Quick Take
The fight over the Food Bin redevelopment has new life after architect Workbench and the property owner sued the Santa Cruz City Council for what they claim is a violation of state housing law. The five-story, 59-unit project proposal reset the public’s imagination around what can be built in Santa Cruz under recent changes to state housing laws.
Workbench, the local developer and architecture firm behind the proposed five-story, 59-unit redevelopment of the Food Bin, a project that stirred controversy among neighbors and elected officials alike, has sued the Santa Cruz City Council, claiming its vote to shrink the development violated state housing law.
Workbench, with Food Bin owner Doug Wallace, filed the lawsuit on Aug. 26, the final day of its 90-day window to challenge the city council’s May 28 decision. In a unanimous vote before a chamber packed with local faces, the city council, then, voted to approve the proposed redevelopment of the Food Bin, a grocery store and decades-old institution of the Mission Street corridor; however, the council’s vote removed 11 storage spaces that Workbench said it planned to convert into accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a way to pack in greater housing density.
In the lead-up to the city council’s vote, the project became a symbol of California’s new housing reality in which city councils are nearly powerless to deny developments that propose affordable housing and conform to the city’s local zoning code, or require changes that test the project’s feasibility. It’s also a reality in which the state offers developers of such projects a new menu of entitlements that allow them to skirt restrictions on height, setbacks and density.
Neighbors of the project complained about the development’s height and how such a dense project would impact parking. District 4 Councilmember Scott Newsome, whose district encompasses the Food Bin lot, led the effort to remove the 11 storage spaces eyed by Workbench for ADU conversions. Since the application technically proposed 48 units, and the ADUs could come to fruition only after the project was complete, Newsome reasoned that cutting the storage units would not be a threat to the project’s viability.
“The city unlawfully conditioned the project’s approval on the elimination of 11 ADUs, including two deed-restricted ADUs for very low-income households,” the lawsuit reads. “[The city’s] violations of state law must be corrected so this badly needed housing can be constructed.”
City attorney Tony Condotti told Lookout that Workbench’s 59-unit proposal exceeded the maximum density allowed on the lot, even with a state density bonus entitlement. He said this kind of case has not been tested yet, and he is not aware of “a developer arguing in court that they can manufacture a density higher than allowed by law.”
“Workbench’s strategy was a somewhat novel one,” Condotti said. “We’re going to find out if the court blesses that practice or not.”
Workbench and Wallace are represented by San Francisco-based firm Patterson & O’Neill. The city is required to respond to the lawsuit by Dec. 9. The sides are next due to appear before Superior Court Judge Syda Cogliati on Dec. 26.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.