planning commission continues mixed-use design review at 201 El Camino Real after neighbors raise parking and competition concerns

The Greenfield City Planning Commission on an evening meeting continued consideration of a design review for the Bayard Building at 201 El Camino Real after public commenters urged more information about parking and potential effects on existing small markets. The commission voted to continue the item to April 1, citing the absence of the applicant and unanswered questions about parking and business impacts.

Staff described the project as a rehabilitation of an existing, currently vacant downtown building owned by Mustafa Shaiyev with architect Ed Reinhardt. The scope presented by planning staff would restore a ground-level market (3,789 square feet) and four upstairs apartments totaling about 3,770 square feet (two one‑bedroom units and two two‑bedroom units) on an approximately 10,000‑square‑foot lot. Planning staff said the zoning is Retail Business Commercial with a mixed‑use overlay and noted the project is exempt from further environmental review under a “Class 1 categorical exemption for existing facilities.”

Why it matters: The project revives a long‑vacant downtown structure but raises questions about how many parking spaces and what types of businesses are appropriate in the core. Nearby small-market owners said the proposed market could reduce their sales and harm employees, while staff emphasized the commission’s discretion on parking reductions for legally nonconforming footprints.

Planning staff told commissioners the city’s zoning code requires 18 parking spaces for the mix of uses (a calculation the staff restated: one space per one‑bedroom unit, two per two‑bedroom unit, and three per 1,000 square feet of commercial space) but the existing lot is configured for eight spaces. Staff noted the commission has authority to reduce the requirement and identified a condition of approval to remove a driveway approach on Oak Avenue and install new diagonal curb spaces that would add roughly four to five spaces along Oak Avenue.

Multiple owners of nearby markets spoke during public comment. Owners and co‑owners of El Rey Market said they employ eight to nine people and that adding a large nearby market would “hurt” existing businesses, could lead to job losses and would intensify competition; a representative for LaBarata said the new market could force adjacent stores out of business. Planning staff confirmed six emailed letters of objection were provided to the commission and included in agenda packets. The applicant was not present for the hearing.

Commission discussion focused on three points: the shortfall of required parking (18 required versus eight provided), whether the commission’s discretionary authority to reduce parking should be exercised in this case, and whether the commission or city code addresses business “saturation” or spacing of similar retail uses (staff said the city code does not include a saturation or distancing standard like those used for liquor licenses). Commissioners also asked whether required fire sprinklers and other building‑code items would be enforced; staff said the building official enforces sprinkler and other safety requirements during the building‑permit review.

Because the applicant did not appear and several commissioners asked for additional information, Chair Garcia moved to continue the public‑hearing item to a date certain of April 1; the motion received a second and passed on an all‑in‑favor vote. The staff recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the design review remains on the table pending the April 1 continuation.

The commission did not take a final vote on the substance of the design review at the meeting; the continued hearing will return for public comment and deliberation on April 1.