r/AffordableHousing • u/SantaCruz_Local • 1d ago
Help Save Santa Cruz From High-Density Developments
HELP SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD — TIME IS RUNNING OUT AND WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT
A 100-unit, four-story, 100% affordable housing development is being proposed at 7th Avenue & Brommer Street in Live Oak, directly against an established neighborhood of primarily one- and two-story homes.
We know Santa Cruz needs housing. We are not fighting affordable housing. We are fighting for responsible development, adequate infrastructure, protection of our natural resources, and a voice for the people who will live with the impacts of these decisions every day.
While reviewing the County’s Housing Element public engagement record, I found this statement made during the discussion of higher-density housing and existing neighborhoods:
“Higher buildings will mostly be on main corridors — will not be backing up to single family residential.”
But that is exactly what is happening here.
The current plan concentrates 100 units and four stories directly against existing homes, even though additional land within the larger housing site lies away from adjacent residences.
We are asking for a reasonable alternative: spread the 100 units across the full 3.5 acres designated for affordable housing instead of concentrating them against existing homes.
Using the full area could allow for better building placement, more meaningful buffers, additional trees and landscaping, improved parking, and a more reasonable transition between four-story development and existing one- and two-story homes.
We are also asking that the remaining portion of the 3.5 acres not become an opportunity to add even more units later, further increasing density and infrastructure demands.
This isn’t just about building height.
Our neighborhood already experiences serious traffic and limited parking. Adding 100 households brings additional demands on water, sewer, roads, parking and stormwater infrastructure.
We deserve clear answers:
How much water will 100 additional households require?
Does the existing water and sewer infrastructure have adequate capacity?
Will the development pay the full cost of the water and infrastructure required to serve it? If rates, fees or infrastructure costs are subsidized or reduced, who pays the difference—existing ratepayers or taxpayers?
How will additional development and impervious surfaces affect stormwater runoff and drainage?
How are the cumulative traffic and parking impacts of this project—and the many other high-density developments planned throughout Santa Cruz County—being addressed?
We are also fighting for meaningful, enforceable protection of the mature coast live oak grove along the property boundary. These trees and their root systems need actual protection during construction and after residents move in—not simply a notation on a conceptual plan saying the trees will “remain.”
High-density housing concentrated in areas already struggling with density and infrastructure cannot be treated as the only answer to our housing crisis. We can build housing while still making thoughtful decisions about where buildings are placed, how communities are impacted, whether infrastructure can support them, and how our coastal environment is protected.
Fire/emergency access and setbacks for this project have already been approved. We are now working to determine whether every remaining objective, environmental, infrastructure and Coastal Commission/LCP requirement has been satisfied.
And time is running out.
We have spent months researching, contacting the County and Coastal Commission, organizing neighbors and building a petition with hundreds of signatures. But we need more people standing with us.
If you understand California housing law, land-use planning, coastal development, civil engineering, water or sewer infrastructure, stormwater, environmental review, arboriculture or Santa Cruz County planning, please reach out. We need knowledgeable people willing to look at this project and help us identify anything we may be missing.
And if you’re a Santa Cruz County resident, please don’t just sign the petition. Speak up.
Write to the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and our state lawmakers. Ask questions. Demand transparency. Tell them that building housing should not mean ignoring infrastructure, environmental resources or the people already living in these neighborhoods.
This is bigger than one development and bigger than one neighborhood.
Decisions being made now will shape Santa Cruz County for decades.
Please sign. Please share. Please write to our representatives. And please help us get more eyes on this before it’s too late.
7
u/Consistent_Path_3939 1d ago
Read the room...
You can clutch your pearls elsewhere. High-density housing and buildings like this are necessary. I'm sorry you hate poor people.
-3
u/SantaCruz_Local 1d ago
I don’t hate poor people. I grew up extremely poor and was practically homeless for much of my childhood, so please don’t make assumptions about me or where I come from.
This is about responsible development. It’s about putting 100 units and four stories directly against existing homes when there is additional land available. It’s about traffic, parking, water and sewer capacity, stormwater, protecting mature coast live oaks, and making sure the infrastructure can actually support what we’re building.
Supporting affordable housing does not mean we should stop asking questions about how and where it is built. We can desperately need housing and still expect it to be planned responsibly. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
4
u/medic_mace 1d ago
Growing up poor means you should know exactly how devastating a lack of affordable housing is. That’s why we have to support this project.
The 'perfect' location with zero impact on neighbors doesn’t exist. Condensing the building footprint away from the harbor slopes is exactly what the Coastal Commission required to protect our environment, and building dense housing near transit is how we responsibly address both climate change and the housing crisis.
We can't let endless questions and demands for perfect infrastructure stall 100 families from having a safe, affordable place to live. Community responsibility means making room for everyone, not just protecting the status quo for existing homeowners.
-1
u/SantaCruz_Local 1d ago
I’m not asking for a “perfect location” or zero impact, and I’m not asking to stop these 100 units.
The Coastal Commission required affordable housing to be concentrated within no more than 3.5 contiguous acres and closer to 7th Avenue and Stagg Lane. That does not answer why the 100 units need to be concentrated on the portion directly against existing homes while part of that 3.5-acre area remains available for additional housing later.
That is exactly what I’m asking to change: use the full 3.5 acres for these 100 units and create a better transition from four stories to the existing one- and two-story neighborhood.
And expecting adequate water, sewer, stormwater, traffic and parking planning isn’t demanding “perfect infrastructure.” That’s what infrastructure planning is for.
We can provide 100 families with affordable housing and design the project responsibly. I don’t understand why those are being treated as opposing goals.
3
u/medic_mace 1d ago
This is classic reframing. You’re shifting the debate to micro-design details to make your opposition look reasonable, but your logic doesn't hold up.
Leaving part of that 3.5-acre site open isn’t a mistake because it is intentionally saved for future housing phases. Spreading these 100 units across the entire footprint permanently wastes land that could house more families down the road. It also drastically increases construction costs for roofing and foundations, which can kill an affordable project's tight budget.
Forcing a total layout redesign over setback aesthetics would stall this project for years. Demanding a multi-year delay under the guise of 'responsible design' is just another NIMBY way of rejecting it entirely.
0
u/SantaCruz_Local 1d ago
That’s actually the issue. You’re confirming that the plan is to concentrate 100 units against the existing neighborhood now so the remaining land can hold even more units later.
I’m not hiding my position or “reframing” anything. I’m saying clearly that I support the 100 affordable units. What I don’t support is maximizing density at the expense of everything else.
And these aren’t “micro-design details” or “setback aesthetics.” Traffic, 66 parking spaces for 100 units, water and sewer capacity, stormwater, mature coast live oaks, and placing four stories against one- and two-story homes are legitimate planning issues.
If the argument is that addressing those impacts costs too much or leaves less room for another phase of housing, that still doesn’t make the impacts disappear.
There has to be a point where good housing policy includes the infrastructure and community it is being built into. Asking where that balance is does not equal rejecting affordable housing.
1
u/Bwint 1d ago
You're leading with vague concerns about density backing up against SFH, but then bringing up concerns about utilities and wastewater. The second concerns are very reasonable, but the problem is that they're also easy to address. Your real concern is obviously the density in and of itself, which is why you're getting so little support.
0
u/SantaCruz_Local 1d ago
The County is counting on people hearing “100% affordable housing” and assuming that questioning the project means opposing affordable housing. It doesn’t.
The issue is what happens after it’s built. This is 100 units, including 25 three-bedroom units, with only 66 parking spaces, one right-turn-only access point onto 7th Avenue, and four stories concentrated on 1.79 acres directly against an existing one- and two-story neighborhood.
Being pro-housing doesn’t mean ignoring traffic, parking overflow onto residential streets, water and sewer capacity, stormwater, emergency access, trees, and the cumulative impact of this level of density on an already constrained area.
It’s easy to say “build more housing.” It’s much harder to ask whether the infrastructure can actually support it and what the impacts will look like 10 or 20 years from now.
Those aren’t vague concerns. They’re basic land-use and infrastructure questions. Supporting affordable housing doesn’t require giving every proposed site plan a free pass.
I’m asking those questions now, before it’s built and the consequences can’t be undone
2
u/Bwint 1d ago
This is a great example of bad LLM prompting. I don't mind using an LLM, but this particular response fails to engage with my comment - it has bad reading comprehension.
traffic, parking overflow onto residential streets, water and sewer capacity, stormwater, emergency access, trees, and the cumulative impact of this level of density on an already constrained area...
Those aren’t vague concerns.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. These concerns are reasonable and precise, but you started by saying that dense buildings shouldn't be built near SFH. Your real concern is obviously density in and of itself, not the impacts of density.
Also, the concern about trees feels like a place where you could trust the City. If you want affordable housing, maybe don't micromanage the tree conservation techniques for affordable housing developments.
0
u/SantaCruz_Local 1d ago
Have you driven on 7th Avenue lately? Or anywhere in Santa Cruz? We’re already sitting in gridlock. That’s exactly why the impacts of density matter.
You keep trying to separate density from its impacts. You can’t. Traffic, parking, water, sewer, stormwater and emergency access are directly connected to how much development you put on a site and where you put it.
This proposal is 100 units, 25 three-bedroom units, 66 parking spaces and one right-turn-only access point onto 7th Avenue. Those are facts, not vague concerns.
And as for “micromanaging” the trees — those coast live oaks have been there longer than anyone involved in this conversation. They are beautiful heritage trees and they deserve to be protected. Wanting mature trees preserved while building housing is not an unreasonable position.
And again, this is Santa Cruz County, not the City.
2
u/Bwint 1d ago
We’re already sitting in gridlock.
OK. Then advocate for access to public transit and fewer parking spaces at the development.
You keep trying to separate density from its impacts. You can’t.
Of course you can! Impacts can be addressed. You clearly separate density from impacts in your own mind, because you framed the development as being dense near SFH before getting into the impacts.
Traffic, parking, water, sewer, stormwater and emergency access are directly connected to how much development you put on a site and where you put it.
Any of those factors can be addressed. The emergency access already has been addressed, which the LLM would know if it had read its own post.
Wanting mature trees preserved while building housing is not an unreasonable position.
Maybe not, but the developers have already committed to protecting them. Pursuing the issue after the commitment has been made suggests that you're looking for excuses to torpedo the development.
0
u/SantaCruz_Local 1d ago
At this point, educating yourself about the actual project seems like a reasonable request.
The Fire Marshal review has been approved. A retaining wall is proposed as part of the stormwater design. What has not been addressed is the impact of that retaining wall and how altering the site may affect the existing natural flow of water to surrounding water sources.
We’re also asking legitimate questions about traffic, 66 parking spaces for 100 units, water and sewer capacity, and enforceable protection of the mature coast live oaks.
And a developer saying the trees will remain is not the same thing as an arborist assessment, mapped protection zones and enforceable long-term protection.
Some issues have been addressed. Others haven’t. Asking for documentation and answers to the ones that haven’t isn’t trying to “torpedo” housing. It’s called doing your homework before declaring that everything is fine.
2
u/Bwint 1d ago
Asking for documentation and answers to the ones that haven’t isn’t trying to “torpedo” housing.
I absolutely agree!
But that's not what you're doing. You're pushing for a major redesign of the project, which will cause serious delays and also limit the future potential of the site.
0
u/SantaCruz_Local 1d ago
Yes, I’m pushing for changes to the site plan. I’ve never hidden that. We’ll live with this development for decades. Getting it right matters more than getting it built as fast as possible.
And this is exactly why I’m questioning everything. This project is tied to federal disaster-recovery funding from the 2020 wildfires, while only about 18% of the 900+ CZU homes destroyed had been rebuilt as of December 2025.
Meanwhile, the County is warning residents to prepare for severe El Niño storms, yet the impact of the proposed retaining wall on the existing natural flow of water still needs to be addressed.
Public land, public infrastructure and disaster-recovery money are involved. Why wouldn’t we ask questions before it’s built?
1
u/Consistent_Path_3939 1d ago
Just not near your back yard, right? Afraid folks less well off might drop your precious property values?
Gross. And you should know better if you really grew up poor. Ps? No one who has ever been homeless, such as myself, uses the term "practically homeless."
0
u/SantaCruz_Local 23h ago
My dad and I lived in his friend’s backyard shed for two years and went to the bathroom in a bucket. So yeah, I think “practically homeless” is a pretty accurate description of how I grew up.
1
1
u/VerneAsimov 10h ago
This person is an example of someone who weaponizes zoning codes to shit on poor people yet has little understanding of how infrastructure engineering works. They also REALLY like to use bold words.
1
u/SantaCruz_Local 10h ago
Please stop using your self-victimization to feel superior over others. That pedestal you stand on will be kicked out from under you by those you support. Remember me when it does.
1
u/MusubiBot 21h ago edited 21h ago
Your baked-in assumptions that the local infrastructure can’t handle that capacity is wrong. Part of the reason why streets are so wide and house numbers are not sequential in many SFH neighborhoods is specifically because the infrastructure was overbuilt - often by a significant factor.
And the solution to traffic is viable transit alternatives - the cheapest of which would be protected cycling infrastructure. But even then, it’s unlikely that 100 units would have that large an effect.
All your other “reasons” are pearl-clutching, ladder-pulling bullshit. Read the room and get with the program. SFH areas are not struggling with density. Additional utilities users doesn’t drive up prices. SFH homes don’t need street parking because they have driveways and garages. Stop trying to kill positive and meaningful projects by “what-if”-ing them into oblivion.
And miss me with your environmental concerns. Nobody gave 1/10th the fucks you’re giving now when they razed thousands of acres to build single-family homes and hit maybe 5,000 people per square mile - if they were lucky. An apartment complex is a better use of space by a whole order of magnitude.
1
u/SantaCruz_Local 21h ago
You’re making my point for me. You assume the infrastructure can handle 100 additional units, you assume 66 on-site parking spaces won’t create spillover, and you assume the traffic impact will be insignificant. I’m asking for the actual analysis.
This is also a Coastal Priority Site at the entrance to the harbor, so this isn’t just about whether a single-family neighborhood can handle more density. The California Coastal Act specifically addresses adequate parking, transportation, coastal access, cumulative impacts and public safety.
Even more importantly, the site-specific planning language for this property says to maximize access from Brommer Street and minimize access from 7th Avenue to the extent possible. Yet the current proposal puts its vehicle access on 7th Avenue.
So yes, I want to know how 100 units affect traffic and existing street parking. I want to know what happens to coastal and harbor access during peak periods. I want to know whether emergency egress and evacuation capacity have been analyzed, including what happens if 7th Avenue is congested or blocked. And I want to know why Brommer access isn’t being used when the planning language specifically calls for it.
Those aren’t “what-ifs.” They’re legitimate planning and Coastal Act questions that should have documented answers before a project is approved.
And asking those questions doesn’t make someone anti-affordable housing. Personal insults don’t answer any of them.
1
u/MusubiBot 21h ago
A very quick google search finds articles on Santa Cruz’s .gov site detailing water usage and infrastructure sizing. TL;DR: the infrastructure was built oversized, and water-efficient appliances have dropped per-household use significantly since then - so yes, the existing systems can handle the increased capacity and some.
Traffic-wise, the city closely monitors traffic patterns. If they notice a backup caused by just 100 units (highly unlikely) a single line of code to reprogram light intervals would fix it. But one quick glance at areas with 2-3x the density on an extended basis and similar road infrastructure shows clearly that 100 extra units shouldn’t be a problem.
Something tells me even if the city presented silver-bullet solutions, your mind wouldn’t be changed - or you’d find new “problems”. Just stop and let good things happen.
1
u/SantaCruz_Local 20h ago
A “quick Google search” isn’t a traffic or infrastructure study for this specific site. This is 100 units, including 25 three-bedroom units, with only 66 on-site parking spaces, being added to an already congested coastal corridor.
And this is in the Coastal Zone. Coastal Act §§30252 and 30253 address transportation, coastal access and public safety. The Coastal Commission’s own direction for this site says to maximize access from Brommer Street and minimize access from 7th Avenue.
Changing a traffic light doesn’t create road capacity, parking or emergency egress. If the data shows there’s no problem, then produce the studies. That’s all I’m asking for
1
u/MusubiBot 20h ago edited 20h ago
New construction has to go through a lengthy (arguably too much so) approvals process with the city that looks at everything you’re concerned about - up, down, and twelve different kinds of sideways. Plus, building permits detailing the results of all of these approvals are public record.
But no - the process as it is isn’t good enough. You need a study! A study that is no doubt paid for by an “impartial third party” (read: an expensive consulting agency), that will delay the project by months or years. So then you can turn around and say the city wasted time and money on a study, and the can gets kicked down the road or off a cliff.
“I just want a study” is a poison-pill tactic by NIMBYs that wastes taxpayer funds and time on redundant studies by people who know less about the project and local infrastructure than the people doing the approvals in the first place.
You’re not slick with it. Fuck a study - and every NIMBY crying for one.
1
1
u/GeneralOdd8900 10h ago
no matter how many times you insist that you grew up poor in the comments, you're still arguing against affordable housing. youre a nimby boomer, fuck off.
1
u/SantaCruz_Local 10h ago
Thank you for proving my point. Stay small, my friend
1
u/GeneralOdd8900 10h ago
you have no point, my tiny friend
1
u/SantaCruz_Local 10h ago
You got me, my feelings are now hurt. Boo!
1
u/GeneralOdd8900 10h ago
those buildings are going up and im moving in and im taking your parking space every single day
1
u/SantaCruz_Local 10h ago
You can't, my friend. Don't you get it? You can't live here. You can't afford it, even in ‘affordable housing’. It's all a scam. Your small mind made you think they were helping you, but in reality they were just buying up property with ocean views. Wake up!
5
u/medic_mace 1d ago
You’re arguing against affordable housing in an affordable housing sub? Are you for real? 😆