🚨 URGENT: STOP THE RUSHED 7TH & BROMMER DEVELOPMENT

Updated September 16, 2026 | Application No. 261178

Time is critical. The developer has reportedly identified December 11 as a groundbreaking date, while Supervisor Manu Koenig’s update states the project has not yet received approval. We need written confirmation of the current permit status, whether “groundbreaking” means a ceremony or construction, and assurance that no work requiring permits begins without the necessary approvals.

Four-Stories nearly 60 feet tall. All 100 units concentrated on 2.36 acres. Only 66 on-site parking spaces. Beside an established neighborhood in an evacuation zone and a tsunami hazard zone.

What we know, and what needs to change

• Lower the height. Nearly 60 feet is too tall against existing homes. County planner Jonathan DiSalvo confirmed the proposed building is 58 feet, two inches tall and four stories, compared with the zoning standard of 40-50 feet. The applicant is seeking State Density Bonus Law waivers. Calling it “four stories” does not communicate its full scale beside one- and two-story homes. We demand a lower design, substantial step-downs toward neighbors, stronger privacy protections, and meaningful landscaped buffers. 

• Spread the same 100 homes across the broader site and make this development fit the neighborhood. The project is called “7th & Brommer,” but the current proposal concentrates 100 units on 2.36 acres along 7th Avenue, beside existing homes. Supervisor Koenig described “approximately 100 affordable rental homes on 3.5 acres.”  Why aren’t we planning those same 100 homes across that broader area now, where development is permitted and environmentally appropriate, instead of concentrating the height and impacts against neighbors?

We demand a coordinated design with lower buildings near existing homes, varied rooflines, landscaped setbacks, protected oak trees, and pedestrian connections that make it feel like part of the neighborhood. Evaluate access from Brommer Street and explain what is planned for the remaining approximately 1.14 acres. Build housing that belongs here, with a layout that respects the people who already live here.

• Our neighborhood is in an evacuation zone and a tsunami hazard zone. The Fire Marshal review has been approved, but our questions concern neighborhood-wide evacuation during an emergency. How will existing and new residents leave if 7th Avenue is blocked or congested? What alternate routes are available? Has additional access from Brommer Street been evaluated? What provisions protect residents with limited mobility? We demand the analysis addressing evacuation for residents, harbor users, and visitors not just everyday traffic.

• Only 66 on-site parking spaces and surrounding street parking is already full. Our neighborhood count identified  52 street parking spaces along a 1.3-mile corridor, already at capacity when surveyed. These are not empty spaces waiting to serve 100 additional homes. The proposed vehicle entrance is on 7th Avenue, placing added traffic and parking pressure on the street neighbors already depend on. We demand a parking and circulation analysis that accounts for existing occupancy, spillover parking, and emergency evacuation not simply the number of spaces shown on a map.

• 7th Avenue is already heavily congested. Anyone who lives here knows how gridlocked it gets. It is a direct route between the freeway and the beach, serving residents, harbor users, and beachgoers. This proposal adds 100 homes with vehicle access on that same street. A traffic study conducted during the Murray Street Bridge closure must account for how the closure changes traffic patterns and what happens when the bridge reopens. We demand a traffic and circulation analysis that addresses normal conditions, peak beach traffic, cumulative development, and emergency evacuation before this proposal moves forward.

• Protect our water supply and existing ratepayers. The project would be served by the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. As of DiSalvo’s correspondence, the applicant was still obtaining the water will-serve letter required before a building permit. We demand disclosure of projected water demand, supply capacity, required infrastructure improvements, and who pays—including connection charges, capacity fees, and any subsidies or fee reductions. Existing customers deserve clear answers about development-related costs. Proposed Water Rates

• Protect natural drainage, neighboring homes, and the harbor ecosystem. Sewer capacity has been confirmed, and stormwater, grading, and erosion-control plans have been submitted. Our remaining concern is how the design changes existing water flow. The approximately four-foot retaining wall described by neighbors raises questions about redirected drainage, runoff, and potential flooding. Release the drainage maps, retaining-wall calculations, hydrology study, and downstream capacity analysis, including the receiving Zone 5 drainage facilities. Explain how neighboring properties, natural drainage areas, and harbor habitat will be protected, including under any future phase.

• The oak grove needs enforceable protection, not just a promise. An arborist report, biotic report, and tree protection plan have been submitted. Release them. We demand independent arborist review, mapped tree and root protection zones, construction fencing, restrictions on damaging access and soil compaction, and enforceable long-term maintenance and monitoring. The grove must remain healthy after residents move in.

• Disaster-recovery spending deserves answers while residents are told to prepare for El Niño. Supervisor Koenig wrote: “The best approach is to prepare for a winter of floods, strong winds, and a powerful ocean.”  

His update identifies an October 7 weather briefing and a winter-preparedness Board session targeted for October 20. If residents must prepare for a major storm, how is the County protecting its disaster-response and recovery resources? Disclose any disaster-recovery funding committed to this project and explain the priorities alongside unmet needs of CZU Fire survivors. Explain what funding can legally be reserved or redirected, what restrictions apply, and what separate funds remain available for future disasters.

• Release the documents and stop leaving residents to piece together the process. Supervisor Koenig stated the project was still in preliminary Development Review Group review and had not received approval. He also promised a community meeting. Hold that meeting promptly, with the documents available beforehand. Release the written ministerial eligibility analysis, applicable objective standards, waiver and concession requests, technical reviews, and Coastal Development Permit status. Explain whether a coastal hearing-waiver procedure is proposed and how residents can participate. A reported construction date must not get ahead of required approvals.

We are not against affordable housing. We are against this excessive height, this concentration of impacts against existing homes, and advancing the proposal without clear public answers.

DATE TO REMEMBER: September 26, 10am: Housing town hall with Vice Mayor Gerry Jensen and Supervisor Manu Koenig. Capitola Branch Library, 2005 Wharf Road. Attend and speak up.

Act now. Here is exactly what to do:

Sign this petition and share it everywhere. Email these people today. We are demanding written responses before November 1, 2026, and before any earlier permit decision on November. 

Subject: Opposition to 7th & Brommer as Proposed - Application 261178

• Supervisor Manu Koenig: Manu.Koenig@santacruzcountyca.gov
• Supervisor Justin Cummings: Justin.Cummings@santacruzcountyca.gov
• County Planner Jonathan DiSalvo: jonathan.disalvo@santacruzcountyca.gov
• Developer: 7thandbrommer@gmail.com
• State Senator John Laird: senator.laird@senate.ca.gov
• California Coastal Commission, Central Coast District Office: (831) 427-4863

Request project documents through the County’s Records Request Form.

Ask that your opposition be included in the official record for Application No. 261178, APN 026-261-16, and request notification of meetings, hearings, decisions, and deadlines.

Watch for official notices and act immediately. If the County uses its minor coastal development hearing-waiver procedure, the hearing request must be received within 15 working days from the date the notice is sent. Follow the instructions and deadline on the actual notice.

Coastal Commission appeal eligibility and deadlines depend on the approval and applicable procedures. Do not assume the deadline runs from the local approval date or that signing this petition alone preserves appeal rights. Submit your own comments and confirm requirements directly with the County and Commission.

OUR DEMAND
Stop advancing this design without addressing the impacts it places on our neighborhood. Lower the height. Rework the site layout. Protect evacuation routes, neighboring homes, natural drainage, and the oak grove. Disclose infrastructure costs and disaster-funding decisions.

By signing, we oppose the project as currently proposed and call for these changes and written answers before construction.

Every signature, every email, every voice raises the cost of pushing this through without answers. ACT NOW. 📣

We'll keep this petition updated as we get responses. Thank you for standing with your neighbors.