‘Get real’: City council, neighbors blast Food Bin developer, postpone vote on project

Tension surrounding the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the Food Bin property along Santa Cruz’s Mission Street intensified Tuesday after some city councilmembers and a neighborhood representative needled the project’s developer for acting in bad faith. The city council then postponed its decision for another four weeks.  

The harsh criticism of local developer Workbench evinced the turbocharged emotions around a development widely viewed as a reflection of Santa Cruz’s accelerating change. 

The five-story, 59-unit development would mean the demolition of two old Santa Cruz institutions in the Food Bin and Herb Room at 1130 Mission St. The project, abnormally large relative to the low-rise buildings on the Mission Street corridor and the residential neighborhood it abuts, illustrates the new housing landscape in which the state has diminished the local control of cities and neighborhoods to oppose new projects while granting developers more leeway to build bigger and denser. 

When the city planning commission approved the project earlier this year, commissioners said state law gave them little discretion to say no despite its outsized height and density. On Tuesday, the city council was set to hear a neighborhood-led appeal of the commission’s decision. The city’s elected leaders did not stop the project, but slowed it. 

In the days leading up to the city council hearing, Workbench submitted changes to the project. The perceived degree of those changes differed greatly among the developer, city council and neighbors.

The main change dealt with the units. The total unit count, 59, did not change but the formula of reaching the 59 units did, as well as the unit types.

According to an April 25 letter addressed to the city from Workbench development manager Clay Toombs, the original proposal approved by the planning commission included 40 housing units in the base project. Since the project included affordable units, it could add another 19 units by taking advantage of what’s known as a density bonus.

In the updated version, Workbench proposed 33 units for the base project and then added another 15 through a density bonus, for a total of 48. The project picked up its remaining 11 units through a state law allowing multifamily developments to convert storage space into accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Those 11 units would be moved to the west side of the building. The new ADU units would be slightly larger than the others. 

Some city councilmembers and a neighborhood representative said Workbench was being a bad neighbor by making last-minute switches. Workbench claimed the changes were “insignificant” and allowed by law. Still, the city council said the changes were enough to require another look by the planning commission before a final city council vote on May 28. 

Vice Mayor Renée Golder said she was “frustrated” with Workbench for what she said was an unwillingness to make minor changes to the project to appease neighborhood concerns. She did not expand upon what those changes dealt with, but some requests from neighbors in the appeal included removing the rooftop garden terrace and prohibiting the new residents from obtaining street parking permits in the neighborhood. 

Golder said Workbench needed to “get real.” 

“It is disrespectful to [city council and the neighborhood] to make last-minute changes before we make a big decision,” Golder said, urging Workbench, which has several project proposals in the city, to be better neighbors. “I hope you can be better partners on your upcoming projects.” 

City attorney Tony Condotti said there were no rules against Workbench making last-second tweaks to its project between a planning commission approval and a city council appeal. 

Rachel Moriconi, speaking for the surrounding neighbors, said Workbench was “not a good-faith player in the community.”

“We don’t trust Workbench,” Moriconi told the city council. “This is clearly a play for them to keep trying to redesign a project that jumps through all the loopholes they can find.” 

Workbench submitted the project under State Bill 330, a state law that, among other things, allows developers to adjust a project’s square footage or unit count by 20% without having to start the project over. 

Jamileh Cannon, co-owner of Workbench, said her firm has tried to address the neighborhood’s concerns, but that tension around the project had reached a boiling point. Cannon said following the planning commission public hearing earlier this year, a neighbor opposing the project “grabbed and shoved” one of Workbench’s planners. Workbench “laid low for a couple weeks” after the incident, Cannon said, offering to host meetings with the community in its office, but no one was interested. 

“I’m surprised and disheartened to hear so much emotion around this project today,” Cannon told Lookout. “I think the city council has had a lot of conversations with really upset neighbors over the last two months, and we haven’t had the opportunity to have conversations with them.” 

Cannon argued that the project and the changes are both small compared to what is allowed. Under the state’s new density bonus law, which allows developers who include affordable housing in their project to build a higher density of units, she said the Food Bin project “could have been 86 units.” Cannon also emphasized that although SB 330 would have allowed Workbench to increase the unit count by 20%, the developer changed only the location and size of 11 units in the project. 

Councilmember Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson said she agreed with Golder.

“Just because it’s permissible to make last minute changes doesn’t mean it’s a way to behave as a good neighbor,” Kalantari-Johnson said. “There is a need for us to meet housing needs and grow appropriately, but it needs to be done in the right way.” 

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.